 |
May 22, 2007The American Way: Induced Hypothermia, Sleep Deprivation and Water-Boarding?...Cecil Turner dropped this ABC News article on torture on me - apparently the CIA has used its full menu of approved techniques on roughly 12 terrorists. That is more than one in a million, but pretty rare. I quote the above, not to embarrass Tom Maguire, but as his comment is rather evocative-- in its striking juvenilia--of the quality of the debate in the right blogosphere about torture. As there is no medieval rack involved, nor "wedgies or swirlies,” the various “enhanced interrogation techniques” are deemed totally acceptable, and it can only be preening moralists or hysterical anti-American leftists that could possibly be opposed to use of same. From this flawed premise, millions of Americans are now endorsing actions that are tantamount to war crimes (by a plain reading of applicable international treaty law, Article III of the Geneva Convention, and constitutional standards, see more below) in the form of government sanctioned torture. After all, the tactics Tom Maguire argues CIA interrogators have a legal right to employ include the following: Long Time Standing: 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. Let’s take each of these in turn. 1) Long Term Standing, as the CIA is using it per the above, is basically a particularly harsh form of sleep deprivation, combined with a 'stress position'. Menachem Begin, Israel’s former Prime Minister, was tortured using sleep deprivation by the Soviet Union. He described it in this fashion: In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget....Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it…I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them—if they signed—uninterrupted sleep! And they signed....And having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days....The main thing was—to sleep. This is torture, as practiced during the Cold War by the KGB, and Tom Maguire stands four-square behind it, indeed deems it appropriate to joke about. 2) The Cold Cell, otherwise known as induced hypothermia. As the NGO Physicians for Human Rights has pointed out, “The Cold Cell” technique can lead to “reduced psychological function and mental capacity; loss of muscle function, harm to the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and nervous systems; and even death.” Indeed, detainees in U.S. captivity have died as a result of hypothermia. Again, this is torture, and Tom Maguire supports it with barely contained glee, if the comment quoted above is any indication. 3) As for water-boarding, forget about its origins during this or that Inquisition, let us instead look at more recent history, and recall how it was condemned by U.S. personnel in previous wars: Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. "The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College. Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines. "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." In short, Maguire approves, indeed proudly cheer-leads, the use of torture such as protracted sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia, and water-boarding, as a regularized policy to be undertaken under the auspices of the C.I.A. In this, he differs even from Glenn Reynolds, who had written: "But regardless of what rules Congress adopts, I'm certainly against the Cheney proposal to exempt the CIA. First of all, if this sort of thing is too wrong for Americans to do, it's too wrong for any Americans to do, period. Right?” (Yet Reynolds, given his incessant joking about Guantanamo, the detention center that is in many ways emblematic of how deeply flawed interrogation tactics took root during the Bush Administration, and given his oft-stated musings about whether ‘torture-lite’ really constitutes torture, has very little credibility as an intellectually honest opponent of torture, despite his protestations to the contrary). • In Saudi Arabia in 2001, seven foreign nationals, including Canadian and British citizens, who were accused of planting bombs, were subjected to sleep deprivation while undergoing interrogation, as reported in press stories around the world, which eventually led to false confessions. • In Iran, political prisoners are commonly subjected to sleep deprivation, according to the U.S. State Department and recent Human Rights Watch research. • In Chile, during Pinochet’s reign in the 1970’s, detainees were often kept sleep deprived. Human Rights Watch (then Americas Watch) reported the allegations of a community leader who was kept awake for 48 hours continually. • In Afghanistan, Soviet forces and their allies deprived detainees of sleep for days on end during interrogations (Source: Human Rights Watch). Many of these same countries have used water submersion techniques, as well as induced hypothermia, of course. The use of such tactics, as has been well documented, puts us in sharp violation of existing legal and treaty obligations. In short, it turns the U.S. from a leading protector of human rights on the world stage to something of a rogue nation, at least when it comes to torture policy. For instance, the United States is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). It defines torture as: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” When the U.S. ratified CAT, the Senate defined "cruel, inhuman and degrading" as any practice that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments. Secretary of State Condi Rice has reportedly assured some of her European counterparts that, pursuant to such an interpretation, techniques like water-boarding, cold cell and long-time standing would no longer be permissible. However, Administration lawyers like David Addington have made the argument that some of these tactics are permissible under a 'shocks the conscience' reading of the U.S. Constitution, and so it is all but certain these techniques remain in active use by CIA interrogators today. Related, these techniques are in violation of Article III of the Geneva Convention. As the Washington Post previously editorialized: Common Article 3, which prohibits cruel treatment and humiliation, is an inflexible standard. The U.S. military, which lived with it comfortably for decades before the Bush administration, just re-embraced it after a prolonged battle with the White House. The Army issued a thick manual this month that tells interrogators exactly what they can and cannot do in complying with the standard. The nation's most respected military leaders have said that they need and want nothing more to accomplish the mission of detaining and interrogating enemy prisoners -- and that harsher methods would be counterproductive. The position that Tom Maguire advocates, under a plain reading of either CAT or Article III, has us running afoul of both, with terrible ramifications for our international reputation. This is why five of the former Joints Chief of Staff, as well as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George Schultz, all stood behind McCain in attempting to preclude the watering down of Article III (note even with regard to so-called 'enemy combatants' rather than POWs, most if not all of these leading observers would have Article III apply fully to them as well, given the Geneva Convention requirement they too "be treated with humanity"). I’d stand with these men, before I’d stand with Mitt Romney, Richard Cheney or John Yoo. Wouldn’t you? But, you say, than we’ll have no good intelligence? The chances of my home being vaporized in a nuclear dust-cloud will have just ratcheted up, just so human rights purists like you sitting in Manhattan can keep their hands lily-white? Well, no, this is bunk. As Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Lt. General Jeff Kimmons put it: No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that. And, moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there. Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been-in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized humane interrogation practices. Indeed, we’ve had in effect Army Field Manual 34-52, which governs intelligence interrogation methods, a manual that has stood us in good stead for many decades. And we’ve been able to garner huge amounts of intelligence using said methods. As it states: While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of approaches and techniques may approach the line between lawful actions and unlawful actions. It may often be difficult to determine where lawful actions end and unlawful actions begin. In attempting to determine if a contemplated approach or technique would be considered unlawful, consider these two tests: 1) Given all the surrounding facts and circumstances, would a reasonable person in the place of the person being interrogated believe that his rights, as guaranteed under both international and US law, are being violated or withheld, or will be violated or withheld if he fails to cooperate; [and] 2) If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against US PWs, you would believe such actions violate international or US law. If you answer yes to either of these two tests, do not engage in the contemplated action. If a doubt still remains as to the legality of a proposed action, seek a legal opinion from your servicing judge advocate. Why can’t these guidelines, well enshrined in law and prior practice, and in keeping with America’s best historical values, still be the undisputed standard by which all government agencies conduct themselves when interrogating detainees in their charge? Why instead, through dubious legal machinations that may yet be overturned, have CIA interrogators been potentially exposed to actions that could be categorized as war crimes? Why, in short, is the current sitting President of the United States very likely allowing war crimes (at least by the standards of commonly accepted international treaties and protocols) be conducted by special CIA interrogators? Look, if we’re going to have this debate, let’s have it, but let’s have it honestly. Let’s not hide behind Orwellian fudging and obfuscatory verbiage. Reporters need to ask the serious candidates, which is to say, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards—are you in favor of allowing the use of sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia and water-boarding by agencies of the U.S. Government? Under a current reading of Article III of the Geneva Convention and CAT, do you believe these techniques violate either of them, in the context of the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? If no, explain how they don’t, and let us judge the persuasiveness of the defenses of the pro-torture right, but in front of the entire nation and world. Meantime, let the Democratic candidates (and perhaps John McCain) explain how these techniques do violate these basic international human rights standards. And then let us see whether the Republican Party can win the 2008 election on the basis of fear, on the basis of a platform that allows for freezing people to the point their life is imperiled, or inducing the feeling in detainees they are drowning to death, or depriving them of sleep for such protracted periods that long term deleterious mental health impacts may result. Yes, let us debate these issues, but clearly and out in the open. To the press corps, I say, the next time a Presidential candidate says “I’m not for torture, only enhanced interrogation techniques”, ask them whether induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and water-boarding are torture? Then remind them of our treaty obligations under CAT. Ask them whether they think the "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be acceptable pursuant to Article III of the Geneva Convention? Do they wish to repudiate them? Or do they think we can do these things and not run afoul of these standards? Again, how? What will become increasingly clear is that leading Republican candidates are running on a platform that has us repudiating our treaty obligations and watering-down our constitutional standards. So the American people will have a choice: are we to slide towards rogue nation status on such issues, or repudiate the profoundly damaging legacy of the last 6 years and regain the mantle of leading avatar of human rights in the international arena? I hope and trust Abraham Lincoln’s ‘better angels’ of human nature will prevail in this great country, and no major political party will be voted into power that is in favor of authorizing the use of techniques--by any instrumentality of the US Government--that constitute torture under internationally recognized norms. Put differently, how many well-meaning Tom Maguire's are out there, thinking they're doing the right thing, but unaware of the gravity of the issue? I don't know, but deep down, I still trust in the fundamental decency of the majority of the American people. They will see through the hyperbole of the 'ticking-bomb' scenario, they will realize that a legal right to torture by any Government agency will reverberate through others, they will understand that our previously acceptable interrogation tactics are more than adequate to the job. In short, they will be judicious and reasonable and pragmatic. They will act like Americans often have, since the inception of the Republic, which is to say, with honor and fearlessness, not ugliness and cowardice.
Comments
Greg, don't you know that Jack Bauer would never let any soft sissy things like human rights to keep him from torturing whoever he needed in order to keep America Safe?! Far better that we torture 100 brown-skinned Moslems to death rather then let one American be hurt! (Satire!) Posted by: David All at May 22, 2007 12:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
And, Greg, why do you hate America?! (Satire) Posted by: David All at May 22, 2007 12:34 AM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry for the double post.
Torture as defined by the US military, US criminal code, and the Convention against Torture should be illegal, period. No attempts to skate around it, claim exceptions or exemptions, define it down, or obfuscate it. If there is a circumstance (the ticking nuke, yadda yadda), whoever authorizes torture--or carries it out a la Jack Bauer--must be aware that they will face the legal consequences of doing so. If one feels that they must disobey the law in order to save New York, then they must act on that principle and accept the risk. Posted by: Tom S at May 22, 2007 12:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
you do this guy far too much credit by discussing his drivel. look, he's another of the pro-torture three-card-monte artists. Here's how the scam is run: 1) When you are advocating hypothetical torture, you use arguments that show that Everything is Permitted (usually variants on that worst of all bad arguments, the ticking time-bomb). 2) Then when you are apologizing for actual tortures committed by the Bush regime, you say But We Don't Permit Anything Bad, i.e. you minimize and soft-pedal what we do, so as to try to pretend we are different from barbarians. Sure we water-board people and beat them to death. But we don't *torture* them, and we surely don't *behead* them. But the thing is, you can't have it both ways. If the time-bomb is ticking, and the only way to stop it is to behead one of the alleged terrorists, then Tom Maguire's own favorite argument says that he must--MUST--go ahead and behead that guy. And if the only way to stop the bomb is to film the beheading, then Tom Maguire must--MUST--star in a film in which he beheads someone. So the force of Step 1) automatically undermines the apologies of Step 2).
