My reaction to the torture issue has been largely one of disgust. What I have found most disgusting is that Conservatives have defended torture. For example, a relative sent me a commentary by Charles Krauthammer. Here is how it begins.
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility. (continue here)
Is Krauthhammer right? Are there exceptions? Or is he answering the wrong question? If torture is wrong, whether it works or not is irrelevant. What matters is that we are no longer defending ourselves or someone else. Instead, we are inflicting pain for the mere sake of inflicting pain. Instead, we give license to our hatred to run rampant.
Krauthhammer is answering the wrong question. If it is moral to kill an enemy in self defense or in the defense of another, then it is certainly moral to inflict pain on an enemy in self defense or in the defense of another. The Law, however, is an awkward instrument. Our forebears banned torture because they saw little use for it and much potential trouble. They saw the problem as defining what constitutes torture, not whether or not torture works.
Unfortunately, thanks to the pragmatic souls who lead us, what the Law says is now no longer especially important. Because we have so elevated legal pragmatism, the Law says whatever we “need” it to say. So now, instead of considering what defines torture, we find ourselves arguing over whether or not torture works.
For Conservatives, this argument over whether or not torture works is a trap. What if we “win” the argument? Do we want legalized torture? What Conservative would trust the government to use torture with appropriate discretion? What defines a Conservative is that we do not expect the best from mere men. Instead we prepare for the worse and only hope for the best.
Imagine what would happen to a law defining the “appropriate” use of torture. Thanks to Democratic Party’s tireless efforts to “evolve” the Law, has it not become guesswork to anticipate how a judge will interpret the Law? Too many judges disregard the letter of the law. Instead they worry about results. They see their job as competently evolving the Law to meet modern needs. These judges legislate from the bench.
What would such judges do with a law that defined the appropriate use of torture? Would they consider the law or look at the circumstances and decide each torture case pragmatically? Of course they would apply legal pragmatism, not the law. So the law defining torture would “evolve.” As the law that defined torture evolved, what vile thing would “appropriate torture” become?
A politician, a pundit, a lawyer – most anybody can call anything they want moral. It is even easier to define anything we want as pragmatic. It is just a matter of starting with the “right” premises and disregarding any disagreeable facts that get in the way. Such is the nature of men. Angels do not need laws. An angel also would not try to bend the Law so out of shape that the people who wrote it would not recognize it.
OK, I’ll bite, since I am a huge supporter of the Govt’s “enhanced interrogation.” First, I don’t agree that “waterboarding” as practiced by the US from what I have read is “torture.” Imagine if a scientist came to the Govt and said, “We have a way to make KSM talk that will not involve physical pain or long term mental suffering!” Should we use it if there is a good likelihood of saving lives? Especially considering our enemies neither abide by the Geneva Convention nor reciprocate in our decent treatment of POWs/captured enemy combatants?
The essence of the Geneva Convention was reciprocity–we gave up certain rights to gain protection for our troops in return.
You make a great point about do I want the Govt to have the power to torture, but the Govt already has the power to nuke, to napalm, to cluster-bomb and to kill and maim generally. Unilaterally giving up a tool with limited but potentially vitally important use just because “we are a better country than that” or because we are afraid that it might be abused is short-sighted, and potentially fatal to fellow citizens.
I believe that a more moderate approach might be to have rules in advance, as the legal team tried to do, have doctors handy, and to have a neutral authority allow it in limited circumstances. Long ago Alan Derschowitz suggested having a the Govt apply to a judge for a warrant to torture, if the Govt could meet some sort of probable cause that the person had info that was urgent and vital to saving lives.
I have NO problem killing arguably culpable civilians to save lives, such as Hiroshima and Dresden, in order to save American lives, in wars that we did not start. Obviously then I have no problem in killing combatants, or maiming them, with guns, bombs, fire, knives or whatever else is handy to defend American lives. And I sure as heck have no problem putting catepillars in their cells, shoving them up against walls, and making them think they might be drowning by using a technique that we use on our military to teach them what to expect. I do not agree that we “torture” our own troops. But even if we do, I say tough. IF it is torture, and if it has a reasonable expectation of saving lives, DO IT.
John Doe – Thank you for visiting and being willing to argue the case for the other side of this issue.
