What we do these days in Ottawa is keep score. Everyone does it. Nobody seems able to stop. The first question, in the overheated office buildings around Parliament Hill, isn’t whether something is true or false, a good idea or bad: it’s whether it will help the Conservatives or the opposition. And if this week’s problem isn’t enough to knock the Harper Conservatives off their pedestal, then everyone—the entire capital hive-mind, Conservatives, Liberals, on-air analysts, swiftly scribbling scribes—moves on.
I prefer to believe there are a lot of Canadians who care more whether they’re governed well or poorly than whether by Conservatives or Liberals. The incessant scorekeeping of Hill denizens is profoundly off topic. And never more so than when Richard Colvin testified about his attempts in 2006 and 2007 to alert the government about allegations that Afghan prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian Forces had been tortured.
Colvin is a career diplomat who is trusted enough, today, by this Conservative government to serve as head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. When Glyn Berry, a Canadian diplomat assigned to the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, was killed by a car bomb in 2006, it was Colvin who volunteered to replace him. This guy has literally risked his life for his country. Of course he’s fallible like any of us. But I think he has earned a certain amount of respect.
But first, political Ottawa had to do to Colvin’s testimony what political Ottawa does, which is to keep score. I was on a TV panel a few minutes after he spoke, and all around me, friends and colleagues were trying to figure out whether Colvin’s testimony would help the Liberals in the polls. Or whether “ordinary Canadians” could spare any sympathy for a bunch of strangers with weird names in a desert somewhere who just happened to get carted off to the wrong stinking hell pit. Hours later at a birthday party, one of the hot topics of conversation was how long it would be before Michael Ignatieff’s complex writings on torture would be used against him. (Answer: three days. The only surprise was that it was Janine Krieber, a disgruntled Liberal political spouse, who did it, instead of somebody from another party.)
There was a lot more of that in the days that followed. “Attacking the government over some Taliban suspects suffering punched noses, missing teeth, some sleepless nights and a cable-whipping or two will not be a big heart-wrenching Liberal vote-getter to most Canadians,” Don Martin ruled in the National Post.
Well then. Nothing to see here. Just a cable-whipping or two, although of course it was far worse than that, for far longer, inflicted not merely on “Taliban suspects” but—this was the whole point of Colvin’s testimony—on random farmers and merchants who just happened to be inconveniently nearby when the time came to round up some suspects. But if it’s not a Liberal vote-getter, well, then . . .
I don’t want to single Don out. Everyone does this. Especially the Liberals. For four years they’ve been acting like a safecracker with attention deficit disorder, forever looking for the combination that will undo Harper’s 2006 election, forever outraged—for about four days at a time—with some scandal they’ll forget before the weekend. Did he eat the Communion wafer? Did he entice the MP to vote the right way? Are his ads odious? Is his campaign funding shifty?
Does anyone care? No? Then the Liberals drop this week’s outrage and move on to the next. It’s hard to escape the impression that to the Liberals themselves, things are “right” and “wrong” only to the extent they help Liberals crack the Harper safe.
So it was no wonder that once the Conservatives got over casting aspersions about Colvin’s character and reliability, their next step seemed to be to argue that the abuse of detainees was already going on before Harper was elected in 2006, so the Conservatives didn’t have a monopoly on abuse, so what’s the fuss?
That may well be enough to scare the Liberals off. It shouldn’t be enough for the rest of us. Here’s the thing. Serving up random passersby for a few nights of hell in an Afghan prison is a moral obscenity, and I don’t give a toss which political party is in charge when it happens. It’s also profoundly bad warfare. The goal of a counter-insurgency is to turn the population against the insurgents. This can never be done by abusing the population. It can only be done by ensuring that when somebody inflicts arbitrary mayhem against the population, that somebody isn’t us.
Finally, the Harper government has shown a stubborn incuriosity that calls into question its moral seriousness. “We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture,” Peter Van Loan, one of Harper’s ministers, said on CTV nearly three years ago. “If they have one, we’d be happy to chase it down.” And yet not once has this government been “happy” to “chase down” anything except the people who dare to bring allegations to light. That attitude endangers the best execution of our war effort. It’s not good enough, coming from a government that likes to claim it takes war seriously. I don’t know how that will play in the polls. I don’t care either.
