Neither pure realism nor pure idealism makes for a healthy foreign policy, but a combination of the two can be very effective. The idealist part of the world order that shows the most promise right now is collective security and international cooperation because states are finding that they can accomplish a lot more if they work together under common regimes than they could separately. Conventions and treaties against torture are some of the most fundamental to the entire Western international order. Undermining the rule of law between nations in this way undermines many other regimes that have a lot of promise for promoting peace and prosperity all across the world.

We also have to consider enlightened self interest and not just immediate self interest. It is in our enlightened self-interest to have a world in which states agree not to torture individuals, even if it is not in our immediate self interest in some interrogation scenario.

Finally, although I would agree with you that different sets of ethics apply to states from those that apply to individuals, I cannot accept a paradigm that removes any ethics other than utilitarianism from the state as an actor. In our constitutional government, we recognize a higher power than utilitarianism in our constitution. Even if it would be in our immediate self interest for the state to enact some policy (NSA wiretapping, etc.), our federal courts will stop it because in our own internal enlightened self interest, we realize that abiding by the limitations of our Constitution ultimately makes for the best system overall. In the international system, we may occasionally need to submit to some very commonly accepted ethical standards, some of which are codified into treaty and convention, even if abiding by those rules seems ineffecient in the short run.

I encourage you to point out some more issues. It’s always good to have dialogue, even if I go to arms sometimes.

Well, since you don’t know me real well, I am very susceptible to emotional rants that occasionally involve ad hominines — I’ll admit it. But let’s be honest for a second. When we’re dealing with the inhuman treatment of human life, can you be completely set apart from emotion? I’m sure some can, but I haven’t reached that stage of argumentative maturity. I’m a Romantic at heart and I often lose to my inner emotions.

So, set aside the emotional jargon, I did provide rational support.

#1 The Machiavellian approach to torture, which for anyone who knows Machiavelli, knows this is a referral to the toleration of torture as a means of deterrence. In its proper historical context, the Machiavellian toleration of torture referred to Machiavelli’s praise for Caesar Borgia’s torture/scare tactics to rule the province of Bologna. However, as most historians and political scientist will point out, this was not a good example of how to properly run a province.

#2 Torture as a means to extrapolate data from contained subjects does not work. Subjects will say anything to alleviate the pain. They will give falsified information in order to put an end to the torture. Furthermore, most torture tactics breakdown the mind to the point that humans are neither cognizant nor rationale rendering the information obtained in this manner cannot be regarded as authoritative.

Look at this on a cost/benefit scale. The costs to torture: destruction of innocent life, wasted resources, tarnished prestige, loss of legitimacy, and possible legal action. These costs for a benefit that is rarely achieved that of information acquisition. This doesn’t even explore the realm of torture as applied to “terrorist,” as is the most pertinent to today’s geopolitical realm and the war on terrorism.

In the cases of the torture of terrorists there is virtually zero efficacy. Torture will not deter other terrorist actions. If anything, it will provoke further attacks. Also, the theory behind the torture of terrorist is mistaken insofar as it is built upon the presupposition that terrorism is monolithic entity that is interconnected and in constant communication. This simply isn’t the case. Most terrorist cells do not coordinate with other terrorist cells. Even Al-Queda is a multitude of independent acting entities.

#3 The political ideology of utilitarianism is cold hearted and arcane. Although many states still employ this mode of thought in justification of questionable acts, it doesn’t make it right. Under utilitarianism, human beings are seen as expendable costs for the majority, regardless of the infringement on human rights or the collateral damage.

#4 Compartmentalization come human rights is not acceptable. It should be both a personal and state maxim that human rights should be looked after and protected. It is anachronistic to think that we aren’t progressing in the field of human rights. The Nuremberg Trials is indeed a watershed in the assertion of human rights. We should not impede this progress with the allowance of “waterboarding” or any other torture tactic.

Bottom Line: Torture falls on its face when under scrutiny from a moralistic perspective and a cost/benefit perspective.

“one of the things i like about you and manes is your tendency to avoid ad hominem attacks. Why start now?”

Ok, you got me. I won’t deny that I employed ad hominine attacks, on you, nonetheless. Like I said, I tend to have a very volatile personality when it comes to issues I am very passionate about — this happens to be one of them. So, I don’t apologize, since you deliberately set me up, but I do acknowledge that debating the merits of the case is indeed better.

I have learned.

I hope you didn’t take it too personal. Since you really didn’t believe even yourself.

As has been stated already: Because it is inhumane, illegal, and an ineffective interrogation method. Can you refute that?

“….i have little/no respect for the average denizen of our native land.”

So you must be spiffy, rich, educated, with good taste, handsome, thin, and sport a good cologne.

“PS: what I said about the average american was actually the only thing I wrote that wasn’t satirical…”

Does that mean that all of your other points were satirical?

Good work….

PS: what I said about the average american was actually the only thing I wrote that wasn’t satirical; i have little/no respect for the average denizen of our native land

This is quintessential example of pernicious logic. To call yourself Machiavellian in respect to torture is implying that you take the Caesar Borgia approach to the problem — torture deters and is therefore effective. However, this isn’t the case.

Time and time again it has proven to not yield credible info, but just the contrary. It has proven to yield falsified information. Anyone will say anything to end torture. Torture is inhuman and ineffective. Your justification is that a nation state is above the laws of moral and ethics. This is just wrong. “Might does [not] make right,” as the adage goes. It is neither just nor lawful for a state to practice torture tactics. Didn’t you read up on the Nuremberg War Trials? Your sticking to an anachronistic approach to justice and your bleeding vile.

“the average American is trashy, poor, uneducated, has horrible taste, is ugly, fat and smelly.”

Is this satire?

“I think people often forget that in reality, a nation state is only obliged to look after its own interests, as expediently as it can. To hold it to a higher standard is childish.”

You sir, are childish, pernicious, and backwards in logic. You take the approach that I described above. You don’t value human life. To call yourself a Machiavellian is anything but a compliment.

You could have been more suave about this and taken the utilitarian approach. However, you chose the low road in lambasting those who value human life. Your views on how a nation state ought to conduct itself reflects your individual perspective. You can try and compartmentalize them all day long, but in the end human life is human life.

Similarly a lot of these “nicest people in the world” just don’t care about torturing dark skinned people from other countries.