Krauthhammer explicitly defended torture. So that is what is on the table. Nevertheless, I will address the related subjects you brought up.
I will concede that many honestly believe water boarding is not torture, but I think it is the type of torture we prohibit. Why? When a dentist extracts a tooth, how does he know whether he has crossed a moral boundary? He extracts the tooth with the concurrence of the patient. The dentist may inflict considerable pain, but he causes that pain with the concurrence of the the patient. Similarly, when we extract information without the concurrence of a prisoner, we cross a moral boundary.
I concede my analogy is not perfect. There is some ambiguity, more than many Democrats will concede. Consider, for example, another analogy, solitary confinement. Locking someone up in isolation, as punishment, is intended to be psychically painful. To make prisoners behave, we threaten them with solitary.
There is a difference, however. We use the threat of solitary to make prisoners behave. Whether a prisoner is confined in solitary is ultimately his own choice.
I also see what we choose to do about reciprocity and the Geneva Convention as not particularly relevant. Are we going to torture enemy prisoners just because the other side is torturing our people? Frankly, I don’t think most of our enemies would care what we do with the prisoners we capture. During WWII, the Nazis and the Russian communists regarded allowing one’s self to be taken prisoner as almost traitorous.
Whenever our prisoners have been relatively well treated, the reasons have had little to do with any treaty.
So let’s get to the meat of the issue. When I read about your scheme for legalized torture, I shuddered. You have described exactly what I fear, the genesis of a torture bureaucracy. Are you familiar with the lie detector test? We know the lie detector test is inaccurate. Nonetheless, we cannot get rid of the worthless thing. The bureaucracy is in place, and the politicians can point to the test as “doing something.”
Imagine what would happen with legalized torture. Don’t bureaucracies grow? Let’s illustrate. Consider how torture could be applied to gang violence. The police capture a gang member. He “knows” something. He can name the bosses and provide the location of their hangout. So the police water board him, but our gang member knows that will not hurt him so toughs it out.
What can the police do? They can escalate. Next come drugs or well placed electrodes to alternatively stimulate the pain and pleasure centers in the brain. What is the permanent damage? Look the victim. None is apparent. Besides, the victim was only a thug, and the scientist says drugs or the electrodes do no lasting harm.
Will the public be sold? Is a majority even needed? The bureaucracy and their private vendors will pay for commercials lauding the effectiveness of these “effective techniques.” The politicians will be bribed with campaign contributions. Soon non torturous torture is likely to become an “accepted” anti-crime tool. Who knows, in time one might even be able to major in non torturous torture at major universities. Would you like to major in Criminal Interrogation?
There is, of course, a minor amendment in the Constitution, that would prove a nuisance. Fortunately for the torture lobby, just as they have the 9th and the 10th, I think that over time we can count upon the legal pragmatists to waive that amendment too. After all, in the short term, at least, torture is the pragmatic thing to do.
Always a pleasure to discuss things with you Tom. I admire your blog and your civility.
The way I see it, we have two choices. I will assume that terrorists occasionally possess information that will save lives if we can get the information. We can either outlaw any attempt to get it against the terrorists’ will, or we can do what we must to get it.
Tom, your instincts are good. I abhor letting the Government have this much power, too. But I abhor allowing them to tax us and to screw up the education of our children, too. I abhor that Obama has the “black box” and the power to nuke other countries at a moment’s notice.
It seems to me that one must dismiss out of hand the argument that at least occasionally terrorists possess information that can save lives in order to oppose obtaining such information. For if they do possess such info, and somebody does not support doing whatever is necessary short of torture to get that information, then I question their intelligence.
Apparently, you argue that torture is not effective in getting such information. I agree that the lie detector is not accurate. It is not admissible in a court of law for that reason. But I do not concede that torture/enhanced interrogation is inaccurate or effective in getting such information. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that it is ineffective. But if torture/enhanced interrogation is not effective, let’s have some scientific proof. Let’s have that debate-not just me and you, but this entire country. IF you are correct, I will join your side in opposition to torture/enhanced interrogation. But it seems instead that too many are just ready to assume that it is ineffective, rather than to study it to make sure.