Print
Comment
Here's a big hint to iggie, no one incanada cares except the harper haters and his approval rating will not rise one point with all the historotics. cheers
Hare's a bug hunt too wayne moores, no one incandandada cares about thee oncasual typgrafic horror in the momments sextion, but if yoo incest on using big works like "histrionics," the very lest you can do is fry to get it tight, or abuse a word that you're akshully know how! cheers
Lol!
"I prefer to believe there are a lot of Canadians who care more whether they’re governed well or poorly than whether by Conservatives or Liberals. The incessant scorekeeping of Hill denizens is profoundly off topic"
I too prefer to think that a majority of ordinary [ non political] citizens feel this way. The odd thing is that Harper, who we are often told does not care what Ottawa thinks, does not appear to share PW's optimistic view. Does he know somethng we don't? Or is he simply convinced he's giving Canadian's what they want?
So who tracked Canadian detainee transfer in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005?
Where are the reports?
Why wasn't this tracking system put into place with the Liberal detainee agreement in 2005?
Was this an issue before the 2006 election?
wilson
Do you understand that prior to 2006, prisoners were not transferred to Afganistan authorities, but to US authorities?
Hmmm, perhaps a majority was overly optimistic? Then again i'd like to believe so.
Moral obscenity indeed,
And when is enough ever done, with hindsight?
The Canadian govt tasked the Red Cross with detainee visits.
The Red Cross complained because once the detainees left Cdn hands, they could not be tracked because many used the same name. So a tracking system was put into place (late 2006/07?).
Up until then any prisoners that were abused/tortured could not be identified as a Cdn transfer.
Who were detainees tracked in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005?
wilon, go read Colvin's opening statement… there were bigger problems with 'tasking' the red cross then names. in selecting the red cross we essentially ensured ourselves that we would be made not to know:
"The Red Cross is a very professional and effective organization. However, they were also no good for us as monitors. Once a detainee had been transferred to Afghan custody, the Red Cross, under their rules, could only inform the Afghan authorities about abuse. Under those strict rules, they are not permitted to tell Canada."
also, did you not pick up on Wells' point? This is not about partisan gain, it is about morally reprehensible behavior. pointing to problems in the liberal years, as you are doing, does not absolve later problems (or vice versa).
s/b HOW were detainees tracked in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005?
Why wasn't that system put in place?
They were handed over to the Yankees, fool. Try to keep up.
Agreed that torture is wrong regardless of the practical implications.
But I'd be interested to know why Wells thinks it's always wrong. Is that because of a gut feeling, or is there some rationale?
What's your view ? Do you think torture is wrong ? Why or why not ?
Yes, but my rationale is based on the premise that human beings are more than just highly-evolved animals. I'm curious to see whether anyone who doesn't hold that premise has a rationale for opposing torture in all circumstances, and if not then I'm curious (in a sort of "I dread the answer" way) to see whether they'd adopt the premise or drop the conclusion.
Human beings are just highly evolved animals, but I'm one of them.
Perhaps not so much "highly evolved" as sentient. (The notion that humans represent an evoltuionary apex is troubling in scientific circles).
On a related note, check out this interesting NY Times piece by Montreal-born superstar Steven Pinker (You've likely heard of him – he's another one of our expatriate celebrity intellectuals at Harvard).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psyc...
I suspect your rationale stems from religious conviction. But there is a school of thought that human beings would have evolved a moral universe regardless, with a corresponding sense of right and wrong deriving from social necessity. I believe the rules/conventions of primitive socities may bear this out…although i can see how this can be considered more evidence for mankinds continual search for the universal devine.
Wrong. My rationale stems from a different view of what humans are. It predates my religion.
Any valid argument about morality has to resolve down to showing how a certain action is inconsistent with reality. If the reality is that humans are just smart animals then it's appropriate to treat them as such. On the other hand, if the reality is that humans are an end in themselves, that leads to different conclusions.
Humans might have evolved all kinds of nutty ideas, sure. But that doesn't mean that those ideas would be correct. If the argument is about whether our moral convictions are correct then it needs a more solid basis than "we just evolved to the point where this behaviour repulses us".
Ok, but how do you know it?
I volunteered for two years at a shelter for battered women. I KNOW that torture is wrong.
From Wikipedia:
"Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy"
As a torturer you feel empathy for the tortured. You know the physical and psychological damage you inflict is wrong because you wouldn't stand to have it done to yourself. Empathy is a normal human trait.
Without empathy, you're a psychopath.
