…you guessed it…an idiot!
I know there has been a lot of discussion of this here lately, but it's so important I wanted to add this. In his Friday column, Charles Krauthammer outlined scenarios under which torture is appropriate.
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb.
[...]
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great.
[...]
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other “enhanced interrogation” techniques — face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space — torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)
Of course the ticking time bomb scenario never really occurs. We’ve been Jack Bauered into believing torture is occasionally the only means of gathering information needed to save lives. But in reality, effective interrogators can make even the most despicable terrorists sing without raising a fist. Krauthammer raises concerns that this less barbaric approach, while it can be effective, takes too long. But we are never really in a position in which we know of an impending threat and know exactly which captive has the exact information on that threat that we’re missing. We either have enough information to act without resorting to torture or we’re even more in the dark, in which case, unless we relentlessly torture everyone we come across, we can’t possibly get the right information in time anyway. This article from The Progressive a few years ago explains very well why all of Krauthammer’s logic is wrong (it’s a bit long, but a must read).
(And isn’t interesting that Krauthammer reduces prolonged sleep deprivation where captives are kept in a brightly lit room and doused with water any time they start to nod off to “sleep interruption.” It takes a special kind of depravity to turn something that is clearly cruel and inhumane into a mere “interruption.”)
Krauthammer goes on to cite intelligence officials - Tenet, Hayden, and Blair (at most one of which is reliable - Blair) - who said we gathered valuable information from these enhanced interrogation sessions. This of course ignores the fact that 1) we could have gotten the information through less horrendous means (which Krauthammer simply dismisses by saying that KSM wouldn’t have cooperated - but last I checked, Charles Krauthammer wasn’t a trained professional interrogator) and 2) information gathered through torture is unreliable. I ask all defenders of torture to try to put themselves in the shoes of these captives. Your strapped down. You have a towel placed over your face and a jug of water poured over the towel so you literally can’t breath. You feel as though you are drowning. Then you are subjected to that treatment 182 more times. At that point (most likely much sooner) would you not tell your interrogators anything they wanted to hear - true or not? I would. And that’s just the point. False confessions are too likely. And if just one confession is false, that brings into question the reliability of all other information gleaned through torture.
But there is a larger problem with the recent debate over torture - that there even is a debate. Torture is morally wrong, it’s ineffective, it creates an abysmal image of our nation abroad (and at home), and it even puts us on a slippery slope to worse practices (the above linked Progressive article effectively explains how torture policies can lead to extensive extrajudicial executions - the CIA notes that it’s Phoenix program during the Vietnam War resulted in more than 20,000 such executions). In short, torture is un-American. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, even Ronald Reagan, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought, made a strong push against torture - he even helped ratify a treaty against it. Yet many of today’s conservatives argue that torture is justified. I’ll say this plainly: torture is never justified. How low have we sunk?
--
Adapted from a post at The Political Panorama.
Torture is illegal.
ReplyDeleteDo the crime, do the time.
If torture is rationalized for whatever reason, the torturer should be willing to do the time.
All we hear, however, are the facilitators loudly denying responsibility. It is time for Bush, Cheney, and Rice to step up and take the blame.
They were afraid then, they are still afraid; cowards one and all.
They are cowards, and I wish they step up and take the blame. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
ReplyDeleteKrauthammer spends way too much time looking for rationalizations for torture to be anything but a psychopath.
ReplyDelete"Charles Krauthammer wasn’t a trained professional interrogator."
ReplyDeleteThat is the essential fact about the torture carried out in our name: it wasn't done by professional interrogators. They were amateurs. This was 'heckuva-job-Brownie' thinking from beginning to end.
The utilitarian argument for torture has to be answered. The moral argument is true enough, but it is not enough.
Matt - excellent point. There are people at the CIA and in the military who are terrific professional interrogators. But the administration ignored them. A lethal combination of fear, greed, and incompetence worked to ruin much of this democracy.
ReplyDeleteI find the moral argument more impactful for those who can understand it. But it's harder to sell to skeptics than the utilitarian argument. I agree that we need both.
To encounter "impactful" before my second cup of coffee is effectively torture -- I must confess.
ReplyDeletelol. Sorry Fogg. I'm surprised I came up with before my second cup.
ReplyDeleteHow does waterborading 183 times defuse the so-called ticking time bomb?
ReplyDeleteHow does waterborading 183 times extract more information than the first 182 times?
On the subject of terminology, here is what John Cory of TruthOut says:
"Harsh interrogation techniques, coercive tactics, enhanced techniques - These are the rebranding tools for torture. In order to avoid turning our eyes away or burying our heads in the sand, we grab politically acceptable words and terms to diminish the sting and shame of actual torture, so we can brag about being a moral society open to the discussion of stressful questioning of enemy combatants. Sterile words remove us from the very real sins of torturing human beings. And the more we become adept at anesthetic language, the easier it becomes to talk without vomiting when we speak our sins aloud. The easier it becomes to torture. The easier it becomes to maintain the nobility of torture as a tool of patriotism."
