Given the impromptu discussion over torture that broke out in the comments of my last WP post, I thought now might be a good time to devote a dedicated post to the subject. To begin, here’s Thomas Sowell, from “Tortured Reasoning”:
Some people seem to see nothing between zero and infinity. Things are either categorically all right or they are categorically off-limits. This kind of reasoning—if it can be called reasoning—is reflected in the stampede to ban torture by Congressional legislation.
As far as a general policy is concerned, there is no torture to ban. Isolated individuals here and there may abuse their authority and violate existing laws and policies by their treatment of prisoners but the point is that these are in fact violations.
When some individuals violate laws against murder, no one thinks that requires Congressional legislation to add to the existing laws against murder. What it calls for is enforcement of existing laws.
Banning torture categorically by federal legislation takes on a new dimension in an era of international terrorist networks that may, within the lifetime of this generation, have nuclear weapons.
If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are necessary?
What a price to pay for moral exhibitionism or political grandstanding!
Even in less extreme circumstances, and even if we don’t intend to torture the captured terrorist, does that mean that we need to reduce our leverage by informing all terrorists around the world in advance that they can stonewall indefinitely when captured, without fear of that fate?
Like it or not—accept the premise or not (that the McCain amendment would ban torture altogether)—Sowell raises the important questions that must necessarily straddle the line between moral absolutism and pragmatism; and though his argument ultimately go the route of contextual justification for torture (a position with which I don’t agree, necessarily), the reasons he raises for reaching such a conclusion are quite sound—namely, that to shut off all conversation over how far we’re willing to go to save lives simply because self-righteousness is an easy and comfortable position to take, is rather shortsighted and, quite possibly, dangerous.
This whole debate, in fact, reminds me off the kerfuffle over Tom Tancredo’s remarks that we shouldn’t take the bombing of holy sites in Saudi Arabia off the table—statements that were met with the same kind of indignant “moral” outrage that tend to accompany debates over coercive interrogation and torture.
And as with that debate, my argument with regard to coercive interrogation is that we should not take anything off the table, if only so that our enemies can’t get comfortable knowing that there is a limit to what we are prepared to do to protect our country and its citizens.
For my part, I have no trouble whatsoever with techniques like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, disorientation, extreme temperature change, etc—primarily because I don’t think promoting discomfort or fear constitute “torture.” But then this is precisely the point: when the definition of torture hinges on abstractions like “anguish” and “distress,” and on qualifications to those abstractions like “severe,” then the problem of defining torture effectively—and distinguishing it from other techniques of active interrogation—becomes context and ethos-specific.
Of course, as the comments to yesterday’s thread made clear, not everyone here agrees with me on this. One commenter even went so far as to say my arguments constituted a form of moral relativism—a charge I find completely uncredible: first, if one really is against torture, one should WANT to narrow the definition instead of adopting or accepting an expansive definition that hamstrings the pragmatic necessities of effective interrogation (which can include nothing more than a threat of coercion). To think of tactics like waterboarding or sleep deprivation as commensurate to rape rooms is troublesome, it seems to me—but that is exactly what one commits oneself to once one commits to a morally absolute stand on “torture” that abides such an expansive definition.
Because I don’t think all forms of suffering and anguish are equalâ€â€I am willing to draw distinctions where those who accept an expansive definition of “torture” cannot. And not being able to draw distinctions is where relativism comes in, I would argue.
Two of my favorite opinion writers, Cathy Young and Matt Welch, disagree.
In a pair of posts on the subject of torture, Young argues that “any interrogation techniques that rely on physical suffering are torture.” And here’s Welch:
[W]ater boarding elicited the “vital” information from Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi that “Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons.” As a CIA-sourced ABC News investigation reports, “al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.”
The administration’s position is now crystal clear. “We do not torture,” we water board; we do not use Soviet-style imprisonment/interrogation tactics, we just secretly use former Soviet facilities and Red Army false-confession techniques. And if some detainees die in the process, well, bad apples and all that.
It’s easy to get distracted by the semantics and immorality of it all, but the ABC News story suggests a very pragmatic rebuttal to the administration: By whatever name or euphemism, water boarding seems like one of the worst methods possible of obtaining quality information. And treating water-boarded data either as a strong basis for policy, or as a prop to make a political argument, seems unwise at best.
But I disagree precisely because I don’t believe that the semantics are a distraction. In fact, that waterboarding may or may not have worked well in the past (and I suspect it has had both successes and failures) is not really relevant to me, because what I’m interested in is how it and techniques like it should be defined and understood within a useful definition of “torture.” The semantics ARE the issue. All else, I’d argue, is the real distraction, because until we are comfortable with what torture is, acting like we are either for or against it is nothing but posturing.
Cathy states her claim clearly: she is opposed to interrogation techniques that cause physical suffering. But as I’ve argued before, “suffering” is going to prove specific to the individual undergoing the interrogation, and if that is the benchmark for torture, then just about anything can come to count as torture, given the proper circumstances, and depending on the prevailing cultural attitudes (proximity to a terror attack probably plays a large part in how we feel about coercive interrogation, for instance).
I look forward to a reasoned debate that balances the pragmatic necessities of at least allowing for coercive interrogation (even if it seldom used) with moral concerns about inflicting temporary pain and suffering.
So have at it.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
****
update: Cathy Young replies:
It seems to me that Jeff and some of his commenters are blurring the line between “physical discomfort” and “physical suffering” (the term I used).
Perhaps. But I think more to my point was that such distinctions, insofar as they are arbitrary, are determined ultimately by context or ethos—which means we’ve effectively relativised torture, and so are able to make arguments like Kos made yesterday, wherein he refused to distinguish between subjecting prisoners to extreme heart or cold and dropping them from rooftops of beating them with pipes.
Cathy concludes:
I think it’s a misconception that information can be extracted from prisoners only through interrogation techniques that include the infliction of physical suffering. Psychological manipulation can be quite effective in this regard.
This may well be the case, but once physical coercion is off the table, how long before “psychological manipulation” is deemed torture? Why, mental health experts will argue, do we not treat mental pain with the same respect we accord physical pain? (in fact, has this not been the cry of the mental health industry for years?) How is mental “suffering” different from physical suffering?
Even now, we hear that “humiliation” is torture—or at the very least, “mistreatment.” Is wrapping an Israeli flag around an Islamist “torture”? Why or why not?
The point of all this being, that until we can more clearly define “suffering” or “anguish”—or distinguish between “suffering” and “discomfort”—we are forced to take positions that we might not otherwise take.
