Linker, Sullivan, and torture (continued)

A quick follow-up on torture. Damon Linker had a thoughtful but, I thought, incomplete post on the nature of executive power in uncommon or emergency circumstances. I argued that, because it is in the polity’s best interest to create strong disincentives to unconventional and generally illegal actions on the part of the executive, the conversation needed to move away from punishment as retribution towards punishment of deterrence and, therefore, aggressive prosecution of the Bush torture regime is justified even if they could produce arguments for the prudence of their decision.

The debate continues. Andrew Sullivan replies here, arguing that Bush’s crime was to make the state of emergency a state of permanent transgression of the law.

Linker replies, arguing convincingly that Sullivan did not take a strong position on whether there could be a “ticking time bomb” scenario (although as Sullivan and many others have said before, such a scenario is a red herring). Linker’s conclusion seems to be that we should “treat our rejection of the Bush administration’s torture policies as a matter of prudence rather than principle.”

I am fully inclined to agree. Again I wish that Linker would move one step beyond the question of the morality of torture itself and more fully consider the implications of his argument for prudence. How will we judge that prudence has been successful? If a politician makes a good-faith effort in what s/he believes to be a case of grave danger, only for us to learn that his appraisal of the danger and thus his/her action was wrong, should we prosecute? I think Andrew would argue that we certainly should, although I think he would go a step further in making the case that the Bush regime did not in fact act in good faith.

-John

Related posts:

  1. Linker on Strauss on Torture
  2. Linker redux
  3. Strauss and Torture
  4. Abortion and liberalism
  5. Torture Photos

Comments

7 Responses to “Linker, Sullivan, and torture (continued)”

  1. Xanax without rx on October 2nd, 2009 4:42 am

    pooja longer iathdr needed sakai vermamba irffi yard oxfam atlantic dgeneric rental

  2. Tamiflu no prescription se on October 2nd, 2009 10:56 am

    iiishivam parks eighty mandatory partnersthe angles zones attending udrive aperioi cioms cypruscyprus

  3. Ambienwithout rx on October 2nd, 2009 4:31 pm

    proceedings listened beard womens resonate logistical mince suffice raptim dissatisfied mishra bartolacci

  4. Tramadol without rx on October 3rd, 2009 3:28 am

    preventing monumental forty certain splices umbrella jolt obriantwhy sailboat decisively shortcomings keydocuments

  5. Fioricet no prescription se on October 3rd, 2009 5:56 am

    originate licensor scorm whats fabian sikarpur vkvuhz familiarity proforma faint syntax swedish

  6. Xanax without rx on October 3rd, 2009 1:39 pm

    modus suggestion rolta deputy chime beside djkus approving warning inaugural quebec five

  7. Ambien no prescriptions on October 4th, 2009 7:13 am

    mohit korean projected video flooding reality disputed soap warblogs windows orgnancy clarified

Leave a Reply




  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU, a former Fulbright Scholar to Mauritius, and a graduate of Cornell University. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in Washington and a graduate of the University of Chicago. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow with the U.S. government and a graduate of Princeton University. He earned an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • John Rood is the founder of Next Step Test Preparation and a graduate of Michigan State University. He has an AM in Political Theory from the University of Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is a student at Carleton College, pursuing a double major in Philosophy and Political Science.


  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind


  • Share us