Argument Against the "Fail to Prevent" Idea

I am possibly naively pacifist when it comes to war and torture.  I am sure many people would agree that if it were possible, they would not want war or torture to be used as a primary way to solve problems around the world.  I would like to focus on objecting to the “fail to prevent” idea presented in Bacaric's writing.  Bacaric argues that we can fail to prevent deaths through torture, which makes it morally permissible.  At first it may seem like a sound, utilitarian argument.  It in some sense sacrifices one person’s happiness for a large group’s well being.  However, there are flaws to this argument.  The purpose of torture is primarily to obtain information that will not be revealed without other measures being taken, but sometimes other methods can be employed.  This objection does not stand on its own because if there was a time limit on the saving of the many, other methods would take a larger amount of time.  I think the best objection to the argument towards the moral permissibility of torture is the success rate.  There are so many ways torture can work against its intended purpose.  There are many cases of mistaken identity.   If the tortured individual is unable to provide the information, the torture will only add to the injustice, not take away from it.  It will also encourage the tortured individual to make up false information.  Even if the tortured individual does know the information, that individual could still provide false information, making the torture an unsuccessful means for getting information. 

I think that Arar properly addresses some major problems with the argument that torture is morally permissible for the failure to prevent future deaths of innocent people.  Arar’s argument made me curious about the success rate of torture.  I do not know how that would be calculated, but it would most likely work against Bagaric's argument.  Though Bagaric might argue it is worth the sacrifice it it would be hypocritical to do so.  If an individual is tortured and cannot provide information, they are innocent, and they have not provided good to the many.  Success rate alone does not prove or disprove morality, but it does relate.  Bagaric argues that “life saving torture is not cruel.” I would say it if the success rate of torture as a method for acquiring intelligence was 100% or very close, that might be a correct statement under certain circumstances.  Bagaric says that those opposed to torture are responsible for the innocent lives that could have been saved.  This implies that torture is an infallible system, when it clearly does not produce a large enough amount of results to be permissible.  To further emphasize the weakness of his argument, I would like to point out that Bagaric does not anticipate the counterargument that he could be responsible for the tortured, innocent individuals who were mistaken for other people.