Cathy is comfortable in saying that any interrogation technique that causes physical suffering is “torture.” I am not—and from a pragmatic standpoint, I certainly don’t think we should codify such an opinion as Cathy’s, if only to keep our enemies from becoming too sanguine.
Which means that for this argument to proceed, we’re back to defining torture more carefully.
****
(follow-up post here)
On that note, d’you know anything about the Sean Baker incident? No one seems to have really said anything about it and I’m confused as to the context of the whole thing.
Jeff
What’s stopping those against torture from stating their case that simple interrogation be portrayed as “mental torture” There are too many fine lines to be crossed and I think it is best that any information gathering from suspected terrorists, as ruthless as it may be, be conducted out of the public eye.
I guess I am opening up a can of worms here…….
Remember when the first photos of people being moved to Gitmo came out? The outrage that we would put people in orange jumpers, shackles, and blindfolds? Remember all the protestors showing up with orange jumpsuits and fake shackles?
I’ve seen stories that had people whining that it was horrid we were even HOLDING people at Gitmo, that just having them in lockup without a clear idea when we’d release them was, itself, a crime.
In short, Todd, it’s already gotten worse than you thought.
I ran a series of posts on it recently, which may or may not be of interest, Jeff. I took the Devil’s Advocate position for some limited forms of torture, while Tee Bee of Midwestern Guide and Jamie Jeffords took the opposite side.
It is problematic, and certainly deserves more thoughtful treatment that I gave it. We were speaking of true torture (i.e., permanent physical harm and considerable physical pain) and did not get into the actual U.S. practices (waterboarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, etc.) which I felt fell considerably short of torture.
I ended up giving a very limited approval of some forms of torture in extreme circumstances, and suggested a formal process for it with judicial review (torture warrants).
Not a formal argument, mind you, but a college bull session kind of series of posts.
Perhaps Cathy could provide some guidance as to how many “Hail Marys” and “Our Fathers” would be needed to expiate our collective sin over causing somebody some degree of physical discomfort during their interrogation …
That approach is also Catholic enough that Andy S. should be satisfied (to the extent that’s possible).
Not to go all ‘Omni’ Magazine here, but would Cathy object to an interrogation technique that was entirely based on suspending sensory-input?
For example, any objections to putting a suspected terrorist into a forced coma?
.
If this post can get someone, anyone, to define torture, you deserve the nobel prize. So far it’s been all argument, no premise.
I’m with you Jeff.
Techniques that are little more than frat-house hazing or what we put our own troops through in training should not be lumped in with torture. Coercion and stress techniques should be allowed.
Let’s get real – torture involves electrodes, various manual and power tools, and dental instruments for starters. It is not exploiting someone’s potential fear of drowning. It is not a cold room or sleep deprivation.
There will never be an agreed upon definition. There may some day be an “official” definition, but not everyone will agree with it.
The old, “I can’t tell you what obscenity is, but I know it when I see it.” kinda thing.
To me, torture is the attempt to extract information through the direct infliction of physical pain to break down barriers of resistance. Sleep deprivation is NOT torture, for example.
And I think there should be inviolate protection against torture where an individual is under a criminal investigation. Bamboo shoots to get that mail fraud confession is unacceptable.
But this is not a national security issue. Terrorism is. Different situation, different rules.
When do the torture police arrive? Let’s be real here, is it going to come down to referring to a manual for the best methods of extracting crucial life saving information? I understand that we ourselves have to practice some sort of ethical treatment to our captives, but then again should quarter be given to those who consistently violate every human rights law ever passed? Do you remember the beheadings? Sure this is an emotional issue, but that same emotion, used to extract pertinent info, can sometimes save the lives of thousands….
As far as I’m concerned, any day that doesn’t start with two large mugs of hot, black tea with a little whole milk and two small muffins from the Ralph’s deli, I’ve been tortured.
Jeff–
I’ve got a ready and workable definition: Any form of physical or mental stress or abuse we routinely use on our own people going through boot camp, SEAL BUDS training, pilot S/E/R/E training, etc. shall be heretofore known as “not torture.”
If we are willing to put our own guys through it, then we have obviously calibrated that it won’t kill themâ€â€usually. Perhaps it might do in a weakling terrorists from time to time, but that would be an acceptable
benefitrisk.This would of course, include “waterboarding”â€â€a popular pastime at Coronado as I understand it.
Hmmmm.
Frankly I heartily approve of the use of torture on terrorists. No offense to anyone but I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever what these people would be willing to do to me.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
How long before the word “torture” gets so watered down to be nearly devoid of meaning, like the word “racism” has become?
Hey, if feminists can define rape as “sex that’s regretted afterwards,” seems like the “attention grab” could be torture.
What about the use of the mythical (Or do they exist?) “truth serums”? If they exist and if they work, would anyone object to their use?
TW = programs The thing is uncanny.
FreshAir said:
“Any form of physical or mental stress or abuse we routinely use on our own people going through boot camp, SEAL BUDS training, pilot S/E/R/E training, etc. shall be heretofore known as “not torture.”
I agree with this 100%. These techniques are currently approved for soldier training purposes and are quite effective.
I believe that the treshold of torture would be the threat or follow-thru of PERMENANT PHYSICAL HARM or the threat or follow-thru of DEATH. Any use of electricity is off the table.
Why take prisoners? If they cannot be squeezed for information they are not worth the effort to keep them. Just humanely shoot them at the front and save all the trouble.
My fraternity initiation featured many of these enjoyable techniques.
So many contingencies, no wonder people won’t agree on a definition. Pop culture whore that I am, let me throw a couple of scenarios your way:
24: How many times has Jack Bauer tortured his way to information needed desparately? If we let threats get to where they really are imminent, then all bets are off. So does the left really want things to get that close before we act?
Law and Order: Criminal Intent: Talk about making the situation psychologically coercive. Picking on people’s mental weak spots until they crack, surely someone can define that as psychological torture.
No point, really, just some thoughts.
Thanks for starting this thread, Jeff. I was quite confused about torture until recently. Now I am only a little confused. This discussion should be enlightening.
I agree with what natesnake said. And with what chrisc said: “But this is not a national security issue. Terrorism is. Different situation, different rules.”
In my world, torture is inflicting permanent physical harm/damage and/or killing someone. I don’t agree, at the moment, that threatening someone with death would be torture.
My main concern with regard to torture is that to escape or end it people may tell falsehoods. This complicates things. Another concern has to do with suspected terrorists. If the person is actually innocent, should they be made to suffer? Instead of focusing on torture, the Government ought to subsidize pharmaceutical research and development of some sort of truth serum. This will make everything so much better and easier.