Djerejian is still apparently determined to regard Maguire as "well-meaning" and "serious" in his thought processes -- although, as he points out, Maguire (and Turner) carefully ignored those paragraphs in the very same ABC article describing the, er, somewhat more violent interrogation techniques that the CIA is enabled to use. (And not just the CIA; see the multiple accounts, in that list of Sullivan references I mentioned, about this frequently being done elsewhere in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with sometimes fatal results -- and virtually no punishment for the main actors involved.) For the record, Greg: Maguire is about as morally serious as the Joker, and always has been. He regards himself as a wit, but, alas, is only half right. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 01:56 AM | Permalink to this comment
And, alas, it now appears that Turner is no more serious. Live and learn. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 02:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
To stick my oar in one more time: you'll note that most of Dherejian's quotes here can be found in that list of references I provided to Turner a bit further down on the "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" thread. You know; the ones where he said he was exhausted after reading the first four references out of 67? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 02:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
Regarding the CIA's techniques: the key question, once again, is: who gives the go-ahead order? At some point, in the current system, a single man is allowed to do so by himself -- which is how we end up getting routine tortures instead of those one-in-a-million cases that McCain is talking about. it's setting up THAT firewall that is crucial; if we don't talk about how to do so, the torture advocates will beat us over the head endlessly with the Ticking Nuclear Bomb scenario as a justification for everything that's been going on up to now. (This, after all, is how you get to the point of that Military Times poll, cited by Sullivan yesterday, in which 70% of the 5000 repondents said that torture should be routinely used in POW interrogations whenever it might provide "valuable information" or "save the lives of troops" -- which is to say, virtually always.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 02:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
Correction: Turner's complaint about how exhausting he found it to read even a few of the references I gave was in the "Maguire's Flim-Flam" thread (which is a more appropriate place for it anyway). Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 02:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
We always hear that John McCain was tortured in VietNam, but I don't recall hearing what exactly that consisted of. Was it physical mutilation (burned flesh, torn-out fingernails) that perhaps even the Maguires of the world would agree is torture? Or was it the sort of process that is discussed here? Posted by: Tillman Fan at May 22, 2007 02:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
It was mostly beatings, spending days with his arms tied agonizingly behind his back (leading to permanent nerve damage) -- that sort of thing. In short, the sort of thing that even Maguire would call torture, although he'd then declare that it was frequently justified and make a joke about it. (See his recent quote of Nietzsche's "That which does not kill me makes me stronger", followed by his own line "So don't call it torture -- call it character development.") May I suggest that what we're seeing at this point is the division of military supporters into the Captain Mandrakes (as typified by Greg) and the Gen. Rippers (as typified by Maguire)? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 02:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
Can someone with a legal mind answer the following in simple terms - How does the CIA or any other part of the US government go about getting the "legal right" to incarcerate and/or "use coercive interrogation techniques" on a foreign national in foreign soil. How does the concept of "legal right" apply here? Doesn't there have to be some sort of previously agreed upon treaty between the US and that foreign country for such a "legal right" to exist? If so, wouldn't such a treaty be reciprocal? Thanks much... Posted by: dm at May 22, 2007 02:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
The other thing about forced standing is that if the prisoner refuses to stand or falls over, they tend to cuff him back up. This is (1) extremely painful, and (2) dangerous. The CIA program did not involve 12 prisoners either. No real surprise that Maguire doesn't know what the hell he's talking about I suppose. Posted by: Katherine at May 22, 2007 05:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
Forced standing is also implicated in at least one death and probably several more. Posted by: Katherine at May 22, 2007 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
For a perfect example of the harebrained extent to which the CIA is overusing torture on orders from this administration, see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007504.php . (This is one of those items that Cecil Turner couldn't read because it was too exhausting for him.)
By the way, when I remarked that Maguire -- despite Djerejian's sentimental wishful thinking -- is not morally serious or "well-meaning" and never has been, I was thinking of that occasion a few days ago on which he giggled about how hilarious frequent torture of the undeserving can be: "Sort of in the 'Note to Self' file: At some point in a discussion of 'torture' versus 'enhanced interrogation techniques', someone ought to quote Nietszche's 'That which does not kill me makes me stronger'. Don't think of it as torture -- think of it as character development." In short, when I comapre him to the Joker, I'm not exaggerating.
enjoy the thread while you have it to yourselves. You do see the problem, I'm sure--your argument presupposes that everyone who disagrees with you is either unreasonably frightened by a non-existent scenario (who here anticipated jets as bombs?), or a sadist... there is no middle ground.Ridicule JMH as you will, his point in another thread is valid: show us where other countries have honored us for the moral superiority that you say is our now dishonored tradition. Somehow the charm of American exceptionalism that you now defend so eloquently seems to have eluded them. Posted by: Arthur at May 22, 2007 05:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Arthur - read the thread. Torture DOES NOT WORK. It does NOT yield intellegence that is reliable or helpful. So there is no 'moral tradeoff' - there is no benefit to weigh against the moral problems of inflicting pain on another person. So - if you advocate inflicting pain on a person for no reason and you aren't a sadist - then what are you? Posted by: JohnN at May 22, 2007 06:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
Arthur, let's cut the nonsense. George Washington during the revolution, and the Roosevelt Administration during the Pacific War, both flatly forbade torture despite the fact that our enemies in those wars totally refused to reciprocate. They did so because -- as they said -- they were aware that torture produces little useful intelligence, but DOES mass-produce long-term America-haters. Now consider how important that is in the current conflict, in which our potential body of enemies includes a billion people in a worldwide religious community that we can't begin to occupy. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 06:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
Every time one of us argues against torture, its apologists can be relid on to drag out the Ticking Nuclear Bomb argument. The obvious reply is that in the current system -- in which a single man can decide by himself to order torture -- it is going to happen in a hell of a lot more situations than that. As a perfect example of its harebrained overuse under orders by the Bushites, see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007504.php . And Katherine is entirely right that it's been used -- sometimes fatally -- far more than "a dozen times" with what has obviously been high-level permission, and not just by the CIA. I'll have to go through my list of Sullivan references to find all the examples -- there have been quite a few elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to third-person accounts -- but we can start by looking at the activities of Task Force 6-26: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?ei=5088&en=e8755a4b031b64a1&ex=1300424400&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print
Arthur: who here anticipated jets as bombs? Gosh, yes, good point, Arthur. It's not like the possibility of using an airliner as a flying bomb aimed at a major landmark in DC actually featured in a bestselling Tom Clancy novel or anything. And certainly no one ever uncovered a previous AQ plot to crash a hijacked airliner into CIA headquarters in 1995.
Don't forget Stephen King's "The Running Man." The main character, Richard, committed suicide by ramming a airliner into the largest building, the Network, killing probably thousands. Great book, btw. :) Posted by: Dan at May 22, 2007 11:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
And don't forget that the plot of the pilot TV episode of "Lone Gunmen", an X-Files spin off, featured a government plot to stage a terrorist incident by flying a passenger plane into the WORLD TRADE CENTER. That episode aired in March of 2001! Posted by: vanya at May 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
They are marvelously dishonest lovebirds chirping in a gilded cage, Arthur.
No one has satisfactorily answered my contention that there is a scenario in which each of you would demonstrate your essential humanity, and deliberately inflict pain on someone else. It has not been demonstrated that waterboarding is ineffective. It has not been demonstrated that our nation's use of torture as compared with other nations' use of torture has caused our overall stock to diminish. What other nation is so self-conscious of its methods? Thanks, partly, to birds like you.
Then again, I can see how you might consider yourselves Canaries in a Coalmine. The idea of deliberately inflicting pain by a bureaucracy with immense state power, is chilling.
