Friday, January 30, 2009

No better than our enemies

I think some Americans sometimes object to the use of torture because (the thinking goes) to engage in it means we've stooped down to the enemy's level. It means we've ceded the moral high ground. It means we've become no better than our enemies.

In fact, that's more or less what Pres. Obama intimated when he signed the order to close down Gitmo.

The fear is, if we win yet become like or worse than our enemies, then have we truly won? If we give in to the Dark Side of the Force (torture) in order to defeat the Sith Lords (terrorists), will we then become Sith Lords (terrorists)? Will Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader?

A similar or related fear centers around "American values." I suppose this refers back to the ideals upon which things like our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, were founded. If we torture terrorists, then will we erode our own values? Even if we don't become like the terrorists, will we nevertheless have compromised our values in some way? Is torture another slip on the slippery slope toward becoming less "American"?

A few, somewhat disjointed thoughts come to mind. They're meant (hopefully) more as a way to ask the right questions or at least to question along the right lines, not really to provide answers. This is still a work in progress.

That said:
  1. First off, these are vague objections. What exactly is meant here? People who put forth such views need to make clear how they define "torture," and better delineate what's morally or ethically objectionable about the various forms of "torture" employed. At a minimum, isn't there a difference between what is publicly perceived as "torture," with its decidedly negative connotation, and what is officially used by the US gov't in their "interrogation techniques"?

  2. Not to mention they likewise ought to demonstrate that "torture" is actually occurring in a significant enough sense to warrant this sort of moral or ethical objection. Is it?

  3. An assumption made here is that we should not only be moral or ethical in the war against terrorism but that we should in a sense be (for lack of a better term at the moment) hyper-moral or hyper-ethical.

    1. Saying that we're no better than our enemies if we engage in torture leads us to ask another question: precisely what moral or ethical standards do our enemies follow? What's their moral and ethical rubric? And, once we have a working idea of what it is and what it entails and so forth, so long as we don't sink to their moral or ethical depths, or rather, so long as we are at least a notch above their highest moral or ethical threshold with regard to torture, then we are morally or ethically better than our enemies, aren't we? And if that's the case, then why the outcry against torture? I'm not saying I'd agree with the question or where it might lead. I'm only responding to the objection on its own grounds.

    2. Perhaps it's true the United States can win the war against the terrorists and jihadis without the use of "torture." But just because we can, does that then mean we should? Should we limit ourselves or tie our own hands like this? For example, even if we do win without using torture, let's say the victory will have come at a greater cost to us than it would have if we had used torture (e.g. more innocent civilian lives might be lost). Would our moral restraint in the use of torture therefore be reasonable let alone justifiable if more Americans were lost than needed to be lost?

      However, what if we didn't win? What if instead we lost the war because we didn't use certain forms of "torture," but retained the moral high ground? Would our gaining the higher moral ground by keeping our hands clean from torture mean anything if it also meant there wouldn't be future generations of Americans to cherish and safeguard American values? I might be begging the question though.

  4. Are there differences in how we should apply ethics during peace-time and during war-time? If so, how so? And if so, then it's possible we haven't necessarily lost or compromised our moral or ethical values, isn't it?

  5. Is "torture" "un-American"? Is "torture" in conflict with American values? If so, how so? For instance, is water-boarding "cruel and unusual punishment"? Is prolonged sleep deprivation un-Constitutional?

    Historically, haven't Americans successfully used "torture" on enemies to, say, extract necessary military information which would save thousands of lives? (BTW, wrong uses of torture do not necessarily illegitimize all torture, such as the rightful uses of certain forms of torture, assuming there are rightful uses of certain forms of torture.)

    Obviously, again, much here depends on us establishing working categories for what does and what does not constitute "torture," for starters.