Nevertheless, if someone is an actual terrorist, banning torture (according to my definition) would only be out of our humanity and not for the terrorist’s sake. Terrorists are no longer human, in my world.
TW: plans. A plan of what will be done when and where and to whom ought to be formulated. And hidden from the enemy. We should strike fear in the hearts of our enemy. Remember: the enemy believes and preaches that we are weak and decadent. They must never be right!
CNNi is currently running two stories in their news updates. One is about a human rights symposium in Europe, in which a former Gitmo detainee speaks about prisoner abuse. The worst torture, he says, is being kept from communicating with your loved ones and not knowing your own fate. That is torture, he declares.
The story they run immediately after that is a retrospective on Pinochet. They discuss the men, women and children rounded up on the streets and interrogated. One favorite method was, apparently, forcing a live rat up a woman’s vagina. That is torture, I declare.
It is never enough to use words like anguish to define torture. But, it probably isn’t enough to define techinques because, like copyright laws, one small change can serve as a work-around.
The administration tried to define specific results that would make an action torture. I think that is a good way to start, but by doing so they became the Torture Presidency, The Torture AG, etc.
Then we veered into the whole disrespect=abuse meme. That wasn’t helpful.
Fake menstrual blood isn’t abusive. Rats in the vagina is torture. Kind of two points on my moral compass.
This is the flimsiest of strawmen, and only serves to cloud the debate.
Do you really think that in a situation like this, “squeamishness” – or even established law – would prevent us from leaning on such a prisoner?
Hell, no. Forget water-boarding – he’d be lucky if he came out of the interrogation room with all of his limbs and both testicles.
This debate is not, and never has been, about torture.
This is about what degree of Legislative limitation the Executive will accept upon its power in a time of war.
End of story.
Given that a significant portion of the electorate is just waiting for King Chimpy McHitlerburton to suspend elections and Take Over The World it’s not surprising that the Administration hasn’t emphasized this too strongly.
But think about it: do we really want any portion of the conduct of our wars to be determined by two deliberative bodies with a total of 535 people?
I know I don’t.
I wonder if we had put the sheik on the rack if he would’ve felt safe in giving us false information?
Personally, I don’t think anything should be “off-limits” when it concerns torture: Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there an Israeli group who uses real torture so effectively (when necessary) that terrorists sing like birds just from fear of being sent there?
Debate all you want (this is a Democracy after all), but make quite clear to our enemies that the CIA (or whoever) will make you eat your own testicles, in garlic flambe, if you do anything against our national interests.
(And that should apply to Michael Moore and his ilk as well.)
you make a good point—one Ian hinted at earlier—and that’s that this whole debate is, on some level, academic, as we’re likely to do what we have to do when push comes to shove.
But then there’s the post hoc reaction and the potential for war crimes trials and lawsuits, etc., which is why it helps to have these things hashed out in public so that we can at least prepare the ground for what we might have to do.
Beyond that, though, I have a don’t ask, don’t tell policy that I apply to our professional interrogators.
FWIW: Of course the semantics matter. We won’t come to any conclusion in this debate until we settle on a definition of torture. To me, the difference between torture and aggressive interrogation is in the long-term effect on the prisoner.
Physical torture leaves lifelong scars–burns, lack of fingernails, useless or deformed limbs, joints that don’t work right anymore because of the effects. This is torture.
Psychological torture leaves the subject an emotional wreck. I’m thinking Chinese Water torture, but prolonged wakefullness and similar techniques could qualify if drawn out long enough.
But if when it’s done, it’s done, and the person can move on and live normally then, no matter how aggressive the tactics, it’s not torture.
Waterboarding is still tough to classify–it doesn’t seem like torture under this standard except that I hear people have died from it.
I think that there should be a clear dileiation between POW and “Others”. I know when I was part of the USMC in Nam there were clear rules of engagement and Geneva Convention Protocols. We were taught that the minute you took a prisoner you took on ALL responsibility for that person’s welfare, ie, food, shelter, medical care and his physical well being. Up to the point that you legally transferred that responsibility to someone else. It was a hell of a lot cleaner and easier just to shoot them.
According to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, drowning people is torture (when Soyuth African army officials do it). According to the US, drowning people is torture (when the Japanese do it to Filipinos).
As they found in Israel, torture corrupts the torturers, the institutions that use it and the society that allows it. First you torture a few for a purpose, then you torture many because it’s routine, and then you torture because you can;t think of a reason not to. We’ve seen just how fast that degeneration showed up in Abu Ghraib, possibly because American morality is a mile wide and an inch deep. And then people justify torture because facing the truth about the depravity of the action would mean asking questions about the depravity of allowing it.
This comments thread is a perfect example; it could be used as a marvellous example in some academic text fifty years from now.
Well done.
Heavy.
Except for the fact that for thousands of years torture was considered completely normal, and in the last few centuries it has become considered more of a necessary evil. And if torture is actually on the wan worldwide, especially co-inciding with the rise of western civilization, then once again you have proven yourself to be completely full of shit.
Phoenician, you are, frankly the stupidest troll I have seen in over three years of reading blogs. “Waterboarding” is not drowning, you idiot. It is simulated drowning. And what happened at Abu Ghraib was not torture, and by Saddam’s standards couldn’t have even been described as abuse. Saddam put people into industrial shredders feet firt. He had peoples’ relatives killed, cut up and sent home in boxes with a bill for shipping.
You are truly an example of the most appalling moral relativism that is now the gold standard of the American Left. Congratulations, asshole.
Sorry. Miss Asshole.
If Phoenician thinks Abu Ghraib was torture, she should read aloud her own comment about torture.
We’ve come a long way since Alan Dershowitz advocated torture warrants.
Once you let the lawyers define the terms, you have lost the battle if not the war. There is an infinity of nuanced interpretations of definitions available to unprincipled lawyers (and there are more than enough to go around) to enable them to prove that any action that was taken is illegal. The sad thing is that this legal farce will result in US troops going to real jails and serving real time, while an unprincipled enemy continues to kill innocents and never had any intent of abiding by the Geneva Convention or any other constraining definition of the rules of land warfare.
Maybe it’s time for some introductory Cicero – Silent enim leges inter arma – “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
I frankly do not give a rip what the other side thinks about whether what our forces do is considered “torture.” Such notions are governed by the various Geneva Conventions, of which we are a signatory but our opposition is most assuredly not. My position is to use it all, start ripping fingernails, start stapling scrotums, start pissing in faces, do whatever is necessary, and let the chips fall where they may afterward. They always do, anyway, so why get all amped up about it now? It takes time and attention away from the task at hand.