The rest of your comment is really a slippery slope argument: If we do it to terrorists, then we might eventually use it against our own citizens. But the distinction is that the Government was using it against enemy combatants. The President does have authority to wage war. He does not need to obtain warrants from the Court, or legislative power from the Congress in order to prosecute the war. He can bomb, mine or manuever as he sees fit. If he thinks that certain “enhanced interrogations” will help win the war, he can do it. The powers of the President in such situations are much stronger than say fighting crime in the United States when U S citizens are involved. Nobody is talking about torturing US citizens. Actually, only three terrorists were arguably tortured. Personally, I would be leary of siding with Kahlid Sheik Mohammed under the current circumstances. And I am leary of second guessing the decisions made by the GW Bush Administration when they made the decisions in good faith in an attempt to protect America.
I do not consider myself part of the “torture lobby.” I consider myself to be a Patriot, one who has common sense, and who would do anything within reason and morality to protect the citizens of the United States. Yes, I would kill to protect America. And maime. And torture, under certain limited circumstances, solely to protect lives. No, I am not a sadist. But neither am I naive. The terrorists brought this upon themselves. I have no pity on them.
John Doe – Thank you for the compliments. Your blog has a harder edge than mine, but it is definitely interesting.
With respect to torture, I think you underestimate the societal implications of what you propose. Think about what it means to make something taboo. Then consider why taboos are important. When we say someone has no shame, why is that such an insult?
Our country has been in existence for 200 plus years. In so far as I know, we have prohibited torture all that time. In violation of law, has our government used torture to any significant extent? I don’t think so. Torture by proxy, that is handing prisoners to over to other countries to torture, is awkward enterprise at best. In fact, it is cowardly.
There have been many instances when torture has been used to terrorize a People into submission, but there have been few if any military struggles that have been much affected by torture. Well, that is not entirely true. Those who torture generally earn considerable animosity and hatred from the people they fight.
Do you know of any contrary examples? I would be careful of citing our latest conflict with Al Qaeda. The public relations damage most likely exceeded the value of any information we got water boarding.
I do not disagree with anything that you said in your last comment. However, I think MOST of the poor publicity that we got came from two particular reasons. One, Abu ghraib, where real torture did occur, and terrible pictures were taken. But those people were punished, a fact the world chooses to ignore. Two, enemies within this country of the GWB Administration call the enhanced interrogation TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE and the world hears that, equates it with what is real torture elsewhere, and doesn’t grasp the significant difference in degree of what was done. We had doctors present to ensure the participant was not harmed while we did to them what we already do to our own troops. We put caterpillars in their cells. We shoved them against walls that were designed to give way. The world only hears TORTURE and believes if our own people say torture, we must have ripped off finger nails, torn flesh off bodies, castrated and beheaded prisoners.
And don’t get me started about how our country has changed over the past 200 years. When Benedict Arnold became a traitor, Geo Washington caught the English guy who was working with him and hung him within two days. Spies or combatants fighting out of uniform were summarily shot. As recently as the War of Northern Aggression prisoners on both sides were starved and treated inhumanely. I am almost certain that we tortured in wars past–it just did not come out in the daily news. As Sherman said, “War is hell.” I just fail to see the distinction between nuking an entire city or two, and pouring some water over the face of a known terrorist to make him talk. Why is one acceptable, even commendable in order to save lives, and the other horrendous and despicable?
Tom, I agree 100% with your moral stance on torture and am glad you have the guts to say what you believe in spite of partisan rhetoric coming from both sides.
Torture can only serve to lower the standards of what it means to be human.
Kind of hard to argue with such a definitive statement by kgotthardt! Who wants to be in favor of lowering the standards of what it means to be human?
Can I borrow that line? I may never lose another argument.
LOL!
Go for it!
Standards of what it means to be human? As strange as it made seem, we do have such standards. If you do not meet those standards, your life can legal be aborted.
And curiously, the arguments over the standards of what it means to be human do enter the realm of torture. If it is decided you are not human, your death can be made as brutally cruel as the doctor and his patient find convenient.
OLE, since I loathe abortion, I can’t do anything other than say we should aspire to be the best humans we can be. Torture and murder don’t exactly move us in the right direction. There simply MUST be better ways to deal with problems.