  6. Do enemy combatants have any rights under the U.S. Constitution? They aren't American citizens. Not that I'm advocating "cruel and unusual punishment" by any means, not even on enemy combatants, but should American rights apply to non-American enemy combatants or even traitors within our ranks (haven't traitors forfeited their rights by betraying their nation)? If they do have rights, then why do or should they? And to what extent? After all, even prisoners in the American penal system have diminished rights. Whether or not enemy combatants have rights would figure into how we are to treat them, which in turn would figure into whether we are behaving morally and ethically towards them when we treat them in certain ways.

    But if we're not limiting the debate solely to American rights and values, but expanding it to include values and rights universal to all human beings (e.g. "inalienable rights," "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc.), then there are other considerations. One might be whether people even have such things as "inalienable rights" in the first place, which are concepts derived from a Western European framework and tradition.

    Of course, what's fundamentally important to Christians isn't whether something is in accordance with American values or other traditions, per se, but rather whether something is in line with biblical values -- although many American values could be biblical values too.

  7. I wonder whether the notion that if we torture our enemies, then we will become like our enemies, and this is ethically or morally unacceptable, owes something to identity politics? Guilt over perceived wrongs we've supposedly been party to in the Mideast, etc., and wanting to somehow make up for the alleged wrongs, as if there were direct correlations between these things.

    Speaking of which, much of this is fed by our enemies. But why should we listen to our enemies when it's not only in their best interest but their stated intention to weaken and harm us by any means necessary, including but not limited to deception?

  8. Sort of related to this, there's sometimes the notion that we don't truly understand our enemies, because if we did, then we could identify with them; and if we identified with them, then we could better bridge the war and violence and perhaps bring peace between ourselves and our enemies. As if we really aren't all that different, and it's primarily a problem in communication and how we relate to one another. We both bleed red. Something like Enemy Mine comes to mind. Diplomacy and various forms of humanitarian aid are the best answers.

    If that's the case, then why not extend this sort of attitude to, say, Israel?

    In fact, why even bother to frame this in terms of ethics and morality? That to not engage in torture is to take the higher moral ground, when it's apparently not a matter of ethics or morality, at least not primarily in terms of politics, but rather a matter of miscommunication or misunderstanding? I'm possibly very wrong in how I understand and use this, but it almost seems like a kind of reverse or inverted Realpolitik, where strong nations do not pander and kowtow to other strong nations but to weaker "nations," including terrorists?

  9. Sometimes the idea that torture is the moral low road comes hand-in-hand with fear about mistakenly torturing someone who is innocent, who is not a terrorist or somehow affiliated with terrorism. In other words, it's better that ten (or input whatever figure you'd like) guilty persons go free than that one innocent person is wrongly convicted and suffers (as in the movie Rendition). There are a couple of possible responses. But perhaps the most concise is: better for whom?

  10. Technology has its good and bad points. Back in, say, World War II, there wasn't the constant media attention and scrutiny that we have today. Imagine if soldiers on Iwo Jima had MSNBC or CNN following them around with cameras. Or imagine if our POW camps housing Nazi soldiers could be videotaped, uploaded on YouTube, and instantly broadcast to millions of people, spreading like wildfire by word-of-mouth or blog posts or what not until it's eventually picked up by a major news agency. I wonder if at least some of the debate over torture hasn't been exaggerated and blown way out of proportion by a ratings-hungry media?

  11. Isn't there a sort of hypocrisy lurking behind all this? Oftentimes the same people who take issue with torture on moral or ethical grounds, believing torture to make us lesser people, don't take issue or as much issue with other moral and ethical wrongs (e.g. abortion).

    Plus, some people seem to take more issue with our methods of "torture" than with our enemies' methods of torture. Or treat the two as if they were one of a kind, as if they were ethically and morally on the same level. As if prolonged sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme cold or heat, or even waterboarding (whether or not one agrees with such techniques) performed by trained experts in interrogation and the like and in a controlled environment under strict legal codes is as debased as kidnapping civilians and beheading them or suicide bombers detonating themselves in a crowded public area.