That there are some in this nation (almost exclusively on the left side of the aisle) who have their panties perpetually in a wad over such notions as whether we address our captives on the battlefield in the Most Proper King’s English is depressing, but not surprising.
Hmm. Despite Phoenician’s tone of assumed moral superiority, I wouldn’t be quite so dismissive, Fresh.
In his book Morality, Bernard Williams expresses Phoenician’s point this way:
I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks, as a counterpoint to the failure of the letter of International Law to cover the situations involved in 21st-century transnational conflicts.
But I can’t quite get a grip on “moral currency.”
Currency is usually backed by something else of value (full faith and creidt, gold, etc.), and unless I identify that, Mr. Williams’ point remains merely provocative…
Someone said a society that exalts the philosopher but demeans the plumber is in big trouble, because neither its philosophies nor its plumbing will hold water.
Interogaters usually cross check information extracted, and reinterogate those who give them false information. To even suggest that the professionals are so stupid as to be led astray by a throwaway admission is presumptuous at least.
Back to my question: Why take prisoners? {I took 2 prisoners back in 1950]
It’s beyond me why their exists a debate about what constitutes torture, for deserving individuals, when mass torture by proxy e.g. sanctions against Iraq leading to starvation, disease, upholding a ruthless dictator and a host of other induced tortures was just fine.
As far as Congress goes – this is moral grandstanding pure and simple. Congress constantly engages in a zero-sum game of passing “good legislation†subsequently destroyed by another Congressional generation in the name of passing “good legislationâ€Â. At least everybody gets something to do.
Torture should be illegal, period. End of discussion. That’s it.
If truly exceptional circumstances exist–the ticking suitcase nuke in Manhattan–then there already legal defenses available. If the stakes are so high as to justify torture, then they should also be so high that the torturer is willing to risk the running afoul of the law.
If the torture was truly necessary and produced a good result, no jury would convict. And if the jury did convict, a Presidential pardon would be a slam-dunk.
If the torture wasn’t necessary and didn’t produce a good result, the person should go to jail.
Either we as a nation have a firm policy against torture, or we don’t. Saddam-lite isn’t Saddam, but it isn’t worthy of a great nation either.
And water-boarding IS torture under US law, as are many of the hijinks at Abu Ghraib that the torture fans like to snicker at.
Torture defined.
The path to victory in a battle of civilizational values does not lead through the Middle Ages.
America is better than that.
Damn, Geek, don’t you get dizzy chasing your tail like that?
OK, Geek, so of the 6 methods the CIA has used in interrogation, water-boarding is in your opinion torture. What about the other five—including sleep deprivation, disorientation, extreme temperature change. Torture?
No. They’re not torture.
They’re a significant step down from waterboarding.
I’m not saying that interrogators shouldn’t be able to call prisoners names or grab their collars or stuff like that.
At the same time, lines must be drawn.
Yes, I’ve seen this argument.
Our society supposedly can’t withstand the discussion about specifically constitutes torture and when it might be allowed. It is up to an individual in a stressful circumstance to define what society is unwilling to define.
To heroically perform an act that society finds abhorrent, dangerous, repulsive- but apparently wants at the exact right moment in history.
Sorry, I find that an abdication of thought and judgement.
Hey, Phoenician. That is a dopey appellation you have decided to give yourself. Carthage was famous mostly for child sacrifice.
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-god-stone.htm
What kind of people were the Carthaginians? One thing we know is that human sacrifice was a central element in Carthaginian (Phoenician) religion; their own children were regularly sacrificed to Baal: From contemporaries of the Punic Wars down to Pliny in the first, and Plutarch in the second century AD, we are told of the slaughter and incineration of the innocents, either annually as a matter of course, or occasionally, in gratitude for favours received, or at moments of danger to the city. Music drowned the wailing of the women; children were bought for the purpose from poor parents; the victims fell into the fire from the hands of a bronze idol, as their mouths were twisted by the heat into a ghastly grin…
Child sacrifice to an angry god. Just like the jihadis. Hey, maybe Phoenician is an appropriate appellation after all, if by that you mean, “Worthless child-sacrificing Middle Eastern culture getting stomped on by a superior Western force that had eventually gotten fed up.” Even if the Romans were brutal in proving the point, that does not change the fact that “Phoenicians” is a synonym for “biggest losers in human history.”
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention chemical interrogation. Have we ever actually spent any time on a serious truth serum? I know sodium pentothal is the old standard, but with the minds we have in the west, whats to stop us from coming up with something much better, thats completely harmless to the subject? That would obviate the need to have this ridiculous argument over torture ad infintium. Fact is, depending on the stakes, any and all interrogation techniques should be on the table. I seriously doubt anyone would veer away from doing whatever it took to get the info, if say the entire population of a major city was at risk. Sorry if I offended anyone, but reality is often pretty offensive.
You’ve got it exactly backwards.
I am arguing that society should draw a line. It should make it crystal-clear that water-boarding is torture and that torture is illegal.
Goldstein is arguing that the merits and definition of torture should be determined by individuals on an ad hoc basis. I am arguing that society should draw a line and forbid individuals to cross that line. Anyone torturing should do so at their own risk.
Cathy Young said, ”I think it’s a misconception that information can be extracted from prisoners only through interrogation techniques that include the infliction of physical suffering. Psychological manipulation can be quite effective in this regard.”
If the threat of physical suffering (or discomfort or whatever you want to call it) is taken off the table and the detainee knows this, how effectively can you then induce psychological manipulation? The single biggest factor in psychological manipulation is the fear of the unknown. Once you’ve eliminated the unknown, you’ve eliminated the effectiveness of any psychological manipulation.
PITR brings up a very valid point: what happens when the torture gets out of hand? Any small government libertarian type can appreciate the zeal with which officials use their powers creatively and sometimes over the line (Kelo.)
You really need to consider what happens if torturing starts heading down to low level guys, etc. So, I would suggest one way to handle this is to only allow certain facilities the right to do any exteme interrogation (and no torture.) These facilities will be limited in the number of people they can hold unless exceptions from a commission is made. That means you could only have 40 guys at one time being water-boarded (extreme case) and the system would easier to oversee. This means that the Abughraib asshats would NOT have the right to do anything close to torture, but we’d still reserve a “scary” place to use in case of threats being needed or even “ticking bomb” situations.
False Intel: Yes, you might get that with waterboarding. You might also get it from people without any torture at all. Any intel should be examined for verity.
May I suggest anyone wishing to discuss torture and our detainee policies to read “The Interrogators” which talks a lot about this in real world situations.
link
Interesting factoids: the best interrogator in the beginning was not an Aeab linguist but a big rough guy who scares people. the AQ types do not break easily, but there are some things that work. Threatening to send them to countries that do torture does. Hmmmmmmm.