In my opinion this is the strongest argument yet presented here. We become intentionally cruel when we inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain, which harms us. Good.
That makes wanton torture evil – and not just torture of humans either. Since humans are just animals, it also explains why wantonly torturing cats or dogs or fleas would be evil.
But there is a problem: if the infliction of pain is being done to save others, then can't one be acting out of empathy for those? Example: someone subjects a lab rat to a medical test that causes the rat to die in agony. However the test leads to a cure for cancer. The scientist in acting out of empathy for cancer victims and noting that the lab rat's torture serves a higher purpose. I'd say that's justified. So why would the same argument (sacrifice a man for a higher purpose: to save thousands of victims with whom one empathizes) not apply to torture?
"Without empathy, you're a psychopath."
I agree that Andre makes a decent attempt to explain but from where I sit everyone who supports abortion is a psychopath, which means over 70% of Canadians according to Macleans.
I am believer in eye for an eye, so I don't get too wound up if Taliban bullyboys were tortured – you reap/sow and all that – but I do think anyone who wasn't part of the worst excesses of the Taliban should not have been tortured.
Most Canadians have no idea what abortion actually involves until they see pictures of a baby in utero and/or video of the baby having her arms/legs torn off and skull crushed while trying to swim away from the forceps.
So I don't think you can say that most abortion supporters are psychopaths – they're just uninformed. The abortion doctors may well be psychopaths though.
The very foundation of our society shares nothing in commmon with either exemplar I've mentioned. The legitimacy of our institutions rests upon the consent of the people – all people- for starters – not spirits in any meaningful way (as was the case for the Iroquois and the Catholics). The entire enterprise of liberal democracy has very much been about security and dignity of the individual (slow and uneven in its progress, but the course has been fairly unidirectional). Two world wars were largely about establishing the right of individuals to exist peacefully in territorial collectives- without fear of foreign powers invading to gain territory and control. Yes, part of maintaining security means we sometimes need to transgress the rights of individuals – wars, jails, and that sort of thing. But we subject those things to intense scrutiny and control, in part because we never want to infringe on individuals any more than absolutely necessary. Because there's a long philosophical and moral arc that holds rights to be as universal as possbile – if they are selectively allocated, then they are meaningless.
We hear the tales of horror in places like Iran and China, and it's worth asking if we're any different. The answer is yes. We have minimum standards. Our heritage tends to express those standards in the language of human rights, and with the underlying ethic that we can't treat humans like pawns in pursuit of goals (in that our main goal is to not treat humans like pawns). Rape, torture, imprisonment for ideas – these have no place in our tool kit. We have no moral context to engage in such activities, and in fact our general 'social contract' is one where we're trying to establish a world free from such things.
Well, I appreciate the sincerity and thought. I disagree with one of the historical examples (in terms of the rationale, not the conclusion), but leaving that aside let me just ask two questions, or one question in two parts.
(1) Granted that we shouldn't harm anyone more than is absolutely necessary, and granted that we must have a certain minimum standard of behaviour, why is torture below that standard but not killing?
(2) In cases where a known terrorist has information that could stop the slaughter of thousands, and the only way to get it in time is to torture him, some would say it becomes "absolutely necessary". You (and I) would say it is still wrong despite that. Why would this not be justified by the "no more than absolutely necessary" clause listed above?
In short, what is it about torture that makes it intrinsically wrong rather than just wrong in all but extreme circumstances?
"In cases where a known terrorist has information that could stop the slaughter of thousands, and the only way to get it in time is to torture him, some would say it becomes "absolutely necessary". You (and I) would say it is still wrong despite that. Why would this not be justified by the "no more than absolutely necessary" clause listed above? "
Ah.. the proverbial Jack-Bauer-24-hours-before-the-end-of-the-world scenario. Gaunilon, can you name one instance when this ever happened?
"1) Granted that we shouldn't harm anyone more than is absolutely necessary, and granted that we must have a certain minimum standard of behaviour, why is torture below that standard but not killing? "
Why would torture be below killing?