    And I notice our enemies rarely question themselves and their actions as much as we do. There's seemingly little or no inner conflict among terrorists in whether sending young people, including women and children, to blow up civilians compromises their ethics or morals. There's no tortured soul (pardon the pun) or even debate over the rightness or wrongness of suicide bombers or the kidnapping and beheading of civilians -- certainly not to our extent.

23 comments:

  1. You may want to check out Terry Eagleton's book Holy Terror where he argues that terrorism and law are two sides of the same coin.

    He takes the view that America is defeated as Pentheus by Dionysus. However, he merely states this application to America in passing. Over all, the book is more a theoretical development than a political critique.

    His analysis of the word 'sacred' sums up how he deals with all of the concepts (freedom, law, anarchy, terror, God) in his book: "the word sacer can mean either blessed or cursed, holy or reviled" (2). For example, the concept of Satan is the same as the concept of God, only from a different angle (29).

    Personally, I think the book is BS (maybe even in the Frankfurt sense) but, from your post, you may be interested in what he has to say anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Torture is the action of a person on a victim to get infomation by means of pain or discomfort. But you cannot trust the victim to give you the correct information because he will say anything to escape torture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Torture is the action of a person on a victim to get infomation by means of pain or discomfort. But you cannot trust the victim to give you the correct information because he will say anything to escape torture."

    Which is why you start by asking questions you know the answers to. Of course this ignores the counter example that yes, uh, it works.

    ReplyDelete
  4. VYTAUTAS SAID:

    "Torture is the action of a person on a victim to get infomation by means of pain or discomfort. But you cannot trust the victim to give you the correct information because he will say anything to escape torture."

    This isn't a question of "trust." It's a question of checking out leads. If it's a false lead, then you go back to the "victim" and repeat the process. He has a disincentive to keep lying to the interrogator since that simply prolongs the process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1... What exactly is meant here? People who put forth such views need to make clear how they define "torture," and better delineate what's morally or ethically objectionable about the various forms of "torture" employed.

    Torture is "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." (Convention Against Torture, ratified by the US on 21 October 1994.)

    2. Not to mention they likewise ought to demonstrate that "torture" is actually occurring in a significant enough sense to warrant this sort of moral or ethical objection.

    What does "significant enough" mean?

    [3.1.] Saying that we're no better than our enemies if we engage in torture leads us to ask another question: precisely what moral or ethical standards do our enemies follow? What's their moral and ethical rubric? And, once we have a working idea of what it is and what it entails and so forth, so long as we don't sink to their moral or ethical depths, or rather, so long as we are at least a notch above their highest moral or ethical threshold with regard to torture, then we are morally or ethically better than our enemies, aren't we?

    By "no better than", I assume that people mean that we abide by common standards of international law based on a shared moral sense that torture is unacceptable, and that they do not. It's not a sliding scale on which you try to stay one notch above your enemy - that would be ludicrous.

    [3.2.] Perhaps it's true the United States can win the war against the terrorists and jihadis without the use of "torture." But just because we can, does that then mean we should?

    Yes.

    Should we limit ourselves or tie our own hands like this?

    Yes.

    For example, even if we do win without using torture, let's say the victory will have come at a greater cost to us than it would have if we had used torture (e.g. more innocent civilian lives might be lost

    Can you give any real-life examples of where this might be the case?

    However, what if we didn't win? What if instead we lost the war because we didn't use certain forms of "torture," but retained the moral high ground? Would our gaining the higher moral ground by keeping our hands clean from torture mean anything if it also meant there wouldn't be future generations of Americans to cherish and safeguard American values?

    It would mean something if you believe that those morals are worth safeguarding for their own sake, rather than because of the material benefit that they bring.

    4. Are there differences in how we should apply ethics during peace-time and during war-time? If so, how so?

    Yes. The Convention Against Torture, which is now part of American law, applies in general. General provisions of various human rights laws apply during peacetime, but may be abridged during war. In situations of war, international humanitarian law (IHL) applies - in the words of ICRC, IHL "differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture," and the more vaguely defined "ill treatment" of detainees is also covered.

