A year ago, IzzyR started this thread speculating about the possible use of torture by the United States to extract information from terroism suspects.
We’re no longer speculating, as this story in the Washington Post makes clear. CIA personnel at Baghram air base are interrogating captured al Qaeda and Taliban suspects using classic methods of torture:
And don’t think we’re above good old-fashioned beatings, either. By god, we’ve got to keep the world safe from these savages!
Even more disgusting is that the bastards are proud of it:
I’ve generally been pretty darned hawkish when it comes to fighting al Qaeda–in many instances, more hawkish than Bush/Cheney et al. But there’s a huge difference in my mind between fighting a war and torturing the prisoners taken in that war. Torture is abhorrent no matter who is practicing it.
So, two questions: (1) Is the treatment described by the Post in any way justifiable? (2) How on earth can the United States convince the rest of the world that we’re the good guys in the fight against terrorism now that we’ve descended to the level of every tinpot Middle Eastern dictatorship by torturing our opponents?
There is absolutely no moral or ethical justification for torture. “Sure, we’re torturing them,” the agents say, “but they’re beasts, while we’re the defenders of democracy and peace.” Sorry, that just doesn’t fly.
I read the last debate fairly carefully just now, and noted that there wasn’t a whole lot about the practical consequences of torture, save for a few cites about the Salem witch trials of 1692 and a few half-hearted nods to the Inquisition. Let me present you with a much more recent story - that of Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge, whose use of torture to obtain confessions resulted in the imprisonment of scores of innocent men, and the sentencing to death of 10 of them.
Given the increase in arrests of Middle Eastern immigrants here in the US on ever more flimsy pretexts, support for torture to obtain information on putative future attacks makes it probable - if not inevitable - that people who have absolutely no connection to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or any other organization of that type will be subjected to torture - often the very thing they fled their native country to escape in the first place. The events of September 11th don’t justify the use of torture to prevent future occurrences. Those attacks didn’t come out of nowhere. The blood on the hands of bin Laden are faded stains compared to the blood on the hands of the US government and the US military from their involvement in the Middle East. They have as much regard for human life over there as some of you claim al-Qaeda and the Taliban have for human life over here.
Frankly, I’m absolutely appalled that some of you here, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, could have the unmitigated arrogance to believe that some human beings are intrinsically cleaner and morally more justified than others, thus making torture both justifiable and acceptable.
I am very troubled by this. Intellectually, I believe it’s possible to justify the use of torture in a given circumstance. I believe that some Israelis have described “ticking bomb” scenarios (where great harm to many people is inevitable, though the location is unknown). These are situations that are believed to warrant the use of torture, and it makes sense when I read about it.
I don’t know if the situation described here is intellectually justifiable. I do know that in my heart I wish we weren’t doing this. I also realize this sheds absolutely no light on the topic.
Bob - but where are the “ticking bomb” scenarios springing from? Some irrational Muslim hatred of Judaism? Absolutely not. Israel certainly hasn’t been the model of decorum and diplomatic tranquility in its treatment of the Palestinians, and its actions promote resistance and fightback. The more desperate the situation seems to the Palestinians, the more the idea of using terror to fight back becomes an attractive one. Israel already treats every Palestinian as a potential terrorist. Therefore, in their eyes, they’re completely justified in applying torture to any Palestinian they arrest, on the grounds that s/he must have some important information on an impending attack somewhere.
So now we have innocent Palestinians being tortured, and possibly released if they’re lucky enough to survive it. That’s not countering terrorism, that’s adding fuel to the fire. There is no possibility to justify the use of torture, ever.
I agree with Olentzero that permitting terror under a “ticking bomb” scenario is a slippery slope. What if the bomb isn’t going to go off until next week? What if you’re not sure there is a bomb? What if you’re not sure your suspect even knows anything about it?
Like I said in the other thread, torture should never be legal. In the “ticking bomb” scenario, an agent contemplating using torture would know that by doing so he may be throwing his career and his freedom away. That way, no one would resort to torture except under the most desperate of circumstances.
The official quoted in the OP is a war criminal, in my view.
Yes. If the people on the scene believe that Al Queda operatives are witholding information, ‘torture*’ away.
I don’t see ‘convincing the world that we are the good guys…’ is, or should be, our goal. Preventing terrorism against US citizens is (or should be) our goal. The two sometimes call for different courses of action.
*What the Wash Post calls ‘torture’ is no worse then what our pilots go through in E&E courses, and various troops go through in counter-interrogation training. When we start the ole’ jumper cables on the testicles routine, then I would consider it torture.
