The ongoing debate on torture has been often been characterized by an intensity of passion entirely appropriate to such an ethically precarious subject. In the midst of this discussion, there have been a few, arguably well-intentioned, rhetorical over-extensions that are worth exploring in some more detail. In particular, the question of whether or not any given kind of torture is morally or ethically equivalent to any other given form of torture.
To make one thing clear right here, right this instant – this is not a post about the legalities of torture. This is not about “what would really happen in the field.†It’s not about Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Guantanamo, Vietnam or Nazis or whatever. This is not about what other nations think of us and whether or not we give a damn.
This is about right and wrong, and how we tell the difference. How do we think about torture, and how to think through the underlying principles that inform that debate?
For those with an interest in digging down into the substrate, there are some excellent resources on the question, including the archive at George Washington University, as well as this Entire Friggin’ Blog (when I compare this post to that blog, it’s like comparing a candle to the sun, or an anorexic to Michael Moore). I had originally intended to dig back into the original Yoo memo and find the six coercive interrogation techniques under debate. I didn’t find exactly what I was looking for, but can refer you to none other than… me! In this post at Protein Wisdom, I debated about a number of things in terms of the call for Rumsfeld to resign, not least of which is torture, where I cited six techniques, and like a good scholar didn’t link to the original source (which I can’t seem to find right now):
- The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
- Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
- The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
- Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
- The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
- Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
In any case, there is some merit in arguing that all torture is ethically equivalent – after all, we generally regard all violent rape of infants to be equivalently abhorrent, regardless of the heinousness of any specific act of rape. Extending this to torture would imply that, saying “Well, it was just waterboarding†shouldn’t get you some sort of pass simply because you weren’t saying “And then we beheaded the Jew.â€Â
Another other premise that seems to occasionally animate debate on torture is the marked unwillingness to say that one given harsh technique, while distasteful, is not torture, while another technique is torture.
The combination of these two points of view yields a difficult situation. Let’s, for sake of argument, rank coercive interrogation methods on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being shaking a finger at someone in a reproachful fashion, while 10 is a Hanoi Hilton beating. Now, let’s say that, on this scale, waterboarding rates a 7 on this scale. We can reasonably argue that an item rated 10 is essentially as evil or spiritually corrosive as an item ranked 7. This would imply then, reasonably, that a method ranked at 6, not being that much worse than 7, should also be considered torture. We apply this logic recursively, all the way down, and find that (eventually) speaking to an inmate in any way that causes them to reveal information is morally equivalent to some twisted, nightmarish vision out of Mengele’s dreams.
This is a classical slippery slope argument, but if we maintain no method of discerning that a given approach is or is not torture, then we end up either making graphic and horrific torture perfectly acceptable, or that anything, including the detention of terrorists is torture.
So, one of the two premises must be suspect: either all torture is morally equivalent, or we must have a workable means of separating the distasteful from torture.
Consider: Would Daniel Pearle rather have had someone grab the front of his shirt and forcefully grabs the front of his shirt and shake him, or would he have preferred to be beheaded?
Provisionally, I don’t think we can consider all torture to be ethically equivalent – in other words, some forms of torture are worse than others.
Thus, a strictly rules-based ethical methodology doesn’t seem to be universally applicable (at least in the fairly circumspect solution space around the cusp at which the distasteful edges over into anathema). There are, generally speaking, two other methodologies than can be applied to this sort of ethical question – a utilitarian school, and a “Golden Rule†approach.
First, the “Golden Rule†approach – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – I think I can, for the most part live with the six techniques I point out above. That’s kind of a personal call, but I don’t imagine that if any one of those techniques had been applied to a US soldier, that the phrase “torture†would have been the first to spring to mind.
Secondly, we have the question of whether or not the good outweighs the benefit. I think we can imagine a calculus in which we might do something distasteful, but short of torture, given a sufficiently robust threat. In this case, I think we run into danger for a number of reasons. First among them is that we apply a method based on a supposition of what the guy knows, which may or may not be a correct estimation. Thus, we might start cutting off digits, and then magically find that the guy is really is just some dude wearing a bear suit and hanging around the Pentagon for no good reason.
I think it is pretty clear that this is a bad outcome and is ethically untenable (although one can argue about the practical elements), and can’t be quickly just swept under the rug with the “collateral damage†broom.