    5. Is "torture" "un-American"? Is "torture" in conflict with American values?

    If you define "un-American" and "American values", I will try to answer this one.

    Historically, haven't Americans successfully used "torture" on enemies to, say, extract necessary military information which would save thousands of lives?

    Have they? Can you point to some specific examples, please?

    6. Do enemy combatants have any rights under the U.S. Constitution?

    No, but they do have rights under international law, and since they are being dealt with in the international arena those rights obtain.

    Whether or not enemy combatants have rights would figure into how we are to treat them, which in turn would figure into whether we are behaving morally and ethically towards them when we treat them in certain ways.

    Generally speaking, the Geneva Conventions apply, and the Convention Against Torture is universally applicable - i.e. it's not one of those rights which is abridged by an individual's status or actions.

    But if we're not limiting the debate solely to American rights and values, but expanding it to include values and rights universal to all human beings (e.g. "inalienable rights," "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc.), then there are other considerations. One might be whether people even have such things as "inalienable rights" in the first place, which are concepts derived from a Western European framework and tradition.

    Um... if you're saying that a value or right is "universal to all human beings" then clearly they apply universally. Are you arguing that these are not universal rights? It's unclear.

    7. I wonder whether the notion that if we torture our enemies, then we will become like our enemies, and this is ethically or morally unacceptable, owes something to identity politics?

    No, it refers mainly to international law.

    In fact, why even bother to frame this in terms of ethics and morality?

    I agree. It's far easier to frame it in legal terms, assuming the moral framework that lead to those laws being created in the first place.

    9... In other words, it's better that ten (or input whatever figure you'd like) guilty persons go free than that one innocent person is wrongly convicted and suffers (as in the movie Rendition). There are a couple of possible responses. But perhaps the most concise is: better for whom?

    Better for the society that lets them go free. A system that is prepared to grind up the innocent in order to get to the guilty is not one in which I would wish to live; is it one in which you would?

    Back in, say, World War II, there wasn't the constant media attention and scrutiny that we have today... imagine if our POW camps housing Nazi soldiers could be videotaped, uploaded on YouTube, and instantly broadcast to millions of people... I wonder if at least some of the debate over torture hasn't been exaggerated and blown way out of proportion by a ratings-hungry media?

    Alternatively perhaps there wasn't enough media coverage during World War II, so that things are largely in proportion today because people now have access to information. In general those who benefit from higher levels of secrecy during wartime are those with something to hide; the Final Solution comes to mind, of course (not that there's much comparison between that and Guantanamo Bay).

    11. Isn't there a sort of hypocrisy lurking behind all this? Oftentimes the same people who take issue with torture on moral or ethical grounds, believing torture to make us lesser people, don't take issue or as much issue with other moral and ethical wrongs (e.g. abortion).

    Whether people who take issue with torture disagree with you about abortion is irrelevant to the issue around torture.

    Plus, some people seem to take more issue with our methods of "torture" than with our enemies' methods of torture. Or treat the two as if they were one of a kind, as if they were ethically and morally on the same level.

    That's probably because their enemies aren't carrying out suicide bombings in their name, as opposed to a government carrying out torture in their name. It's also partly because their own government should be responsive to them, while their enemies are unlikely to be. Of course, many human rights groups calling for an end to waterboarding also make strong statements against suicide bombing, beheadings and other abuses.

    There's seemingly little or no inner conflict among terrorists in whether sending young people, including women and children, to blow up civilians compromises their ethics or morals. There's no tortured soul (pardon the pun) or even debate over the rightness or wrongness of suicide bombers or the kidnapping and beheading of civilians -- certainly not to our extent.

    That seems to be a truism rather than an argument, and surely has no bearing on what the actions of your government should be?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul C said:

    Torture is "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." (Convention Against Torture, ratified by the US on 21 October 1994.)

    But what if someone takes issue with this definition or at least certain portions of this definition, or would like further clarification (e.g. how severe is "severe," what precisely constitutes "intimidation" or "coercion" or "discrimination," what if some forms of alleged "torture" are or become "lawful sanctions")?