That said, I think those countries use torture as a punishment rather than a interrogation tool. I bet it works very well as a punishment.
In the end, I would support everything that US forces have to go through, but waterboarding would be the very extreme edge and would have to have paperwork and special facilities. (Like it does now.)
Geek, your approach is sensible, and I’ll even agree with you in re waterboarding, tho the posters who note that we use the technique in training our own forces have a point.
But haven’t there been lines drawn? IIRC the Bush administration via the Justice dept, and also the Defense dept came up with some stds, according to which sleep deprivation, hand slaps, extremes of heat and cold were ok, severe physical suffering was out.
The response of many in the “anti-torture community” however, Andy Sullivan et al, is to brand these techniques torture, and try to shout everyone who disagrees down.
Jeez my writing sucks.
One other small note from the book: the AQ guys all knew what our limits were (or what they throught they were.) The 9/11 factor was used to make them think that some of those limits were gone and that was also useful. I’m sure they now know that the worst they will get is the red ink or the Israeli flag and 3 sqaures a day/
What happened in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere–let’s not pretend that it hasn’t been happening all over the place–is a direct result of the administration’s loosening of the policy towards torture.
Rules against torture and other mistreatments of prisoners are just that–rules. They are absolutely essential to maintaining discipline. Given the extraordinary pressures that people holding enemy detainees/prisoners experience, it is a recipe for disaster to treat torture as a matter of personal discretion.
Intelligence services and especially the military function as a hierarchy. Orders, rules, and laws are obeyed, not merely taken into account.
Treating something as basic as torture as an ad hoc determination erodes discipline. If whether you can torture someone isn’t an absolute certainty, why should wearing a uniform or holding a weapon or interacting with non-combatants be?
A lax approach to torture is bad for discipline, and has a corrosive effect on the torturer.
very easy: don’t take prisoners.
if you have to take prisoners, interview them on the battlefield and then shoot them as they escape.
or can always drop them off back in whatever territory they were found.
easy peasy
most important thing is to cut off the leaks and FOIA. keep all of these activities blacker than black, and, ideally, make it a crime for the left to go after these people.
Geek, I’ve seen you post intelligently here and elsewhere, so I’m not going to dismiss you as a troll. However, I still have to call bullshit on your claim that waterboarding is torture. You personally might consider it to be, but that doesn’t make it so.
As for myself, I’m in agreement with the theory that, if we’re willing to do something to our troops in training, it is by definition not torture. Example: There are some military schools I have encountered that engage in a exercise called “drownproofing”. What you do is take the student, in full BDUs (camo uniform), and bind their hands and feet. Then you throw them in the deep end of a swimming pool. Your job as student? Stay alive for the next 15 minutes.
Now, YOU might call that torture, and at the time it was happening I just might have agreed with you. But now, in a rational state of mind, I know it wasn’t. It is scary like you can’t imagine, and panic waits for you with fangs bared just around the corner, but with the proper mental attitude, you can handle it with little effort.
To my knowledge, a student has never been lost to drownproofing. I imagine that someone may have needed a little reviving at some point, but I’ve never heard of any permanent damage resulting.
So, what say you, Geek? Are we torturing our troops? Or are you calibrating “torture” to your own limitations and weaknesses? I mean no insult by that, sincerely. You only have your own experience to base your judgements on, as do I. But I think it would be bad practice to enshrine your definition of torture in law, with no regard for the actual limitations of the human mind and body.
To the people who have compared Jeff and the others to moral relativists and utilitarians: you don’t know what you are talking about. Moral relativism and utilitarianism are not the position that the morality of an act is relative to or dependent on the situation. Nearly everyone believes that.
Cutting someone open with a scalpel is bad if you do it for fun, and good if you do it for surgery; it’s relative. Punching someone in the nose is bad if you do it out of anger and good if you do it out of self-defense; it depends on the situation. Killing is bad if you do it out of greed but good if you do it to save someone’s life from a homicidal maniac. See a pattern here?
To extend the pattern: abusing someone with sleep deprivation, water boarding, threats, or whatever, is bad if you do it for the wrong reasons but good if you do it for good reasons. And saving people from homicidal maniacs is a good reason.
The only excused for disagreeing with any of these statements is that you are an absolutist or a puritan in certain areas. I could argue why that is a bad thing, but I don’t have to. I can just explain why, unless you are an absolutist in all areas, you are being inconsistent.
To see this, tell me which is worse to do to a person: killing him or water boarding him?
If you have trouble answering that, then let me ask you: if you have a choice between being killed or being water boarded, which would you chose? OK, good; glad we cleared that up.
Now, is it good to kill someone in order to prevent him from blowing up a busload of school kids? If you say “yes”, then how can it not be good to do something less extreme (like water boarding) to the same person for the same effect?
If you are not an absolutist pacifist and you are an absolutist against all kinds of prisoner abuse, then you are being morally inconsistent.
Geek,
Abu Ghraib was not sanctioned. It was several idiots abusing the prisoners.
Or do you think someone ordered Graner and Lind to have sex and take pictures of themselves, too?
(note those photos were never released – I guess their defense team didn’t like those.)
Also, please note these people were punished, so obviosuly they were NOT covered by some memo I am sure none of them read.
How do you square that with the premise that the stakes might be so high as to justify torture?
You are putting it on the individual to do what society would expect him to do, yet saying it is abhorrent for society to acknowledge in advance that it would be acceptable.
I say it is our responsibility as a society that, if we expect someone to heroically torture on our behalf, we admit it and set the legal conditions for it. Otherwise, we have to be willing to say “yes, I will let my children get blown up by a nuke in NY rather than let someone waterboard the guy who planted the bomb.”
We have to live, one way or the other, with the force of our convictions. Not hope someone else is willing to sacrifice themselves to save us against our own righteous judgement.
Okay. I’ll be serious. Briefly.
1) Announcing loudly to the world what we will and won’t do is foolish; there has to be some mystery, so that we can minipulate prisoners by injecting doubt that we are too “virtuous” to resort to torture.
2) On the whole, we’ve been very successful at using clever psychological manipulation rather than resorting to physical extremes. It’s important that this be our primary focus.
3) When in doubt, let the military–and the intel community–do their jobs without being micromanaged by legislators.
4) Real torture–and by that I mean the stuff our guys wouldn’t contemplate doing unless there WERE a “ticking time bomb” scenario–should remain illegal, and only be done in an extreme case, at the interrogator’s own risk. Otherwise, there is a slippery slope, morally speaking. The unspeakable cannot become routine. Ever.