1. We don't have capital punishment, because it's avoidable killing. Warfare sometimes requires killing, but again we never give soldiers license to go around assassinating enemies. And enemies are generally free to surrender and avoid being killed. Policiing also requires killing occasionally, but only as a last resort. In both cases, killing is seen as the least desirable option, and it is subject to considerable scrutiny, rules and oversight. Torture satifies none of those criteria. It is always done under the cloak of national security (at least in recent decades). There has, to my knowledge, been no body of evidence presented to show that torture has gleaned significant information *that couldn't be otherwise obtained*. Also, turning individuals over to "torture states" means even the justification of information-gathering is pretty much out the window. In short, torture can never be described as a necessary last resort, and has never been subject to oversights and individual protections in the same way the soldiers or police with guns are.
One of the reasons [ by no means the only one, or even the most important] is that mistakes are made in far too many cases…similarly in cases of capital punishment. I can think of an example that doesn't involve torture but targeted assasination . After the horrors of the Munich olympic murder of Israeli athletes a decision was taken to track down and kill those responsible [ Golda Meir] Argueably a case of natural justice many would argue, including me. A number of those responsible were i believe killed – and then it went wrong. One person was tracked to Oslo Norway and killed. Sadly they got the wrong man. They killed an innocent waiter who was erroneously identified. I'm pretty sure the rest of the operations were canceled – rightly so. Two wrongs never make a right. In this case even the righteous anger of the wronged gave way to shame and regret before this moral imperative.
And torture has incalculable moral and phycological consequences for the torturer and the larger community as well as the victim. . It's a slippery moral slope we should never be tempted to venture out on.
So far as I know, coercive interrogation from the "attention grab" to waterboarding, is one of the most heavily regulated elements of US military protocol. Even if it wasn't, there's no reason why it couldn't be. I don't think "it's not regulated well enough" works as an argument here.
Both your other arguments boil down to "it's never actually the last resort". Perhaps. There are those more in the know than either you or I who claim that it is and has been. But regardless of whether they're right, the question can be posed hypothetically: if it was necessary to torture a man (and by "torture" I mean all out "do whatever it takes" torture) to get info on a planned deadly attack, would that make it right? It sounds like you're saying "maybe but I don't think that would ever happen" whereas my answer would be "no". If your answer is also "no", then why?
Objection: leading the witness.
Short answer is no. Torture's efficacy can only be proven ex post facto, which removes any pragmatic argument in favour of it. And in terms of the moral underpinnings of our society, and their basis in the individual, torture is an unacceptable injury to both the physical and emotional dimensions of the victim. If we endsorse it, we surrender much of our coherency and philosophical raison d'etre. Killing, by contrast, is only (ideally) done to protect the lives of soldiers and police. and thus occupies a different realm of moral consideration, since it is a response to a threat – not a one-sided application of force, as is the case for torture.
Are you answering the question about why there's no Dutch/UK prison?
If I understood Hillier and Mulroney, Canada was comfortable with its approach too. That doesn't mean it didn't suck.
Finally, our current agreement seems to be consistent with the Dutch/UK model, hopefully we've improved our record-keeping and notification. And we updated that after deciding not to join them in their prison venture – which was mysteriously discarded.
yes. are you honeslty arguing that you think it is shocking that that 1/3 increased in price of the prison (i.e. the portion canada refused to cover) is a shocking dealbreaker?
Do you have any references or information to contribute? This is the best I've found:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/ind...
It suggests that Canada should resume transferring prisoners to US custody, under a joint detainee policy.
This is also interesting:
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-urges-overha...
This opinion piece might actually contribute to the debate were it not for two significant omissions. 1. Wells employs a dissassociative "trick", suggesting that journalists are simply dispassionate observers of political bad behaviour, rather than the enablers they so clearly are, and 2. Having read Blatchford's piece this morning, it's a little too early to buy into the idea that random passersby were routinely tortured. So…..the result is a fairly dishonest opinion piece that views things through an Ottawa jiournalist's lense. Mr Martin and Mr Wells are birds of a feather, no matter how much Paul would wish it were otherwise.
Thank God for dispassionate observers like Blatch.
"I prefer to believe there are a lot of Canadians who care more whether they’re governed well or poorly than whether by Conservatives or Liberals. The incessant scorekeeping of Hill denizens is profoundly off topic"
Sorry, but the media have to be held responsible for this. Why has the "diabolical" mechanisms of Harper trying to force Ignatieff into a corner over the HST pushed the torture allegations off the front page?
Which is more important – Harper's political genius, or whether Canada has become a country that condones torture.
The media have one front page now?
I was speaking figuratively, of course.