    By "no better than", I assume that people mean that we abide by common standards of international law based on a shared moral sense that torture is unacceptable, and that they do not. It's not a sliding scale on which you try to stay one notch above your enemy - that would be ludicrous.

    Like I said above, I was responding to the objection on its own grounds.

    [3.2.] Perhaps it's true the United States can win the war against the terrorists and jihadis without the use of "torture." But just because we can, does that then mean we should?

    Yes.


    Okay, that's fine, but why do you think that?

    For example, even if we do win without using torture, let's say the victory will have come at a greater cost to us than it would have if we had used torture (e.g. more innocent civilian lives might be lost

    Can you give any real-life examples of where this might be the case?


    I don't think we need "real-life examples." I mean, we can imagine realistic hypotheticals, and there's nothing wrong with that, is there? For example, the oft-cited "ticking time bomb" scenario. It's a realistic possibility.

    5. Is "torture" "un-American"? Is "torture" in conflict with American values?

    If you define "un-American" and "American values", I will try to answer this one.


    For starters, let's say as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

    That said, and like I've said above, I'm not necessarily beholden to American values as a Christian -- only insofar as they line up with biblical values, ethics, etc. (Or, possibly, don't stray too far away from them and are not inherently wrong in and of themselves.)

    Historically, haven't Americans successfully used "torture" on enemies to, say, extract necessary military information which would save thousands of lives?

    Have they? Can you point to some specific examples, please?


    First off, I was likewise asking a question. I would've thought that at some point during one of our wars we've successfully used "torture" to save many lives? But, again, I'm not an American military historian or something similar, and I don't want to spend the time researching this point because it was a minor one for me.

    What I'm calling into question is whether certain modern-day interrogation techniques we've perform on war combatants (e.g. known terrorists or jihadis) for specific, advisable goals (e.g. locating terrorist cells) necessarily constitutes torture (e.g. some forms of annoying music, some forms of solitary confinement, some forms of sleep deprivation, withholding food and water for a limited period of time, waterboarding)? Where do we draw the lines?

    That's why I've offset the term "torture" above in scare quotes.

    Also, even if they do constitute torture, can torture sometimes be acceptable under certain conditions?

    If we want to get down to brass tacks, though, I'd think we shouldn't necessarily even start with whether "torture" is morally or ethically right or wrong, per se. I think it might be better to start at someplace like, what's the most ethical, most effective means to extract needed information from known war combatants, given a scenario where such information is critical to safety and security?

    That's more or less what I've been trying to get at. Hope that better explains things.

    Um... if you're saying that a value or right is "universal to all human beings" then clearly they apply universally. Are you arguing that these are not universal rights? It's unclear.

    I agree I was a bit unclear. Let me see if I can better clarify please.

    Basically, I was wondering whether "rights" is even the best way to express it? Are we talking about moral or ethical rights? Or legal or civil rights? For example, we may have legal rights, but does that necessarily mean we have moral or ethical rights as human beings? If so, then on what basis do we have moral or ethical rights?

    In fact, why even bother to frame this in terms of ethics and morality?

    I agree. It's far easier to frame it in legal terms, assuming the moral framework that lead to those laws being created in the first place.


    But the legal ultimately rests on the moral and/or ethical, no? In other words, there can be such a thing as an immoral or unethical law.

    However, if we want to move more toward the legal, then what's more fundamental: whether a govt protects its own people and citizens or those of other nations (assuming we have to choose one or the other)? Isn't the social contract between a democratic govt and its people more fundamental? At least that's what I'd tend to think.

    9... In other words, it's better that ten (or input whatever figure you'd like) guilty persons go free than that one innocent person is wrongly convicted and suffers (as in the movie Rendition). There are a couple of possible responses. But perhaps the most concise is: better for whom?

    Better for the society that lets them go free. A system that is prepared to grind up the innocent in order to get to the guilty is not one in which I would wish to live; is it one in which you would?