Your essay was extremely eloquent, but I just thought I'd mention that torture also induces mental illness in the perpetrator. Posted by: 14All at May 22, 2007 01:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
Once only, Kim: (1) No one has satisfactorily answered my contention that there is a scenario in which each of you would demonstrate your essential humanity, and deliberately inflict pain on someone else. That's because your scenario is irrelevant. If my wife were murdered right in front of me, and the jury acquitted the killer for some reason, might I perhaps murder him? Sure. That does not make it right for me to do so. Same with your "essential humanity" scenario, which seems to amount to "original sin." (2) It has not been demonstrated that waterboarding is ineffective. That is not where the burden of proof lies, my friend. Do we have to demonstrate that slavery is economically inferior to a free labor market? No, because slavery is wicked. Or, another way: "it has not been demonstrated" that waterboarding is superior to standard interrogation techniques. (We have heard that vaguely alleged, by Tenet and other torturers who have a vested interest in justifying their own misdeeds; but that is not a demonstration.) (3) It has not been demonstrated that our nation's use of torture as compared with other nations' use of torture has caused our overall stock to diminish. First, no such demonstration is needed -- if torture is wicked, then we shouldn't care what it's done to our rep. Second, the statement is almost certainly false, or perhaps just misleading. America's public image has been tanking in whatever polls could measure "our overall stock"; that is doubtless in part because of the mere fact of the Iraq war, but doubtless our embrace of torture also plays a part in that decline. And why would we be comparing ourselves with nations that torture -- China, etc.? It's like patting ourselves on the back for not being Nazis. All this is fairly obvious, which is one reason no one has been taking your little snarky one-liners seriously, Kim. This is all a game to you -- great. It's not a game to me. This evil is being done under my flag, in my name. I want the torturers tried and convicted in open court, and the world reminded that America has values and stands by them. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 02:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hey, Bill Whittle's got the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma for all you caged birds. Not a game, A. Sorry you misunderstand me.
Scott Horton linked to the Roman Catholic encyclical Veritatis splendor, which is informative on the subject of "intrinsic evil" that so appeals to Kim: Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: * * * "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; * * * all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator". Gotta love the Catholics -- they have it all spelled out, somewhere or other. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 02:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Baptise 'em all; let God sort out the believers.
1. I could bring you the question brought to Dukakis, but I'll not bother because you seem to cede that there is a possible scenario under which you would condone deliberately inflicting pain on another. If 1, then 2, which is that waterboarding may be as effective and humane a technique as is possible. Then: Why would you use another technique? I believe that objective observers see that the United States is more careful, and self-reflective, about the use of intelligence gathering where the rubber meets the road, than nearly anyone else. How's Abu Ghraib doing now?
Remember, rapport takes time. Which is running out for you.
Not a threat. I'm simply running out of expectations of gaining actionable intelligence here short of throwing cold water in your face.
Kim: "No one has satisfactorily answered my contention that there is a scenario in which each of you would demonstrate your essential humanity, and deliberately inflict pain on someone else." So, how common should this be in wartime, Kim, and who should make that decision? And is it being done too often under the current administration? Which, of course, are the real questions here, since I imagine we can all agree on the Ticking Nuclear Bomb scenario. As for " the Dukakis scenario": so you favor torturing POWs if it saves even a single American's life? Which, once again, would have meant wholesale torture by our side during both the Revolution and the Pacific War (and probbly during every war)? As for "gaining actionable intelligence here": Djerejian had a lengthy post on that subject about 6 months ago, and -- as I've repeatedly said -- there are rare situations in which I'd go further. Provided, that is, that that decision -- in any individual case -- is made by more than 1 man. Such as, say, by an equivalent of the FISA Court (with a large supermajority required to approve it). Of course, we can always dig up even longer-shot Jack Bauer scenarios: what if there isn't time for the Court to meet, etc. That's what Presidential pardons, and the power of juries to acquit unless they reach a unimous verdict, is for.
I believe that objective observers see that the United States is more careful, and self-reflective, about the use of intelligence gathering where the rubber meets the road, than nearly anyone else. I believe that objective observers see that I am very, very handsome. Oh sure, there are some people who don't agree -- who, indeed, claim that I am quite ugly. But that merely goes to demonstrate their lack of objectivity. Posted by: grh at May 22, 2007 03:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
there are rare situations in which I'd go further. Provided, that is, that that decision -- in any individual case -- is made by more than 1 man. Such as, say, by an equivalent of the FISA Court (with a large supermajority required to approve it). Bruce, I hate to ask (since you've "repeatedly said" it), but what are these rare situations where you think torture might be a good idea?
I think you misunderstand me about the Dukakis thing. I was vague. I was referring to when someone asked him what he would do to stop the rape of his wife. grh, Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Who's the Meanest of them All?
Kim has yet to figure out the correlation between being "misunderstood" and failing to write anything coherent. I had lots of comp students like that, so it's not an uncommon failing. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 03:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
I may withdraw the dishonest charge, Bruce. You have good questions about the application, and cede a scenario.
OK, Anderson, at 2:49, I should have written 'If 1, and 2'...then why would you use any other technique. And I might add, when time is very sensitive.
Your argument for jury nullification to make right what is illegal illustrates the contortions necessary for you to maintain your position. What next? Anarchy?
Or what, a Majestic Executive pardonning? Pardon me while I smirk.
Watch Mandrake magically rip off his costume. Was the hand too quick for you, A?
I do not have the time for this today (unfortunately). But I am going to drag a comment from an "andy" from the Anonymous Liberal's site that's worthy of discussion from the absolutists on this blog The logic of "you need torture in extreme situations" applies to everything that we think should be illegal. Should we have speed limits on roads? No, because there are situations where the right thing to do, we would almost all agree, is to go faster than the posted limit. Should you wait for the red light when no one is coming and your passengeris about to give birth? Probably not, so lets get rid of traffic lights. No swimming area? Can't have that, what if you have to rescue someone who fell in? Every law is like that.Posted by: Appalled Moderate at May 22, 2007 04:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
I do not have the time for this today (unfortunately). But I am going to drag a comment from an "andy" from the Anonymous Liberal's site that's worthy of discussion from the absolutists on this blog The logic of "you need torture in extreme situations" applies to everything that we think should be illegal. Should we have speed limits on roads? No, because there are situations where the right thing to do, we would almost all agree, is to go faster than the posted limit. Should you wait for the red light when no one is coming and your passengeris about to give birth? Probably not, so lets get rid of traffic lights. No swimming area? Can't have that, what if you have to rescue someone who fell in? Every law is like that. When we talk about the CIA prisons -- we are talking about 14 people. Do they fit in this sort of exception? Is it right that they would do so? (Hat tip to commenter "Crust" on Maguire's site) Posted by: Appalled Moderate at May 22, 2007 04:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
When we talk about the CIA prisons -- we are talking about 14 people. Do they fit in this sort of exception? Is it right that they would do so? No, they don't fit, unless per hypothesis one of them was captured in the kind of circumstances that made it appear that immediate jeopardy was in play. Regardless, the oft-made point is surely correct: if you are so sure that lives are hanging in the balance -- more precisely, if you have an objective basis for being sure, one that could be communicated to a jury -- then presumably, petty little laws aren't going to bother you much anyway. That's the problem with a "torture warrant," btw -- where it would arguably be necessary, it would surely come too late. Look at Lt. Cmdr. Diaz, who just got 6 months for trying to publicize data that the U.S. was treaty-bound to have made public in the first place. He broke the law to do what he thought was right, and now he's paying the price. (I remain skeptical that this ticking-bomb stuff would work, b/c it's precisely where the bomb is ticking that the prisoner has the best incentive to hold out against the torture ... resist a few minutes, and the infidels die!) Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 04:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ah, Anderson, you say this. "Unless per hypothesis one of them was captured in the kind of circumstances that made it appear that immediate jeopardy was in play" Do you see how the torture scenario creeps in on little cat feet? You are explicitly recognizing the circumstances under which you would authorize torture. I remain satisfied that you are morally pure enough not to do it yourself, and salute your stand.