So, I guess you missed that part where the MP’s and Special Forces were “softening up” the prisoners by beating them, slamming them against walls, and binding them in painful positions. Is such behavior acceptable for you too?
The only cited that appears even remotely defensible is the part about roughing up prisoners during there capture.
Assuming of course that there’s a firefight and a present serious danger, ensuring that your captive is subdued might be justifiable, stress on the might.
Doing it deliberately as a part of the softening up process is unjustifiable.
[paraphrase] We’re all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.[/paraphrase] ~Orwell. Well said all the way through your post. Moreover, what are any of us going to do should the tables turn one day? gasp If we find ourselves at the mercy of those we have tortured, even people who protested loudly will not escape the consequences. An improbable scenario to some, but it would be shortsighted not to consider all the angles. I don’t think most people inclined to believe that torture is okay are likely to be swayed by an argument of compassion.
To answer the original questions- 1) It cannot be justified, IMO. 2) I’m not sure we should be convincing anyone of any such thing. I’m not sure what we *should * be doing, but what I see taking place is aggressive escalation around the world in a situation where everybody agrees there is no limit. If someone doesn’t show some restraint some time soon, well, we’re all on a road to perdition, IMO.
I didn’t mean to imply approval of the use of Israeli torture. I don’t know to what extent they use it, or under what circumstances.
My point was that in an intellectual exercise, I have been satisfied that a sufficient rationale for torture has been constructed. That being said, the actual use of it has never failed to turn my stomach. I’m not sure if this means my convictions are weak or that I just haven’t thought this through properly.
At the moment, I’m leaning toward the Olentzero perspective. Other than the sorts of silly and extremely unlikely scenarios used in some intellectual exercises (“There is a terrorist who has constructed a biological bomb that will cause 1 billion people to suffer unspeakable agony for twenty years. He is also extremely afraid of closed places. Is it appropriate to lock him in a closet until he tells you where the bomb is?”), there doesn’t seem to be a practical rationale for torture. Not one that holds up under the light day. Not one that can withstand the scrutiny of civilized people.
Bob, I certainly didn’t think you were implying approval of torture by Israelis or anyone else, but simply addressing their justification of torture under the “ticking bomb” scenario. This argument assumes that there is only one “wrong” side in this conflict and that the other side is somehow the only one that can lay claim to complete moral defensibility. It’s historically ignorant.
Note again I’m not saying this about you, but about the argument, which I’m not assuming is yours either. Or something like that.
By moral highground, do you mean being the defender as opposed to the aggressor?
If so, the definition is hardly black and white. Torture may help in defending the people against potential acts of terror, right? It can be filed under defense. A pre-emptive war (a la Iraq) can also be filed under defense and so on and so forth.
Has there ever been a statement that clarifies morally the highground the US aspires to? If so, I’d love to see it.
I doubt there has been one because US is out to do what it sees necessary for whatever reason. There is no moral highground except for the fact that all the operations may be traced back in some form to 9/11.
Oh, silly me, always jumping the gun. I should have known there would be a good explanation:
So, the Post story is all screwed up, but we won’t tell you how it’s screwed up, and we’re doing it because we want to save American lives. Thanks, guys! litost, would you mind taking another stab at your point? I honestly don’t follow what you were trying to say. Is it that we can or should do anything we want as long as we’re defending ourselves?
But what was 9/11? A completely unprovoked aggressive action, thereby relegating forever unto the US the role of defender? Or an admittedly horrific response to what can justifiably be called US aggression in the Middle East? The roles of defender and aggressor are nowhere near as clear as the current administration would like them to be.
For the sake of the discussion, Olentzero, can we just pretend that the terrorists were the aggressors and we were the victims? 'Cause U.S. foreign policy towards the Mideast and the rest of the Islamic world is a way different thread than I had in mind here.
I was asking if there does exist a clear statement of moral clarity, especially from the top administration. I was stating that the administration has never laid out one and that any operation including torture and pre-emptive action/war can be justified in the name of defense (i.e., moral highground). Also, I am sure you remember the fuzzy nature of the detainees off-land and other secretive arrests on-land.
But now, I realize that your OP is probably about your personal view that torture strips US of a moral highground. I completely agree.
I don’t want to see you leave the torture debate, but I don’t recall asking about U.S. foreign policy towards the Muslim world in the OP. I cannot fathom how provocation for 9/11 has any bearing on the propriety of torturing al Qaeda/Taliban suspects now.