5) Anything we do in training our own guys is fine.
6) With all due respect for his service, and for what he has endured, John McCain should STFU. No one will suffer, in American custody, what he went through. This is another one of his solutions in search of a problem.
If nobody has mentioned it yet, Scott Adams put up a joking post about torture techniques (mostly based on his recent deviated septum operation) and gets taken to the woodshed by the “we’re so serious” crowd.
It’s hysterical.
I looked at the picture of the people on the top floors of the WTC deciding whether to burn or jump to their deaths. There is nothing I would not do to the enemy to prevent a repeat.
You know, what most of the discussion about torture leaves out is that there is no external process to define a chain of responsibility (check) on the interrogator. It also doesn’t specify how an interrogator might elevate his or her intensity of interrogation.
For instance, why on earth would we put some eighteen year-old mujahadeen who hadn’t been more than 100 miles from his home village before the free ride to Gitmo through any of this stuff if all intel points to the fact that he was just a gun.
On the other hand, if you capture the guy who all of your intelligence points to as being a key planner and money guy, what is the right way to elevate the intensity of interrogation? The next argument is where do we stop?
Listen, I’m with the guy who said anything that US Military uses on soldiers ought to be fair game there. It seems most of us agree that dismemberment, disfigurement, or other forms of intense physical pain (and death, or the credible threat thereof) ought not be used on the subject of the interrogation (or others as a form of psychological manipulation of the subject) unless the subject is thought to hold key information that would lead to preventing a known (through multiple different types of sources) ticking nuke situation.
My point is that if there were not so much perceived political gain in kicking the DoD in the nuts about this, the standards and review processes that were ALREADY IN PLACE would handle all of this.
<rant>
So are we really having an argument about whether loud music, sleep deprivation, and aggressive women, and mind altering chemicals are torture? ‘Cause I have fond memories of that life.
Seriously. If a man’s ego be so fragile that being stripped naked and piled in a pyramid be life-destroying, I don’t think that the US is the cause of the problem. Which brings me to my last point that most of the guys we’re talking about (like 99+%) were not normal, well-adjusted people, ripped off the street. I’m so glad that some people feel deeply sympathetic to the plight of murderous, mysogynistic, cultists.
I’m glad I live in a country rich and decadent enough that we can actually entertain this discussion.
</rant>
Let me assure all of you that waterboarding works…like a mutherfucker. I have waterboarded people and have been waterboarded myself and the “distress” that results is immediate and extreme and as a result, the duration of a successful “session” need only last a few seconds. If it is used early in the process of interrogation (like right after a long bound and blindfolded ride in a plane) and performed by a large number of angry looking frogmen (to exponetially increase the intimidation factor) you will get immediate and truthful answers to questions you know the guy has the answer to. Like, “Where is…?” or “Who was with you in…?” Questions like, “Explain the communications network of senior AQ leadership nodes.” are not really for the waterboard. Once broken in this way, it is easier to set up a privilege for info positive reinforcement system. The first privilege being freedom from having 5 angry dudes holding you down and jamming a hose in your face with your t-shirt over your head.
Well put Doc. I think everyone who is civilized would consider torture a bad thing. The real question is should be completely ban it no matter the circumstances, and thats were the idealists clash with the realists. Torture to inflict punishment/deter bahavior is bad. Torture to find out the location of a freaking homemade nuke, is definately the lesser of evils. It really all depends on whats at stake. Techniques like waterboarding, shame, playing on fears, sleep/sensory deprivation, or anything else that does little to no physical harm should definately always be on the table.
Just as a data point, I used to work with someone who had been subjected to the tender mercies of the KGB. He says that, beyond any doubt, the drugs are far worse than the physical pain.
Debates like this are interesting and necessary but, in the end, purely academic because the only policy that makes any sense is one that, circumstantially, takes nothing off the table.
An interrogator will tell you that the success of his interrogation is largely dependent on those being questioned believing he is capable of anything.
Jeff Medcalf:
I can read your statement several different ways. Is he raising a moral objection, or literally saying that the drugs cause more intense physical suffering than the physical techniques discussed here (or worse ones than that, from what I’ve read of the KGB)?
Froggy: Wow. Off-topic, hope you enjoyed your weekend.
Doc—
As I’m the only commenter here who’s mentioned utilitarianism, I must tell you – you need to read more carefully. I didn’t “compare” anyone or any position to utilitarianism.
I brought up Bernard Williams’ suggestion that basing actions on the worst that others may do means that you, yourself, may end up doing more “decidedly nasty” things than you otherwise would have, and that the total situational consequences will be significantly worse than if you had taken the moral “high ground.”
Your comments in response to this idea don’t make any sense, mainly because you’re conflating “right and wrong” with “good and bad.” The former is situational (call it “correct and incorrect”); the latter references an absolute standard.
That is: it’s never a good thing to cause suffering. If something is good, you enjoy it. It’s pleasurable. So who wants to say that causing suffering is good?
Sometimes, though, it’s the right thing to do. E.g., killing a Nazi guard to escape a concentration camp with your family, or the oft-mentioned “hidden nuke” scenario.
To illustrate the difference: think of the reward Islamofascist jihadis are promised for deliberately causing death and suffering: entrance to Paradise. Salvation itself.
That’s because causing death and suffering to the infidel is defined as a good in reference to an absolute (the will of Allah).
What is supposed to differentiate us is the concept of “regrettable necessity.” War is not good. Death is not good. Torture is not good.
That doesn’t mean that in some situations war, death, and torture are not the right course of action.
Thus, you can be an absolutist with regard to what a “good act” entails; while recognizing that committing a “bad act” is the right course of action.
If I give you heroin, is that a good or a bad thing? You may enjoy it temporarily, but it can also lead to a host of negative health effects, as it’s not necessarily healthy for you. Objectively it’s a mixed bag in the long run; a temporary sense of pleasure that’s part of a long-developed evolutionary process refined to deal with situations highly unlike our modern world, and therefore ultimately deceptive.
If you are a heroin addict and I force you into a detoxification program, is that a good or a bad thing? (&c)
I have no confidence in my fully thought out moral theories and won’t inflict them on this audience, but here are a few quick points on the search for possible workable definitions of torture.
First: the definition in law that Geek links to would seem to be useful as a starting point, except that there are qualifying words and phrases that make it too much a matter of interpretation. My impression was that we were looking for something more specific. It also forbids threatening to do things that are forbidden by the law, which seems perfectly acceptable to me.
(Note also that it would seem to forbid ‘truth serums’, since if someone will tell their deepest secrets under their influence it is arguable that their personality has been disrupted. That seems an excessive restriction to me.)