So, going back to the six reference techniques outlined above, it becomes interesting to note that the waterboarding is universally successful.
I can’t vouch in a meaningful way for whether or not it is a “severe†mental or physical stress. And regardless of whether or not I’ve been subjected to it, I don’t feel that I can speak to the broader “reasonable man†as to whether or not it is severe. One can certainly argue that anything that never fails to elicit cooperation is, by definition, stressful.
However, taken a different way, would the person – let’s say, 2 hours later – be substantially different, physically or mentally, other than having a marked aversion to being waterboarded again. If not, was the experience sufficiently severe to have been torture?
Put another way, when looking at the entire universe of techniques which will inevitably never fail to produce an answer, are any of those methods not torture?
Can we think – even with a science fiction magic black box that can produce anything of which we can conceive – of a gadget or process that would generate sufficient distress, discomfort, agitation, confusion, sympathy, anger, or whatever that it would always, in the end, produce a truthful confession? Are any of the magical methods we can conceive of axiomatically not torture?
I’ve been stuck here for a bit – there are a lot of different ways to go with this, but something did strike me – is that when were looking at the question of how to define what is and isn’t torture, one of the operative questions is whether or not the definition of torture is a functionally usable definition. In other words, we simply can’t say that “being icky†is a sufficiently rigorous definition, we have to have something that’s at least amenable to a litmus test. And the concept of something that is so fiendishly stressful that it will never fail to get someone to talk is certainly appealing in the stark logical clarity it would lend to such a definition.
Cross-posted at Anticipatory Retaliation.
So Protein Wisdom has become another group flog?
So sad.
I don’t know how to even start this discussion. Items one, two and three (if you substitute ass for belly) of your list were considered routine discipline in my childhood, and I don’t consider myself to have been abused, much less tortured. I pretty much just consider torture to be another word that has lost its meaning these days.
Let me be clear that my comment is not intended to denigrate BRD or detract from his post. I’m just disappointed at what PW’s become, compared to what it was.
Nothing against Jeff, either. I know what it’s like to have Real Life intervene.
Are we talking about acts committed against anyone in U.S. custody, or just people who have been found guilty of terrorism?
Yet, you still felt compelled to comment.
So sad.
I think deciding on a definition for torture is like defining great art.
Very difficult to define, but you know it when you see it.
I see none of your six examples as torture.
I’ve written a host of posts on this subject. For those interested, do a site search for “on torture.”
Here’s one I picked at random from that search list.
You’re not really that dense, are you?
Maybe, lee.
This issue gets clouded. I’m still not sure what’s being advocated here.
Should the U.S. waterboard anyone in its custody?
Or just people who have been found guilty of terrorism?
Simple question…
Dubious either / or there monkyboy.
For those who are so caught up with context and nuance, you seem to think others are unable to use those particular deliminating factors in making decisions about interrogation. Even though that’s their job.
I thought specialization and technocratic advance was a hallmark of leftist thinking.
For context, the question you pose, Monkyboy, is irrelevant in terms of the post. Whether or not a given act is sufficiently brutal to be considered torture has no bearing on the legal status of the victim for the purposes of this discussion.
Or to put it another way, we routinely waterboard members of the military and intelligence communities as a part of their training, so, according to your argument waterboarding a terrorist suspect in Gitmo is not torture, which essentially negates the purpose of the philosophical exercise in asking about the ethical ramifications involved.
BRD
The difference between someone on “your side” showing you how waterboarding works…and actually being waterboarded to extract information from you are two entirely different things…
Akin to the difference between consensual sex and rape.
I was just asking a simple question…
The U.S. should be able to waterboard anyone?
or
The U.S. should be able to waterboard convicted terrorists?
Which position are you advocating?
No, I’m sorry, you’re still barking up the wrong tree, as you’re verging on the obligation of the nation-state to protect its citizens in, what is at least at first glance, three different ways, and the implications of these obligations to decision making with regards to what is or is not tolerable.
Let me give you the short version: is the effectiveness of a given method prima facie evidence of torture? More broadly, what is the relationship between effectiveness, brutality, and permissibility? Or, in this context is effectiveness, in and of itself, sufficient to make a determination of permissibility?
BRD
Yes, that occured to be also.
However, the reason I questioned the proximity of molecules that constitute the sluggish pink matter between your ears is that you failed, as BRD pointed out above, to consider the question as posed.