If you stuff your ears up with conceit, you won't be able to hear the ticking over my cheering. That way you can neglect the 'immediate jeopardy' part. What the world needs is more geometry. Or maybe just Anderson does.
kim: let me put it this way. Under what circumstances, and using what methods, would the Vietnamese People's Army have been justified in torturing US POWs during the Vietnam War? Posted by: ajay at May 22, 2007 04:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
First, I've never understood the point (besides trying to deflect honest, productive discussion) of parsing/spinning/whatever the definition of torture. I would think it's pretty clear, torture is anything you wouldn't want done to you against your will, regardless of whether it might result in your death. Or, if you need more incentive, anything you wouldn't want done to your wife or your kid or your mom. It's interesting how disinterested people are about how torturous something is when it's not happening to THEM. I have a feeling they'd come to a different conclusion about what's really torture if it was. Second, we shouldn't torture because torture is what evil, ultimately ineffective regimes do. On another thread, someone brought up torture in WWII. Yeah, that's a good idea, let's copy the Nazis, who lost the war. If they ever got useful intelligence from torture, it clearly didn't help them out that much. As far as the claim that torture definitely does/could work, I'd like some concrete, verified examples, not made-up ticking time bomb scenarios. People will say idiotic things like, "if torture could have prevented Sept. 11, would you authorize it?" We didn't need torture to prevent Sept. 11, all we had to do was pull our heads out of our asses and pay attention to what was right there in front of us. The piss-poor security of commercial airline travel in the US was well-known to everyone with more than two brain cells for a long time, but the airline lobbies paid a lot of money to make sure they weren't required to improve it. There were plenty of opportunities to prevent Sept. 11, all ignored by the people in charge. Torture is for lazy people who don't want to do their jobs the way they should be done. You build an intelligence network by cultivating contacts and paying attention, not yanking people off the street and sending them far away to be abused by 20-year-old prison guards. It also helps if your intelligence network is supported by a competent military presence, planned and operated by competent civilian bosses. Torture is not worthy of us as a nation, and we don't need it. And if we do, if it's really down to this or nothing, then we should give up right now and leave Iraq and Afghanistan forever, because we've already lost. Posted by: LL at May 22, 2007 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
I agree, LL, the best intelligence is gathered leisurely, analyzed carefully, and applied judicially. Nice birdcage, too.
Thanks, Greg, for your thoughtful and well supported post. As usual. Active promotion of the illegal use of torture, the anti-Constitutional suspension of habeas, and the corruption of the DOJ in the deliberate pursuit of voter intimidation and election manipulation are the three great institutional achievements of the Bush administration. Its defining characteristics are incompetence and mendacity. We won't have to wait long for the judgement of history on this president. The King is dead. Long live the King. Posted by: ADAMS at May 22, 2007 04:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
Strike three, Schumer's out.
Torture is for lazy people who don't want to do their jobs the way they should be done. This is about how it happened, in part. We had a sudden need to interrogate lots of people whose culture & language were not high on our list of FBI/CIA specialties -- how bizarre was that??? -- and you got a bunch of readily frustrated people banging their own heads metaphorically against the wall, which led to some non-metaphorical banging of other people's heads against the wall. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 04:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
First, to Greg: thank you, and well done. For Arthur, who writes: Where to begin? 1) Do you really believe that America has never been seen as an example of what a country should aspire towards, by any country, at any point in time? b) If you don't believe that, then your argument is essentially disingenuous. You recognize that America does stand for something, and has been recognized as standing for something in at least some quarters, at some times, but wish to be freed of the "burden" of any moral constraints to suit the exigencies at ahdn, without conceding that this course of behavior may have undesirable consequences on our standing in the world. Good luck with that. 2) What of our treaty obligations, which are, after all, supposed to be binding? Should we really feel free to disregard international treaties and domestic laws based solely on our practical calculations of self-interest at the time? On what inexhaustible source of hypocrisy will we draw when we wish to condemn other countries for not abiding by their treaty obligations when it's inconvenient for them? 3) But even more fundamentally, would the fact that American exceptionalism has not been universally recognized by other nations and adversaries (including, of course, AQ) a sufficient justification for abandonning any moral constraints? How is that different, at bottom, from saying that you will no longer attempt to be a "good" person because you are not universally recognized and lauded as one? Is your moral calculus really that facile? Is that what you teach your children? The whoe obsession with the ticking bomb scenario and the question of what constitutes "acceptable" "enhanced" interrogation reminds me of the perhaps apocryphal story about someone (George Bernard Shaw?) who offered a lady a million pounds to sleep with him for one night. When she agreed, he said. "what about for 100 pounds"? Shocked, she replied, "what do you think I am, a whore?" He answered, "we've already established that, now we're just dickering over the price." Think long and hard before you accept the offer that the torture merchants dangle before us. There's no million dollar payoff for what you would so quickly surrender.
Not a canard and you've misrepresented his second offer. And I agree, we are looking at a slippery slope.
It is indeed thrilling to hear all the eloquent discourse about the Americans spreading the ideals of the enlightenment among the lesser of the world, like sweetness and light. Top of the morning matins to your Oncle Ubu, y'hear?
Thanks for a good summation and analysis of an important issue. Authoritarian conservatives continue to prefer fantasy to reality. Posted by: Batocchio at May 22, 2007 06:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Unconscious irony is the best. Or did you just not read the comments?