Second: some people have proposed that ‘permanent’ physical damage be the benchmark – but that would mean that good clean bone breaks and dislocations and so on were OK. Can we do anything as long as the damage can be repaired? That’s a pretty long list.
Finally, many are doubtful that mental abuse or ‘humiliation’ can be a proper standard. But remember that rape, per se, does no physical damage, permanent or otherwise. I would consider rape to be a form of torture.
From the declassified CIA manual on coercive interrogation:
“The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain. In fact, most people underestimate their capacity to withstand pain. The same principle holds for other fears: sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened. “In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance.” (18)
The effectiveness of a threat depends not only on what sort of person the interrogatee is and whether he believes that his questioner can and will carry the threat out but also on the interrogator’s reasons for threatening. If the interrogator threatens because he is angry, the subject frequently senses the fear of failure underlying the anger and is strengthened in his own resolve to resist. Threats delivered coldly are more effective than those shouted in rage. It is especially important that a threat not be uttered in response to the interrogatee’s own expressions of hostility. These, if ignored, can induce feelings of guilt, whereas retorts in kind relieve the subject’s feelings.”
…
Everyone is aware that people react very differently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not a physical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself. Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, “The sensation of pain seems to be roughly equal in all men, that is to say, all people have approximately the same threshold at which they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli are applied to them, their estimates of severity are approximately the same….
Yet… when men are very highly motivated… they have been known to carry out rather complex tasks while enduring the most intense pain.” He also states, “In general, it appears that whatever may be the role of the constitutional endowment in determining the reaction to pain, it is a much less important determinant than is the attitude of the man who experiences the pain.”
Different situations and subjects call for different measures, but nothing should be taken off the table. It is self-defeating.
Geek’s comments demonstrate just how the discussion of torture is used dishonestly when he makes the false claim linking Abu Ghraib with the administration’s policies.
As long as the discussion is so manipulated by BSD sufferers like Geek, it cannot be seriously discussed.
I agree that when we’re forced to sit through the fifth-grade-essay-level, “What is torture? Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘torture’ as…” we’ve reached perhaps the lowest intellectual point possible in any discussion, and yet there’s apparently a lot of incentive to keep digging lower. The dictionary reference begs the question, and in fact is a red herring since we’re talking about what is specifically legal and not legal, and what is specifically moral and immoral. IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong–and in fact everything right about trying to find the absolute specific boundaries of what constitutes what, even though adamant anti-Bush folks find that splitting hairs and trying to legaleese your way through abhorrent behavior. But the reality is without such clear and absolute guidelines you’re stuck in the limbo of, what degree of pressure actually does violate a general term, when this varies from person to person, from situation to situation. Ultimately going by the mundane dictionary definition is arbitrary at best for this reason.
Is torture worse than being dead?
If you can’t agressively interogate prisoners for information they are useless or worse.
Probably worse – you have to feed them, find places to hold them. And even more importantly, have to deal with the constant agiprop of leftists domestic and international, or legalists who fail to see that these people weren’t picked up by police looking for evidence, but captured on a battlefied.
<style torture Lefties envision us perpetrating are in fact far from what is actually being done <i>for the simple reason that there are easier, less harmful methods that are more effective.</i>
I’m sure Miss Asshole won’t get it, but Geek, you should know better than to claim without proof that (a) the Bush Administration has “lessened” the nation’s standards on torture and (b) that this somehow had a causal effect with respect to the sadist/freaks from the National Guard on the night shift at Abu Ghraib.
Talk about non sequiturs.
APF–
Your issue is with the concept of “good and bad,” not with my comments.
Add to the front of the last post “medieval-style torture”. Typing too fast.
IWood:
Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I didn’t intend to argue against the Williams quote, only against the idea that taking the circumstances into account when judging whether an action is good or bad is a form of utilitarianism. If you weren’t making that connection, then my statement doesn’t apply to you.
As to Williams: when you consider how it will effect you to respond to the worst actions of others in a certain way, you also need to consider how it will effect you and others to not respond in that way.
Finally, I find your comments on my use of the words “good” and “bad” tendentious. The terms can be used as you describe but they can also be –and very often are– used in the way I used them: to express a moral judgment. According to this usage, to say that something is right is no different than to say that it is good.
At the link Matt provided, Scott Adams says:
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. In the past few weeks I have been subjected to some modern medicine, and it occurred to me that these routine, not-at-all-torture procedures just might come in handy down in Gitmo.
All in the name of good health, of course.
The only reason y’all are having this enjoyable chat is that the US has not been attacked since 911.
As far as terrorists go, there shold be no rules of engagement and no quarter given. All of the moral “relativism” comes from latte swilling idiots who view the current situation as a game where it is more important to play according to Hoyle rather than win.
Actually you were talking about doing things which may make someone suffer, and saying that’s never “good.” You asked, “So who wants to say that causing suffering is good?” And I answered.
JPS, he was speaking literally, but I do not believe he meant that the drugs cause more intense physical suffering, just more intense suffering.
“What happened in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere–let’s not pretend that it hasn’t been happening all over the place–is a direct result of the administration’s loosening of the policy towards torture.”
Geek, the “loosening of policy” that you refer to was the justice dept, dept of defence, and cia allowing for precisely the interrogation methods that you yourself aknowledged are not torture, and banning other more physical and dangerous methods.
You asked for standards, they provided standards, standards which, with the exception of the water-boarding, you don’t object to.
Frankly, I don’t see what your problem is,unless, as someone pointed out above, this is all just b.d.s.
All this reminds me of the debates we had about so-called hazing at the military college I attended many years ago. The liberals were always in a lather about it. We cadets generally agreed that physical abuse was out of bounds, but some of the liberals went so far as to claim that even raising our voice to new cadets, and even using four-letter words, was hazing. The problem then, as now with torture, is that when you let the other side decide when they’re satisfied, you’ll always lose due to shifting goalposts.
Regarding exquisitely detailed definitions of torture, I prefer a path similar to our stated use of nuclear weapons: “sometimes, a little ambiguity is useful.” Somtimes, you don’t want the other side to know exactly where the line is, because that in itself can be a form of deterrence.
I agree with Jeff—we have enough laws on the books already, and we shouldn’t let the debate hinge on the actions of a few who went over the edge in their handling of detainees. You can’t legislate away idiocy.
Still getting back to torture and straightforward definitions, I think Byrd got it closest to what I wanted to say. If it would not reasonably lead to death, permanent disfigurment, or impair the interrogees mental or physical ability to return to a normal life, then it should be on the table *if* the situation warrants it. (Tangent: Just what situations warrant extreme measures?)