Please, for a moment, forget whatever petty agenda you are trying to advance, carefully read the second paragraph of this post, and then try and honestly respond to THIS thread, instead of trying to steer it towards what you want to talk about.
Not to mention that using consensual sex versus rape, while an apt analogy, fails in the fact that the analogy itself doesn’t clarify or make the core debate any more lucid.
Well,
Can you really consider this outside the context it will be practiced?
Execution is allowed in certain circumstances, but it would be considered murder under others.
I don’t think most Americans would think it’s okay for the cops to waterboard their children if they were jaywalking…
So, I’m asking…
Convicted terrorists or anyone?
It must suck to go through life that fucking stupid.
I’m not asking that you consider it outside the context it will be practiced, but rather the opposite: I’m asking you to consider it within the actual context of the decision making parameters of interrogation experts rather than within the context of “convicted” vs. “anyone”. After all, we don’t hold trials for certain battlefield captures unless we’re hoping to convict them of something—generally, something we know they are guilty of simply by dint of the how, when, where and why of their capture.
You seem to believe nuance only works one way, Monkybody, and you refuse to allow the US military and or CIA capable of it.
You are that dense!
OK, here’s your context.
Aggressive interrogation is required due to a time critical issue involving public safety.
It is unclear if the person holding the information is a citizen, or a civilian. (That is a couple of the pieces of info sought.)
Are you good now?
Need anything else, like are they dem or republican?
Offhand, I can’t think of any society that had self-monitoring “interrogation experts” that America would want to model itself after.
Just so we’re clear what we’re discussing…here’s what the Geneva Convention prohibits:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
What is all this convicted shit monkeybrain? If W, while he’s listening in on Mohamed’s satellite phone call to Akmed, hears Mo tell Ak “we had more than enough plutonium so we sent you two packagesâ€Â, I would hope that the first thing out of his mouth is not, “Do we have enough to convict Mo on attempted evil doing?â€Â. I would hope someone has the sense to get all Marathon Man on Mr. Mohamed. Fast.
Since terrorists (people that murder innocent children and then shout, “Allahu Akbarâ€Â, people that saw off innocent reporters heads and then shout, “Allahu Akbar†– you know – terrorists) seem to be hip to our eavesdropping methods (thank you MSM) they rarely openly communicate their specific intentions when talking to each other via public carriers (the airwaves, satellites, camel dung smoke signals (if they are using their own technology)…).
So if our analysts say they think Mr. Mohamed knows something about the goings on of a group of people known to be terrorists (see above), I would hope to hell somebody would have the gumption to slap Mo’s tummy or maybe even pour some water on him while he rides a see-saw to see if he might tell us something about what the terrorists are up to. I really don’t care if it’s a “ticking bomb†situation or not.
Anybody that would feel better about themselves after some explody-dope took out a school bus of third-graders because we don’t “torture†people is an immoral piece of crap.
Plus they ain’t got a hair in their ass.
Monkyboy,
Let’s, for the sake of argument, stipulate that there are a number of variables that play into whether or not a given interrogation method is beyond the pale or not, such as legal status, brutality of the method employed, criticality of the information in question, and so on.
In aggregate the basic question of whether or not a given method is beyond the pale is super complex. What I am trying to figure out, as a first step in addressing the broader general question, is what are the ethical ground rules.
While we can talk about whether a given technique is applicable for a specific time and place, it does occur to me that there may be methods that are, despite any other context, just too much. The question then turns into one of “How do we know that?” and “what is the underpinning that informs that response?”
I certainly don’t buy into the notion that there is always a situation in which a technique is axiomatically justified, but I’m trying to figure the basic parameters which inform that decision.
BRD
Fair enough, BRD.
But at least admit that most people who support these acts beleive they are only being carried out on “terrorists.”
In reality, the U.S. government has inflicted them, and far worse methods, on innocents.
Here’s the basic premise that informs the decision, and the source for this is the Geneva Conventions. In quick and simple terms it’s the Golden Rule.
Throughout the GC, a recurring theme is that those who fall into a beligerant’s power should be afforded accomodation in a manner at least as good as those their own armed forces have/receive.
In this case, though not expressly stated or required by the GC, it seems a simple and reasonable matter to apply it thus. Especailly in the absense of any meaning full guidance in the CG, or in our own jurisprudence.
