In a few earlier posts, most recently in Venture Socialism, I've noted that the use of torture was by no means rare in the world, and that those who hyperventilated about it lately had an unrealistic and uniformed view of things. Perhaps this is correct?

As repugnant as torture is, the fact is most countries -- even those with democratic governments -- do it. . .

An average of 78 percent of the governments in the world used torture against at least one person under their control in any given year during the last 25 years of the 20th century, according to Moore and Ryals. Those who used it in a given year faced a 93 percent chance of continuing the practice the next year.

"Politicians and pundits speak in highly moralistic language that suggests that because torture is abhorrent, it is abnormal and unusual," the researchers wrote. "While it is abhorrent, it is neither abnormal nor unusual. Human rights workers are very aware of this fact, but policy makers, politicians and reporters, to say nothing of the general public, in liberal democracies are considerably less informed." . . .

The way torture is administered also has evolved from scarring techniques to methods of inducing severe pain without leaving marks on the body. These techniques often involve use of water, electricity, stress and duress and "clean" beatings. These practices have proved to be easy, portable and, with little physical evidence, they have the added benefit of allowing government leaders to plausibly deny their existence. . .

"Even democracies engage in torture if they are faced with a violent threat," Moore said. "When national security is threatened, the temptation to torture trumps moral considerations in both democratic and authoritarian governments."

I've also stated recently on Timothy's blog that torture would not end until better interrogation methods, drugs or something, made torture obsolete. By that I meant common physical torture. The assumption here is that in granting a monopoly of force to authorities that it is inevitable that they will coerce those who threaten the monopoly or simply lack power to resist. Some will be more discrete about it than others, but one way or another you will comply. The only way to avoid that fate is to avoid drawing attention, something that the vast majority of people are willing and able to do. Those who do attract the baleful gaze of authority are fair game.

Few people actually oppose torture, they just want regulations on its use that define it away when convenient. That prisoners will likely be abused, even killed, by other inmates is acceptable to some of those who are most vocal about prohibition of torture. Just the threat of incarceration - with winks, nudges and reminders of the probable fate of the incarcerated - seems like torture to me. No one who has any awareness of the issues at all can claim ignorance of this, yet they pretend to be outraged about selected practices in selected circumstances.

To be clear: this is not how I would have it. But, this is how it is and has always been. The methods change with time and place - "The way torture is administered also has evolved from scarring techniques to methods of inducing severe pain without leaving marks on the body." - but the practice seems to me to be inevitable so long as we have governments. Forever in other words. Those who speak of elimination of torture just fiddle with definitions. Out of sight, out of mind.