One surprising feature of the debate about torture is that a great many opponents of torture adopt the view that torture is in principle absolutely prohibited by morality. Nothing, on this view, could ever justify torture. What is surprising about this is that most of these people seem to reject absolutism in all other areas of morality. Most of them, for example, are not absolutists about killing.
(Jeff McMahan, "Torture in Principle and in Practice," Public Affairs Quarterly 22 [April 2008]: 91-108, at 91 [endnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: The difference that makes the difference is that George W. Bush was president when the allegations of torture came to light. Had Bill Clinton or Barack Obama been president, the torture debate would have taken on an entirely different complexion. Philosophers and law professors would be bending over backward to justify torture, just as they have bent over backward to justify the killing of innocents (in abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia). Their energies would be devoted to undermining, rather than supporting, an absolute prohibition of torture.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Bush Derangement Syndrome is so pervasive in academia (especially in the legal academy) that it warps debates. George W. Bush is in favor of a strong (unitary) executive? Then there are reasons to diminish the power of the executive! George W. Bush allows torture? Then there must be an absolute prohibition of torture! George W. Bush issues signing statements? Then signing statements are unconstitutional! George W. Bush favors military commissions? Then military commissions must be abolished!
It's embarrassing how easily academics are led by the ear. They think they are thinking for themselves, but in fact they are reacting to what (hated) others do. This may turn out to be George W. Bush's greatest legacy: He single-handedly determined what tens of thousands of intellectuals think.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 