Concretely then, so long as the US is willing to waterboard it’s own troops (as in training) and would not make claims of torture if a member of our armed forces being taken prisoner were waterboarded, then waterboarding is okay.
If we would shrink from doing it our own, or if we would protest when done to one of our own then we are and should be prohibited from doing it others.
So as long as the Taliban are willing to send their men out on suicide missions…the Geneva Convention says they can execute any of our soldiers they capture legally?
Moronboy –
You have just described Islamo-Nazis.
You might enjoy living inside your tiny little brain, but most of the rest of us have real lives to live, and families to think about. And, yes, we’re all with tyou on giving terrorists a dinner of filet mignon and Crystal and then politely asking them if they would please answer a few questions.
It sounds to me like you have some anger problems with your own upbringing. I think the “boy” part of your moniker is quite apt,
Oh, and one more thing, M-boy
Terrorists and spies are specifically excluded from the GC.
DOH!
well, first off, they would need a country. and uniforms.
Not quite maggie,
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…
We signed it…and it was also made law in the U.S. by a separate act of Congress.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
I had high hopes for this post. The original topic was something I have been mulling over and I was genuinely interested in hearing what some of the folks here thought about it. Then monkyboy drags it out in the yard and shits all over it. If I had a dog that acted like that I would shoot the sonuvabitch.
Just sayin’.
Certainly a Hanoi Hilton beating cannot be a 10. Having read accounts of keelhauling and such in books by James Mitchner, Steven King, Mario Puzo, William Goldman, and others we have examples of much more painful treatments. “Is it Safe?”
But the most horrific example I’ve read was in an obscure novel regarding a battle between two tribes of Indians. The captured subject, not willing to tell his opponents the location of his comrades, was strug up to a tree. His belly was slit open and his intestines were pulled out and placed in a pot of water. A fire was built under the pot. As the water warmed he began to talk. That’s a 9.9!
Go back to September 10, 2001. To prevent the 911 WTC attack, how many of us would say NO to this?
Of course monkybot goes off on its own tangent – it is programmed to do so, it cannot do otherwise. All it can do is attempt to steer the discussion to its topic – the United States government has tortured innoccent people in the past and henceforth cannot ever be allowed to interrogate anyone for it will commit more torture.
Such being the case, monkybot is a useless waste of anyone’s time.
The question is very simple: are any of the examples one through six given in the post torture? If you say it is torture, why do you say that?
I do not believe that any of those techniques are torture. Why? Bcause none of those techniques will leave permanent physical damage to the recipiant, and I also do not believe that any of those techniques will leave permanent mental damage to the recipiant.
Agreed, Mikey NTH.
These methods have been developed and deployed, it seems to me, precisely because they mimic fear of torture without actually causing lasting injury.
As I noted in previous posts on the subject, defining torture downward to include such things as assaults on personal dignity and the like—things that are completely subjective and, oftentimes, supposedly culturally-specific (which contingency makes them perfect for cynical dodging, eg., “no bombing on Ramadan!”)—does nothing but weaken the force of the word torture, and so consequently weaken the charge.
Those who shriek loudest about every interrogation technique—including and especially those devised to mimic torture without inflicting lasting harm—are therefore responsible, ironically, for charges of torture losing their force.
And of course there is precedent for this kind of semantic dilution: the charge of racism used to mean something; same with charges of misogyny. Now, people realize how loosely and easily those terms are bandied about and simply don’t take them quite as seriously anymore (except for the PC crowd, who have forced themselves into the corner of having to take every such charge seriously, or at least pretending to do so, though they know very well how ridiculous and cynically motivated most of those charges are).
Words matter. And so long as people like Andrew Sullivan suggest that any offense to the sensibilities of captives is torture, the more likely it is that “torture” will become a meaningless term.
Define the term in concrete ways; open-ended, subjective definitions as broad as those we’ve been hearing from G3 do more harm than good.
This is what I am interested in, developing some sort of objective definition of torture as a starting point. It does no good trying to debate when and where and on who it is justified if you can’t agree on what it is. This seems a good starting point:
Permanent physical damage is an easily defined parameter. How would you assess permanent mental damage and would the degree matter? I personally wouldn’t have a problem if the subject were left with a mild case of paranoia, for example.