I don't care if the media go after a political party so long as there is merit to the story line, but surely you can see how the torture allegations are being pushed back. Frankly, while this story about how the LPC will vote on the HST is interesting, it hardly merits the same status as torture allegations.
Harper (I support the USA whatever they do) should be forced to resign over this scandal whereby Canadians assist in torture in this illegal war.
Well said, Paul. I stand with you on this, like many others. Colvin deserves a respectful hearing. As do the people of Afganistan. The calculations of Ottawa's political and media elite are shameful. Let's put aside partisan game playing and get to the truth. The issues here merit no less for all concerned.
Let's just have another election and get rid of Harper once and for all. This is the man, leader of party, who wants to privatize the CBC, who would get rid of our universal healthcare system in a second. All because it's too expensive and other blah blah about how canadians deserve better. What we deserve is a government who cares.
Can you not read polls either?
You will remember a few years ago when the government alleged that a Canadian man wasting away in a Saudi jail was not being tortured. This is the same thing and very tragic that our politicians have learned nothing.
"Here’s the thing. Serving up random passersby for a few nights of hell in an Afghan prison is a moral obscenity, and I don’t give a toss which political party is in charge when it happens. It’s also profoundly bad warfare."
Paul, here's the thing. I agree 100% with that statement; however, I do not believe, as you say, "Canadian soldiers serve up random passerbys." Making that leap shows a profound lack of understanding about how soldiers go about their duties.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of the way some are quick to assume soldiers are either too stupid or unequipped to judge between an innocent passerby and a combatant. We detain people for a lot less at airport security than we do in the field and that's a fact.
Do you really believe a platoon leader in a Canadian infantry regiment (we only have three) is more or less trained than the guy swabbing your laptop at Pearson? Think about it.
The majority of the detainees in question were taken during Operation Medusa, a major counter attack led by Canadian Forces to push back a Taliban offensive when we assumed responsibility for Kandahar.. We lost 12 soldiers plus many more wounded in that campaign, not to mention that unfortunate episode where an entire company of the RCR was rendered combat ineffective due to an errant strafing run by an American A-10.
War is not an exact science, but if Lt. Smith took a prisoner, it was for a damn good reason. I guarantee you it wasn't because he is stupid, lazy, or enjoys the reams of paperwork that goes with each contact.
By all means ask "legitimate questions," but please, no more of this "random passerbys" crap. Do not insult the quality of those chosen by the Canadian Forces to command elite infantry. If he has the quality to command, he at least deserves the benefit of a doubt and some respect for his judgment.
Excellent column. It's good to see there are one or two intelligent writers at MacLeans. I had pretty much given up on it.
Situations like this one are the main arguement for staying out of other country's civil conflicts. It may seem cold, but the fact is we've seen that we cannot simply go into an area and project our ideals over it and expect the locals to pick it up. Everyone has their own ideals based on how they were raised and the environment they live in. It may seem simple to people living the good life that killing and torturing people is not a way to peace. Unfortunately when life or death is a day to day reality and picking up a weapon to join a side seems the only way to protect you and those you love, things become murky. Can we afford to save everyone? No. Any solution which involves the Canadian governenment getting more involved in the policing and control of the afghani people will eventually lead to a stronger insurgent uprising. It's my opinion that that is the cold truth, we are doing what we can, not every torture victim can be saved. We are doing our part, and more. How many people have been saved?
Thanks, looks like an interesting piece (ID broke you link: http://tiny.cc/hciuA ), I'll check it out when I have some time tomorrow. (I didn't know Steven Pinker was Canadian, btw!)
Quite right, "highly evolved" is wrong, though perhaps "sentient" doesn't work either: I'm of the view that animals definitely think. I think Gaunilon was being sarcastic, however: "animals" is fine by me.
The key thing, for me, is that I empathise with other members of my species. I'm not sure this is all that universal, however: the ancients, for example, don't seem to have especially empathised with their slaves, or not beyond thinking "Poor wretch!" when they saw a fellow human being tortured for evidence in a law court (as was standard Roman legal procedure for slaves' evidence). In my case, I like to think of it as a form of pride: by degrading the humanity of the victim, a torturer mortally insults my own humanity. But again there are degrees: I take it as a personal insult if someone even looks insultingly at my GF or a family member, or verbally insults a friend, or dismisses my country; but I don't really care if Afghan jailers tutoient their prisoners. But, as I say, I consider the torture of one human being to be the torture of humanity itself, which includes me.