Look, if we’re going to have this debate, let’s have it, but let’s have it honestly. Sorry, I can't be joining in until my brown shirt gets back from the cleaners - removing those blood stains is such a chore. Posted by: Tom Maguire at May 22, 2007 06:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
"When we talk about the CIA prisons -- we are talking about 14 people. " Utterly, utterly, utterly false; probably off by an order of magnitude, even if you exclude prisoners in military prisons who were interrogated by the CIA. The Eastern European black sites are a small fraction of the CIA archipelago. Posted by: Katherine at May 22, 2007 06:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
I tot I taw a puddy tat.
I've been checking my schedule, Greg, and I don't think I have time for you. But let me tell you about the time al-Qaeda tried to teach a little Red Cross Lady about pain. Drawing, Greg, maybe you should think about drawing. Draw the Big Picture into four parts in the Big Square. Meanwhile, I'm going swimming. Dives offstage.
I don't know what Belgravia's policy is about deleting off-topic, cluttering comments, but this would be a good time to apply it. Just sayin'. (Anderson checks in later, goes, "hey! where are my comments?") Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 07:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry, I can't be joining in until my brown shirt gets back from the cleaners - removing those blood stains is such a chore. See Greg. You might as well be calling out Dan Rhiel. Witt? Check A shred of intellectual honesty? Sorry, I loaned it to Clarice who promptly lost it at the local titty bar. Posted by: Davebo at May 22, 2007 07:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
And to prove my point. Tom will take the Dan Riehl (mispelled before) reference as a compliment. Posted by: Davebo at May 22, 2007 07:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
Put differently, how many well-meaning Tom Maguire's are out there . . . Since you put it precisely, that way: zero! Posted by: Jim Henley at May 22, 2007 07:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
Nice to see that Tom retains his moral seriousness. As I say, you're trying to debate moral issues with the Joker, Greg. He's more likely to be found wearing an acid-squirting flower than a brown shirt. Meanwhile, Speak of the Devil: While taking my mother for a medical exam this morning, I ran by pure chance across the March 2007 issue of "Details" and its interview with Mohammed el-Masri, which is also available at http://men.style.com/details/features/full?id=content_5345&pageNum=1 . It's VERY interesting, especially given the evidence it explicitly provides that a good many other people besides el-Masri may have been atrociously abused (and he WAS atrociously abused, as you'll see, although they never quite got around to waterboarding or Long Time Standing him) entirely because of mistaken identity. To quote ex-operatives Robert Baer and Vince Cannistraro, the CIA at that point were acting like "imbeciles" on orders from the Bush Administration, and the article leaves no doubt that Honest George Tenet was right in the middle of it (unsurprisingly). At that time the Germans were cooperating, but they (and the rest of Europe) got over it fast after they realized that they were dealing with a bunch of arrogant fools -- as have most of our Arab Ext. Rend. partners, according to Baer, after "we turned Saddam Hussein over to a Shia lynch mob." The strongest moral outrage of this whole affair stems from the fact that we are unquestionably STILL holding (and doing God knows what to) not just a few prisoners, but a large number of them, on the basis of mistaken identity -- apparently just to make Rummy and his superiors look as though they were doing more to apprehend genuine terrorists than they actually are. See: Oh, and Tom: Be sure and tell us how many jokes you can squeeze out of this article. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 08:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Come now, Henley, it's a common enough name .... Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 08:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
One practical argument against torture that gets little play: A policy or pattern of ill-treating prisoners discourages our enemies from surrendering. Posted by: Crust at May 22, 2007 08:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
One practical argument against torture that gets little play: A policy or pattern of ill-treating prisoners discourages our enemies from surrendering. Cf. the fierce resistance shown by the Russians in 1941 after it became clear that the Germans were not playing by Hoyle, and the even fiercer resistance shown by the Germans in 1945 on the Eastern Front when the Russians came by to return the favor. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 09:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
In the latter case, many German troops fled in order to be able to surrender to the British and US forces. Wonder why? Posted by: Tom S at May 22, 2007 09:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
Come on, people! Why do you need to persuade the enemy to surrender when -- as that Bush aide told Ron Suskind -- you can Change Reality Through The Power Of Your Will? Like little Anthony in "It's A Good Life", you can simply wish them all into the cornfield. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 22, 2007 09:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg the Pretender, Alright, alright, alright. I've had enough of this complete bullshit. I used to like you Greg, I really did, but this torture thing has mushed your previously pragmatic and realistic brain. I have a simple question for you, very simple. I ask this question to all who cry and scream when it comes to the torture debate: Would you rather hurt a terrorist, or have a single dead innocent person on your hands for not having done so? It's really that god damn simple. And you are all, ALL, lying to yourselves if you say you choose the latter. Either that, or you are actually a terrorist. Yes, torture is wrong. So is murder - yet our police murder people every single day. What you gonna do guys? Outlaw police shooting criminals? Outlaw war? Where does it end? It's all the same damn thing when you set the circumstances equal. Whether you torture the guy or kill the guy, if you don't, he's going to have someone else, an innocent person, killed. If you'd rather be on the side of the criminal than the innocent, then fine. But then look at yourself and see what you've become. Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 10:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Seriously, Greg, keep up the good work in going after these Apologists for Torture. Their way must not become America's way." Posted by: David All at May 22, 2007 12:37 AM | I agree with your post,David, but it seems as if torture HAS become America`s way.I think the task is to put a permanent stop to this.An Apologist for Torture is a Torturer,period.Call these people what they are without any bullshit political rhetoric. Posted by: Sully18 at May 22, 2007 10:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
So, the question is whether Seixon is serious, or is mocking the pro-torture "position." For the first 5 1/2 paragraphs of his post I was convinced that he was serious, and was ready to pen an angry response. Then I read the last sentence, and I realized that he was indeed mocking the pro-torture position: "But then look at yourself and see what you've become." Indeed. A fitting epitaph for our nation. Posted by: LarryM at May 22, 2007 10:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ah yes, Sully18, when I defend a cop who's mistakenly shot someone who wasn't a criminal, I'm an Apologist for Murder. Keep on chanting it, it sounds true! The only colors are black and white! There's no use for any other color!!! Pleasantville forever! Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 10:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Would you rather hurt a terrorist, or have a single dead innocent person on your hands for not having done so? I started to write, "so why don't we torture criminals," but seeing as Seixon is okay with police "murdering people every single day," I guess that wouldn't be very persuasive. Creepy people like you, Seixon, are part of the problem we are trying to address. Posted by: Anderson at May 22, 2007 10:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
