So I now take the most moderate position on torture, the position nearest to the middle of the road, feasible in the real world: never again. Never, ever, exactly as international law indisputably requires. If the perfect time for torture comes, and we are not prepared to prevent a terroristic catastrophe, we will at least know that we have not sold our souls and we have not brutalized the civilization. These are catastrophes we actually can avoid. Some of us may, or may not, as a result of our refusal to tolerate secret torture bureaucracies and their gulags, die in some other catastrophe, but civilized principles will survive for members of future generations, who may be grateful for our sacrifice so that they could lead decent lives. About this price [Michael] Ignatieff is correct: "Those of us who oppose torture should also be honest enough to admit that we may have to pay a price for our own convictions. Ex ante, of course, I cannot tell how high this price might be. . . . This is a risk I am prepared to take. . . ." Meanwhile, our taxes fund secret detention centers into which people disappear but in which, we are assured on highest authority, in spite of a total lack of accountability no torture ever occurs.
(Henry Shue, "Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 [2005]: 231-9, at 238-9 [footnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: I think it's wonderful that Henry Shue would rather die than torture someone, but he has no right to let his family, friends, colleagues, students, neighbors, and compatriots die for the sake of his principle. What must his family think of him? They now know, as a result of this publication, that if he ever has to choose between (1) torturing someone and (2) allowing them to be tortured, he will allow them to be tortured. Thank goodness most people have different values—and thank goodness Henry Shue has no authority over us.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 