B Moe, I cannot myself define permanent mental damage, but I know it when I see it. That should be left to a professional who can describe that. I would suggest asking Dr. Sanity or any of the other psychbloggers for their opinions.
Assaults on personal dignity? Ah. Well, in my youth we called that “an average day in junior high.”
I consider depriving someone of freedom to be the penultimate torture. Because most people do not submit to imprisonment voluntarily there is a component of coercion to every jailing. Coercion is further used to enforce jail rules and to punish violence against guards. It is from there but a small step to coerce valuable information from a prisoner. The gap between water boarding and sleep deprivation and physical injury is wide.
How come I am always reminded of a lion playing with a baby bunny rabbit when monkynuts “tries” to engage with anyone in this place? Simply a complete and utter failure for the monkynuts. Once again, you failed horrendously to advance whatever moronic position you were attempting to take.
Well you did say that the US harms innocents. That was interesting and probably very true. Bad things happen all the time. But in your haste to give GC rights to non-uniformed non-state aggressors in a war time setting, you fail to see the alternative and maybe, just maybe, this is what you are trying to advocate in your own very imprecise way. And that is we should just kill all the mother fuckers on the various battlefields to disengage ourselves with the terrible matter of trying to gain information from them in ways that may offend you and Andrew Sullivan. Cool. Have at it, boys. Kill em all and let st. andy and monkynuts sort it out.
Ok, I have to crank on a couple of projects, so I won’t be able to update at length, but I did want to make the following observations:
Monkyboy, you’re chewing on this like a dog on an old bone, but to try – again – to explain the frame of this debate, the discussion would also be applicable to the way that captured American soldiers are treated by the Taliban. Or Ethiopian treatment of captured Somalis in their current conflict. I’m explicitly trying to drive away from fixing the debate by fixing some variables, while leaving others undefined in an effort to make the solution space manageable.
Ivan, I chose Hanoi Hilton as a 10 because I wanted to try to fix one end of the spectrum at something that is pretty univerally regarded as being torture, wihout going further down the pike into the really horrific. As you note, there are a lot of things that rate a 12 or 15 on this 1-10 scale.
To everyone else, one thing that did occur to me, in terms of the “magical black box” that could be nigh-well irresistable that most certainly wouldn’t qualify as torture. Perfect compassion and remorse – if the bad guy in question felt the full impact of all of the damage, injury, and death they would be causing or had caused. I am also pretty certain that such a thing wouldn’t be torture, although there is a real chance it could cause lasting mental damage. In any case, it answers one part of the puzzle – a perfectly irresistible method of coercion is not, by virtue of efficacy alone, necessarily torture.
There are some other things I’m chewing on, but I have to jet for the time being.
Cheers,
BRD
monky: How about position C, “not everyone, but not just people ‘convicted/found guilty of terrorism/being a terrorist’ either”?
Too nuanced, I know. But such a position exists, and is not axiomatically untenable.
OK the Hanoi Hilton can be a 10 if the scale can go above 10. Let’s forget about the Black Box and think about Room 101, which George Orwell defined so well. THAT was torture! Not because of the pain it inflicted on the individual victim, but because of it’s complete power to control the whole society. This aspect is being ignored today. The disappearados of Argentina and the Soviet Union inflicted pain not only on one victim, but directly on hundreds, indirectly on thousands, and collectively on millions. No discussion of torture is complete without considering the effects on both the individual and the greater society.
And, where is crucifixion on the scale, personally, and for society? Pretty darn high for both, I’d say.
I believe the line should be drawn at causing pain or injury. I also believe this is how most Americans define torture: as harming someone, bodily harm.
This dosn’t include hurting interogatees feelings, or freaking them out, or using their cultural fears and superstitions to manipulate them. And it also doesn’t mean that they can’t be touched or physically manipulated. It means that the belly slaps are out, as are any other form of beating. And the stress positions, they should go away too. The level of temperature exposure should be determined by the chance of injury involved even if it doesn’t cause physical pain.
But waterboarding? It neither injures nor causes pain. Nor does it cause psychosis. That’s where we should draw the line on the mental side: does it cause injury, i.e., psychosis? Waterboarding, performed in a professional manner, is okay in my book.
But that doesn’t mean that we should do it. I believe that the US should adopt a straight program of using sodium pentathol for interrogations. It would be a very effective program and would make life simpler and less dangerous for everyone.
yours/
peter.