Some form of carefully controlled hierarchy of authority for escalating the techniques *has* to exist to keep the use of these techniques to a bare minimum, and to deal with unauthorized abuses harshly.
This is solely a problem in perception.
Those who would rather divine “torture” as unacceptable in all forms can’t reconcile that the world beyond their confined, immediate perception and logic is inherently dangerous. They would also refuse to believe that harm would ever come to them as long as they would have the ‘opportunity’ to discuss the problem with the enemy. And, let’s face it, they also don’t believe there are ‘enemies.’
Such arguments survive only within an environment typically free of violent behaviours. There is never a ‘winner’ in such an environment as it just seems to be a never-ending stream of invective language back-and-forth between parties trying to ‘prove’ to the other side that they are correct and the other side is not.
The tune would change if those espousing ‘no more torture’ were indeed subjected to the vile acts perpetrated by those wishing to do them harm.
Simple translation:
Not everyone “thinks logically” as you do- and you won’t get them to change their minds about you.
It’s not a civil world out there.
Grow up.
Himmler, Posen, 1943
This whole issue has bothered me for a long time, so without even reading any of the comments (which I will get to right after this), I can say I have not talked to anybody, left or right on the political spectrum, who has not said they would do whatever had to be done if their family was in mortal danger.
Unfortunately, those on the left who wouldn’t hesitate to pull fingernails to protect their families do not think that ANY discomfort should be visited on those who would kill their fellow citizens. Their main point seems to be (in my words): “A meal of chateaubriand and a bottle of Kristal is the way to go. If they still don’t talk, a French hooker should do the trick.”
The Dems and the MSM have produced a scenario in which the terrorists will just go away if we ignore them, or if we are nice to them if we can’t. What do you say to people who are that profoundly ignorant? I certainly don’t know, because every time I try to explain what I see going on, I lose most Americans after the second sentence.
I think the Dems are getting so much traction because they have condensed it all down to five words. “Bush is a lying Chimp”. What kind of debate can you have with people who tune out after five words? Not much of one, I’ve noticed…
Torture, smorture. I say go as Sizemore on the SOBs as necessary. Anything short of cutting heads will work.
Doc–
Well, yes. That’s just repeating what he said:
However, that doesn’t answer his conclusion:
As for
Of course it’s tendentious. I’m making an argument!
The distinction I’m making is akin to that made by theologian James F. Keenan:
The “goodness” portion of this equation does not lend itself to torture. It’s an ideal. It’s not necessarily practical. The “rightness” portion is practical. It has an end: overall betterment of the world through action.
This is the difference between the outraged Leftist who is in total ignorance of the situation on the ground while screaming that we’re “just like Saddam,” and the soldier in Iraq who is completely immersed in that situation while confronting prisoners who have triggered IEDs like the one that blew up three of his buddies the day before.
The issue is not whether Good/Bad and Right/Wrong are moral judgements. They are both types of moral judgements.
The issue is which pair is more important to us as a nation.
And if you think it’s an academic difference, just remember: the jihadis are motivated by the Good/Bad pair, as aligned with this wishes of their god.
The key difference is that the soldiers know that the government isn’t going to kill them in training. Someone being waterboarded doesn’t know that. That’s why it works so effectively.
APF
So you’re saying that heroin is good. Fine. I’m not inclined to argue the point; that’s your business.
Abu Ghraib happened because of a complete loss of discipline. However, the ideas and techniques were imported from Gitmo. They took things several steps further at Abu Ghraib, but Lyndie England and Chuckie Graner didn’t come up with the idea of sexually humiliating Arab men.
Has anyone considered the fact that “torturing” terrorist detainees is an alternative to (using an extreme example) carpet bombing the cities they hide in?
Sorry, all. Had to go shopping for Thanksgiving supplies.
A few things. First, Geek has completely misstated my position, which is surprising, because he’s usually a more careful reader.
He writes:
Actually, I’m not arguing that at all, and am arguing something closer to your idea of a line, though I don’t think waterboarding crosses it.
Here’s what I wrote:
Then later I wrote:
These arguments are exactly the opposite of the one Geek ascribes to me.
APF best articulates my position here:
The problem I had with arguments like those my by Cathy and others is that they rely on a definition of torture that begs the question; Geek is guilty of the same thing when he condemns waterboarding as torture—when the question we are trying to decide is, what exactly IS torture, and how do individual techniques jibe with that definition.
I think torture should be defined narrowly and specifically; and even once we decide, I don’t think we should advertise what it is we’re willing to do.
The administration was actively seeking exceptions to the torture rule. Dick Cheney still wants the CIA to be able to torture people.
The values and approach an organization’s leadership takes certainly flows downhill.
I’m using the definition of torture as enacted by the democratically-elected representatives of the American people. This isn’t some trivial or thoughtless screed a blog poster spewed out. I daresay that the consideration that went into that determination likely exceeded by several orders of magnitude the discussion here.
How do you do that without hiding that same information from the American people, their representatives, and the courts? Are you suggesting that Congress shouldn’t be in the business of making policy like this?
Regarding figuring out what torture is, a multi-layered approach is appropriate.
The first layer should, nay must, be based on statute and treaty. Those are the supreme law of the land. That language needn’t cover every possible technique that interrogators can imagine, but it needs to establish moral and practical guidelines.
The next layer should be professional intelligence and military experts who know how traumatic various kinds of techniques are, and are generally the best experts at what works, what causes needless suffering, and what is acceptable.
That framework has been in place. Where things have gone wrong is when the political leadership in the executive branch wants to start loosening the bolts a little.
It’s no coincidence that the strongest resistance to the Bush administration’s attempts to rewrite the rules regarding detainees have come not from the ACLU or Amnesty International, but the brave and principled officers in the JAG corps.
You miss the point. I think the definition to which you refer—along with the one to which I linked—rely too much on abstractions which by their nature are too subjective. Which is why I’d like a more narrow and more specific definition.
Because once we have a very narrowly defined benchmark for torture—one that doesn’t rely on as many abstractions as “anguish,” then everything below that threshold is fair game. Which leaves open a lot of unpredictability.
Above that benchmark you are into the narrowly defined realm of torture, and at that point, you are on your own—like CIA ops operating in the field out of uniform.
I should add, too, that attempts to “loosen bolts” or “rewrite rules” is a recognition that the stakes are higher when you are dealng with an enemy that is not tied to a government or a specific country’s military—and when you are facing the prospects of an attack with much more virulent weapons.
[…] behind Obama’s remarkable and unconscionable buckling to his far-left base on the issue of potential “torture” prosecutions: I think it’s a terrible error for a couple of reasons. One of […]