LarryM, No, you're just an idiot who can't understand that you're, hmm how to put this, ah I will use the rhetorical strategy of Greg and this Sully18 person: You are a Terrorist Apologist. See, I know you're not. You're not a Terrorist Apologist. You hate terrorists. You'd probably kill one if you had to. Or would you? You wouldn't torture one to save your mother, so why would you kill one? In fact, why is it OK for our soldiers to kill terrorists at all? Isn't that worse than torture? Now I digress. Back to the matter. For all of you calling "us" Apologists for Torture, we could easily turn that around and call you Apologists for Terrorists. However, since I'm not a monochrome-visioned MORON, I won't, since I recognize that your logic and morality brain waves are getting mixed up. Your morality is betraying your logic, ending up killing your mother instead of hurting the terrorist. Now you have betrayed your mother, for what? A terrorist. This isn't what you wanted, but it's what your ideology has just left you with because you won't let it go. Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 11:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
Anderson, Yeah buddy, keep dancing around the question. That's all you pretenders can do, anyways. I'm keeping it real. When will you guys? Or should I call all your mothers and tell them that they'd rather not hurt a terrorist and let her die instead? Of course, if there are other ways than torture to save her, go for it. If not.... then? In most cases, there will be. But not always. If you call water-boarding torture... well then. Would you rather water-board a terrorist, or have your mother die for not having done so? Just answer the god damn question you cowards. Why is it that I never get a god damn straight reply when I ask people this? Oh, right, because they are ideological cowards. Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 11:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
Seixon, Whether you are serious or not, every word you write discredits the pro torture position, such as it is. So please, keep posting. But, assuming for a moment that you ARE serious, and as much amusement as you are providing for the readers of this thread, for your own sake and the sake of those who you love, I'd advise you to seek professional help. Posted by: LarryM at May 22, 2007 11:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
LarryM, Wonderful. Instead of actually just answering a simple question, you pussy out and then say I need professional help. I'd say that discredits your position, as you are unable to defend it because my simple little question lets all the air out of your phantom ideological position. I've been asking this very simple question for years, and I have yet to get a single straight response. You're all ideological cowards. You'd rather defend your ideology than an innocent person. How is that any different than Stalinism? I hear Castro sends critical journalists to mental institutions - is that where I'm headed guys? Too tough to answer, so you send me to the crazy house? Again - you're all cowards. Someone be a man and answer the question. I mean, I expected nothing less out of my liberal friend who envisions a career working for the Red Cross, the UN, or something like that. She's a good soul. She's innocent. She's kind. She's wonderful. Yet she cannot answer this simple question, for it haunts her liberal mind that she would be forced to choose between two evils, a world she'd rather pretend doesn't exist. Even though she has visited that very same world in Africa. Isn't that what they call cognitive dissonance? Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 11:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
Seixon, Do you ENJOY raping and vivisecting 3 year old children, or are you disgusted with yourself but impelled to do so by forces which you don't understand? Answer the question you intellectual coward!!!!!! Posted by: LarryM at May 22, 2007 11:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Having read the rest of your post, all I gotta say is: bravo. Bravo. If Tom Maguire supports using a technique 1 out of 1000 times, you say he "cheerleads it". If he supports using a technique 1 out of 10,000 times, you say he "gleefully" supports it. You're a charlatan smearing your own ego with lies. You start comparing us to Saudi Arabia and China, since they use some of the techniques described as in use by the CIA. Oh, OK. So when Saudi Arabia water-boards a guy for failing to beat his wife properly, that is the same as the CIA water-boarding a guy to save innocent lives. Yeah. Bravo. Golf clap. Anyone with a brain can see you are making a complete fool of yourself and using the worst of moral relativism. Why don't you compare US police shooting criminals while in pursuit with Nazis shooting the heads off Jews while you're at it? You've got a damn good start going here. Equivocating CIA agents trying to save innocent people with the Gestapos running countries like Saudi Arabia - bravo, bravo. I'm sure the lads at the CIA will be pleased. Someone tell Valerie Plame. Free your mind, you have let this issue completely venomize your brain. You're not thinking rationally, logically, clearly, or any synonym thereof. Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 11:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
LarryM, Why would I ever rape or vivisect a 3-year old child? To what end? For what purpose? How in the world does that compare to my question? Or are you going for the head-fake, that there will NEVER be a situation like the one I described? Never is a pretty heavy word there, son. Be careful now. I hope your mother never gets in the situation I described, and you are responsible for interrogating the man who can save her. Because you'll end up with one dead mother. Because you're a coward. If I had to rape and vivisect a 3-year old child to save my country, then by Jimmy, I'd do it. See. I'm not a pussy. I'm keeping it real. Your turn. Posted by: Seixon at May 22, 2007 11:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Seixon: By your reasoning, ROUTINE torture of POWs is acceptable, since wartime torture is justified to save "even one innocent life". By the same token, of course, regular torture of suspects by the police is acceptable. But there are those little side effects... In the case of war: George Washington during the Revolution, and the FDR Administration during the Pacific War, flatly forbade it despite the fact that our enemies in those cases didn't reciprocate in the slightest. Why? Because -- as they both said -- it produces very little useful information, but lots and lots of permanent hatred on the part of one's enemy. The moral argument against it and the strategic argument against it fuse into each other. There may indeed be rare situations in which this factor has to be overridden: our famous "Ticking Bomb". But how big does the bomb have to be? The Revolution and the Pacific War were both wars of national survival; lots of Americans' lives (including civilian lives) were at stake in them, too. So, to override this rule and for torture to do more strategic good than harm (even overlooking its corrosive effects on a nation's moral character), the bomb has to be very big indeed, and we have to make damn sure that we don't leave any door open to start allowing torture for smaller and smaller reasons. And giving any one man, by himself, the power to make that decision is asking for disaster. So I repeat (for the millionth time): there are only two possible ways to handle such rare exceptions The first is to allow torture only if it's allowed, in any individual case, by a fairly large number of individual, separate judicial opinions -- that "Permissible Torture Court" proposal I keep catching flak for. The other way is the way proposed by a lot of other people here: keep torture illegal, so that anyone who orders it in a specific case knows that he's risking his freedom if -- and only if -- both a D.A. and all 12 members of a regular jury (and, in the case of the President, 2/3 of the Senate)agree that, in that case, it was NOT "justifiable assault" for the defense of others. That rule allows a lot of emergency freedom, right there.