In any case it seems clear to me that our [ western world] sense of right/wrong are heavily influences by our Judeo/Christian ethic, whether you are a believer or not, and has been for many centuries now. Frankly it's enough for me. I make no particular judgement of other cultural norms…i simply like ours…if only we'd live up to them as often as we say we do. Nevertheless there's ample evidence that human society needs, must have, walls/boundaries to either limit or merely anchor ourselves in a fathomless universe. The fact that there are additional rational arguements for not allowing torture to become a tool of convenience is for me a bonus, but not the heart of my conviction.It is simply wrong!
"If the argument is about whether our moral convictions are correct then it needs a more solid basis"
Why? I will it so. I can dress that up with fancy dogma if you prefer, but at the end of the day it's just vehement personal preference.
It seems to me that you're asking a series of rather leading questions and you would do better to come clean and declare why you, Gaunilon, think human beings are an end in themselves and what the basis of morality is. A non-sectarian formulation would benefit us all.
Somewhere up there, Gaunilon asked why I think it's wrong. (Someone else offered a useful correction to my column: I make it sound like I think torturing innocents is wrong, whereas I'm also against torturing the guilty.) I don't have a lot of fancy reasons for this. The reasons I do have would include:
1. Torture is useless. It produces false confessions that lead to wild goose chases. It elicits true confessions that could have been produced with less monstrous techniques. Since you can never know whether you've got a false confession, the utility of true confessions is sharply compromised.
2. But that doesn't matter all that much, because…
3. Torture is monstrous. And if we are to become monsters then I see no reason to bother fighting monsters.
Those are good reasons, # 1 is a powerful rational arguement, particularly when you consider there are other alternatives…better ones. How, even if you get the answer you want use that evidence without first betraying most of the basic tenets of established justice. As a tool for gaining info in order to prevent future outrages it runs into the problem that you can never really know how much the victim actually knows, if anything at all. It's a little late for sorry after the fact. In fact i'd say the only way you can honestly deal with the consquences of torture and its uncertain results is to first completely reject the notion of any sovereignty of the individual at all, ie., if you torture you are by definition a fascist.
#3 Says it all really – or else why bother at all.
I appreciate the answer.
Concerning (1), I've seen claims by intelligence professionals to the contrary. Doesn't make it so, of course, but the point is at least in dispute. Anyway Wells and I both agree that this is moot/irrelevant: the point here is that even if torture were necessary and useful in some (hypothetical) circumstance, we'd both still be opposed to it.
By "torture is monstrous" I take Wells to be restating the point that torture is always evil. I agree, but the question being asked is "why". Why is killing not necessarily monstrous, but torture is?
I keep answering this but you keep at it with the leading rhetorical questions. This is not Sunday School: give your opinion or answer mine or whatnot, but enough with the Jesuitical proselytising.
Sean answered your question about killing vs. torture above: killing is sometimes necessary (e.g. in war), but torture never is.
"So I don't think you can say that most abortion supporters are psychopaths"
"they're just uninformed."
I was just using Andre's "Without empathy, you're a psychopath" as definition of psycho.
There is a reason why pro-choice people use euphemisms. Abortion = dead baby, not hard to understand and it's got nothing to do with being 'informed' or not.
I need details to answer your question. I believe in utilitarian ideas in some circumstances so I would need details to give you specific answer. I would not condone torturing one innocent person to save ten other innocents, but I might support torturing one innocent to save thousands.
All good points! I certainly share your (hard-wired?) empathy for members of our species, and I think that our empathy is at least a partial basis for our aversion to torture.
With regards to Pinker's piece, I'm not endorsing his arguments in any way – I just think he's often thought-provoking when he examines familiar problems in the context of evolution, genetics, and neurology.
There are many cases in war where attacks are launched against enemy soldiers taken by surprise or asleep. In these cases it's a very one-sided application of force (in fact that is exactly what a good military tactician strives for in every attack) against an enemy who hopefully can't put up any meaningful resistance. It's rarely a response to a direct threat, but rather part of the overall wartime strategy of attacking your enemy wherever and whenever he is vulnerable. Soldiers often kill in non-self-defence situations, and rightly so.
So again, how is this different from the torture of an enemy who knows where the next attack is going to be launched? That would be done with the same motive (protect the lives of soldiers/civilians/police), and would be just as much a response to a threat.