Torture > War

I have a hard time accepting simultaneously that war can be justified but torture cannot. Since torture is a particular method, let’s pick a general method of war: bombing. Given that a certain level of civilian deaths are described as justifiable under certain circumstances by any version of just war theory, it seems to me that torture will even more justifiable in similar conditions. First, the number of civilian deaths and injuries caused by torture are almost certainly extremely low, especially compared to those caused by bombing. Second, and deriving from the first, torture tends to target people who are afrequently guilty of crimes against humanity, whether or not they have or reveal useful information. This is almost certainly better than bombing cities. Third, according to proponents of torture, it can provide information which prevents things like bombing. The same cannot be said for bombing, which does not prevent bombing, and even if it does prevent torture, is much worse than torture in its destructiveness of human life.

On a related issue, I find one critique of prosecuting Bush administration officials very curious. Succinctly and from the pen of a crazy man, the claim goes something like this:

It paralyzes government advisers and intelligence and military operatives out of fear they may be prosecuted for serving their country

To be sure, these sorts of arguments are also offered by people who are not crazy. This is such a bad argument, because it assumes that the torture methods under discussion are either legal, moral, or both, which is of course denied by the people advocating for a special investigator. Only if torture is legal, moral, or both, does it matter that operatives will be afraid to be prosecuted. On the other hand, if torture is illegal, they should be afraid of being prosecuted, just like anyone else in any other position with respect to any illegal action. I’m no philosopher of law, but it seems to me this is partly what the law is for.