Would you rather hurt a terrorist, or have a single dead innocent person on your hands for not having done so? We have information that says you, Seixon, are a terrorist threat. Now, you could just give up the information about your cell and their intended target willingly, or we could put you through some 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. Yeah, yeah, we know you're innocent. That's what the last guy said before we put him on the ol' washboard. Didn't take long before he gave up your name. So, are you going to play nice, eh? Posted by: Doug H. at May 23, 2007 12:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
A few points in favor of coercive methods: I'd draw the line between coercive methods and torture by excluding from torture any methods used during the survival training of our own soldiers, which includes waterboarding, cold and standing, etc. Under all law, one cannot "consent" to torture. Therefore, either those training methods are torture against our own soldiers, and illegal, irrespective of "consent", or they are something else. I'd use those coercive methods selectively and only against illegal combatants. I think preserving the possibility of coercive methods in the mind of our enemies makes other, non-coercive methods of interrogation more effective. Let our enemies know there is no possibility of rough treatment, and they will train their terrorists to be cocky. Conversely, let them fear the worst, and good treatment becomes a productive tool of interrogation.
Mr. Djerejian: ...even with regard to so-called 'enemy combatants' rather than POWs, most if not all of these leading observers would have Article III apply fully to them as well, given the Geneva Convention requirement they too "be treated with humanity'"The term "enemy combatant" above and in your previous post on Tom Maguire obscures the distinction between "unlawful enemy combatants" and POWs that is fundmental to any discussion about where elements of the Geneva Conventions apply, and where they do not. Considering the attention you're devoting to the legal arguments here, I find it hard to believe that this is a careless omission. Until now, apparently, enemies who fail to identify themselves and who hide themselves amongst civilians have always been accorded an entirely different status, under law, than uniformed military personnel. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of POW's even make distinctions between the comforts to be accorded officers and enlisted men. It may be the opinion of your "leading observers" that we should no longer make distinctions, large or small, at all, but such a position is, in fact, a dramatic departure from equally long standing rules of war. Even in George Washingon's America, unlawful combatants -- not just spies -- were executed. Would a reasonable person prefer hanging to sleep deprivation? Perhaps not. If it is blasphemous simply to suggest that the bulk of the Geneva Conventions' provisions governing the treatment of POW's are predicated on an entirely different form of warfare than that in which we are now engaged, why then is it acceptable to ignore the reciprocity that is fundamental to the Conventions, as a legal compact? You can claim the moral highground on any basis you like, of course, but if you intend to claim the legal highground, then it is surely incumbent upon you to address the legal status of combatants. Isn't the issue of reciprocity really at the very heart of the moral and legal controversy where terrorism is concerned? Why has it become a virtual thought crime to wonder if traditional codes sufficiently account for an enemy who is not subject to any governing authority, nor party to any compact, and who rejects the very concept of mutuality upon which international agreement ultimately rests? Indeed, such enemies pose a stark challenge to the comforting illusion that there is really any such thing as "civilized" war in the first place. If nothing else, they confound the argument that our own treatment of combatants, not to mention civilians, is likely to bear practical fruit. Dismissing a term like "enhanced interrogation techniques" as mere euphamism for "anything goes" is a conceit designed to throw anyone who questions the absolutist view into the "pro-torture" camp. If politicians prove less then willing to discuss specific thresholds, you might look to yourself for the reason. The unremitting bombast which immediately greets such openess makes the political cost prohibitively high. So too, does the insistance that aggressive interogation never works often pave the way for casting apostates as gleeful sadists in lieu of having to address the potential human cost of the lines you choose to draw. Considering how routinely Republicans are tarred as armchair warriors, your obvious umbrage at being labelled an armchair moralist is an ironic twist. I agree that the ticking time bomb scenario is almost entirely apocryphal, but its purpose is to set the armchair decision making process in a context which requires acknowledging that the moral consequences of such decisions cut two ways -- an admission that purists seem loathe to make. Rather than just expressing horror at the number of our troops who appear surprisingly complacent about the potential use of torture, perhaps we should at least contemplate the possibility that most of us, when faced with actually losing real comrades we love and respect, day in and day out, might not be so quick to claim that the moral equation here is crystal clear. As a postscript: But for Maguire, the CIA carve-out is just fine. Given this stance, in effect, he wants us to join countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chile and Afghanistan who have historically used sleep deprivation to torture prisoners.It's hard to beat this for intellectual flexibility. You reserve your scorn for Tom Maquire, yet handily rub the tarnish off the Senator from Arizona, and candidate for leader of the free world, who voted that carve-out into existence -- by assuring us, in your previous post, that you're confident he'll repudiate such pragmatism if he's elected President. In Djerejian world, actually voting for the carve-out doesn't, "in effect," mean McCain "wants us to join countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chile and Afghanistan." Oh no, it's supporting that vote, instead of relying on some prognosticated future reversal, that's morally derelict. The fact that you assume McCain affirmed the bill in order to better his chances of becoming president apparently poses no ethical hurdles. Of course, in the likelihood that he loses the election battle, and thus the opportunity for such presidential back tracking, I suppose you can still blame Maguire for not voting McCain into office to halt that inevitable slide into Saudi waters he helped initiate in the Senate. Posted by: JM Hanes at May 23, 2007 01:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
JM Hanes: Excellent retort! I only wish it were higher on the thread. I dare Djerejian to post your rebuttal more prominently. Posted by: edhesq at May 23, 2007 01:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
So here we go again: the fact that military torture may be strategically justifiable in some extremely rare cases somehow proves that it should be frequent -- and that its ordering by a single man (at whatever stage in the miliary hierarchy) should be legalized. Take it up with the Father of Our Country, who -- as has been noted more times in these threads than I care to count -- said that military torture is NEVER justified even when the enemy refuses to reciprocate, for elementary strategic reasons as well as moral ones. Which the Roosevelt Administration also said in connection with Japan. Even if you assume that they may not quite have been correct with that "never", "almost never" holds up very well. As for McCain: uh, Mr. Hanes, if you read Djerejian's earlier postings on this, you'll note that he's been quite savage on attacking McCain's sellout. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 23, 2007 01:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
So tell me, Edhesq: Are Long Time Standing and Cold Cell, in the forms described by CIA sources in that ABC report that Djerejian quotes, used in our soldiers' "survival training"? (The latter is documented, in prisoner-interrogation records publicly unearthed during this conflict, as having caused near-fatal hypothermia several times.) And was the US military wrong to officially label waterboarding "torture" -- and its use by either the enemy or US troops a crime -- during the Aguinaldo Rebellion, World War II, AND Vietnam? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 23, 2007 01:31 AM | Permalink to this comment |