Thanks for that quote octopus. Any effort to make something as evil as torture more palatable is disgusting. Yet that's exactly what's happened.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Brian and Bloggingdino and Captain Fogg, for keeping this issue front and center (and please accept my apologies for the typos).
ReplyDeleteBTW, there is also this, The Commission on Accountability, in case anyone is interested.
I understand what people are saying about utilitarian arguments, but I'm not convinced that they have much chance of succeeding. At best, they might be called a supplement to the more central moral case against torture. I suggested, and still suggest, that those who demand this sort of persuasion aren't likely to be moved. They will always hold in reserve the possibility that in some particular instance, ripping somebody's fingernails out (or some other equally disgusting "enhanced interrogation procedure") might produce a life-saving result. The point is that while you can make a solid case to intelligent, educated people that torture consistently produces unreliable results and is therefore a dumb thing to do, you cannot absolutely prove torture never works, and this is precisely what you would have to prove to the fearful quarter-educated lot out there to have any chance of success. I am suggesting that on the sort of issue with which we are dealing—an odious one to be sure—the only way you can succeed is to instill a strong distaste for the very thought of our being associated with such trash. If you can move millions of people emotionally to hold torture in utter contempt as a thing not to be spoken of, much less practiced, you might achieve consensus. This sort of rubbish should stink in everybody's nostrils, and if it does, all is well. Try to rule it out mainly on rational grounds, and you will lose.
ReplyDeleteI suggested, and still suggest, that those who demand this sort of persuasion aren't likely to be moved.dino - I agree with that assessment, but I'm thinking more not of the people who demand such persuasion but of the people who just don't really pay attention. If these types of people are faced with facts, they often come around. Maybe there aren't enough of them to make a huge difference, but I still think it's worth trying.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of creating a horrendous image of torture through extensive descriptions of the practices used is an excellent way to sell the moral argument. People are naturally repulsed when they hear the gruesome details. Simply saying "torture is morally wrong" is certainly not enough. People need to feel the pain by really envisioning themselves in these situations.
I still think we need both types of arguments. And, not to sound repetitive, I am appalled that we even need to be having a discussion about how to convince people that torture is wrong.
Brian, that is a very good point -- the "Don't Pay Attention Party" may well be a substantial one. It is an interesting question as to how we arrive at broad social consensus on any given issue -- I've long suspected that any such consensus (and civilization itself, for that matter) is a more tenuous affair than we would be comfortable admitting. So I suppose anything that helps us make it through another day without becoming "barbars" is worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteBloggingdino: “ Try to rule it [torture] out mainly on rational grounds, and you will lose.”
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reverse is also true. Those who rationalize torture do so on emotional grounds: “The ticking time bomb.” “The immanent threat.” “The enemy we have never faced before.” Inasmuch as appeals to fear are not rational (i.e., repugnant interrogation methods (torture) versus terrorist threats to public safety), these arguments tend to neutralize when one is pitted against the other, and the fear argument is the one most likely to prevail. From this perspective, the rational argument may be the stronger of the two, citing these precedents upon which the basis of international law and civilized behavior depend:
The Nuremberg Trials, 1945-46
The Genocide Convention, 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Nuremberg Principles, 1950
Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968
The Geneva Convention, 1949
Geneva Convention Supplementary Protocols, 1977
The International Law Commission, 1950
I agree that consensus and civilization itself are tenuous at best, and all we have are legal precedents that bind us to core principles. Once we ignore this body of law, we turn into savages once more … having learned nothing from history. We can't afford to ignore the rational basis underlying the argument against torture.
Octo
ReplyDeleteI can go for that line of thinking. I would only add that it brings to mind a long debate about "the ends of reason," and how one defines that term and associates it with other concepts and practices. In other words, to what extent has modern life forced a scission between genuinely humane behavior / thought and the dictates of "instrumental rationality."
Bloggingdino, this is an eccentric Octopus idea straight off the shelf: When Habermas and Hume crossed the Atlantic, perhaps their ideas got turned inside out by the experience of the American frontier. First came the wagons, but the wilderness was not fully civilized until the sheriff came to town.
ReplyDeleteIn our Hollywooden legends and folklore, a lynch mob gathers at the jailhouse door, and the only person standing between the rabble and the innocent man behind bars is our symbol of instrumental rationality, usually played by Gary Cooper or John Wayne.
If Amerikans understand anything, they understand this mythos.
"I've long suspected that any such consensus (and civilization itself, for that matter) is a more tenuous affair than we would be comfortable admitting."
ReplyDeleteI finally had my arm twisted into watching Schindler's List the other day. I don't need a lot of reminding about how a highly civilized culture and very ordinary people can become monstrous. The limits of our morals and the limit of what we can get away with are disturbing things to contemplate.