    Yes, so you say, but where's the argument that it's "better for the society that lets them go free"? Is it truly better for society if there are n guilty thieves, sex offenders, murderers, and other criminals roaming free in society than for significantly less than n innocent persons to be wrongfully imprisoned? Maybe it's true, but if it's true, then where's the argument?

    I don't know whether I'd want to live in such a society. Of course, it depends on a number of things. Such as to what degree of innocent suffering we're talking about, since there's bound to be some degree of innocent suffering in even the most ethical and moral societies. But it also depends on factors which may or may not have anything to do with the society itself. In any case, I don't see how whether I may want or not want to live in such a society is directly relevant to whether it is or isn't better for n guilty persons to go free than for significantly less than n innocent persons to be wrongfully convicted and suffer as a result.

    Finally, and again to point out the obvious, I myself asked a question, but didn't come down on a definitive answer. I responded to the question with another question.

    11. Isn't there a sort of hypocrisy lurking behind all this? Oftentimes the same people who take issue with torture on moral or ethical grounds, believing torture to make us lesser people, don't take issue or as much issue with other moral and ethical wrongs (e.g. abortion).

    Whether people who take issue with torture disagree with you about abortion is irrelevant to the issue around torture.


    I'd think it matters in the sense that their ethical or moral framework as a whole is inconsistent.

    Plus, some people seem to take more issue with our methods of "torture" than with our enemies' methods of torture. Or treat the two as if they were one of a kind, as if they were ethically and morally on the same level.

    That's probably because their enemies aren't carrying out suicide bombings in their name, as opposed to a government carrying out torture in their name. It's also partly because their own government should be responsive to them, while their enemies are unlikely to be.


    Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you perhaps suggesting you don't think it's possible for some govts to officially or openly disassociate themselves from terrorism in some measure while secretly supporting it? Also, that terrorists aren't given safe haven by certain govts, or at least embed themselves in regions which aren't directly controlled by a govt? I think some terrorist organizations are more militarily powerful and perhaps even financially solvent than some govts.

    There's seemingly little or no inner conflict among terrorists in whether sending young people, including women and children, to blow up civilians compromises their ethics or morals. There's no tortured soul (pardon the pun) or even debate over the rightness or wrongness of suicide bombers or the kidnapping and beheading of civilians -- certainly not to our extent.

    That seems to be a truism rather than an argument, and surely has no bearing on what the actions of your government should be?


    I'd agree.

    However, I think it's indicative of the fact that some cultures and societies have flawed ethics or morals. In this sense it's relevant to whether we're better than our enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ""No better than our enemies": Just like Egun Caner said, Calvinists are worse than Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh gosh, the mighty Ergun Caner...welp, now I'm convinced!

    So anyways what compelling reason is there to believe Ergun Caner, hmm?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just an historical note. The US did not engage in torture in World War 2 against the Germans or Japanese. I would argue that that was a far more serious threat than that posed by terrorism today. If we didn't torture German generals to get information about Hitler's plans, then why should we be torturing captured terrorists?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Grifman said:

    Just an historical note. The US did not engage in torture in World War 2 against the Germans or Japanese. I would argue that that was a far more serious threat than that posed by terrorism today. If we didn't torture German generals to get information about Hitler's plans, then why should we be torturing captured terrorists?

    If they're different wars in different times with different enemies, etc., then why shouldn't we use different tactics?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, they are different wars in different times, but only states the obvious :) You've haven't told me how those differences matter.

    As I pointed out, I don't believe that terrorism poses nowhere near the threat to the US that the Axis did in World War II, and we didn't torture captured German generals (the Japanese didn't tend to surrender as we all know).

    Slogging through Western Europe cost the US tens of thousands of casualties, yet not once did we decide to torture German officers to obtain information to attempt to reduce the cost of that campaign.

    If you believe we should use different tactics, then tell me why rather than just posing the question. Tell me how this war and times are so different that they require the US to do what it did not do in WW2. That's the argument I'm waiting for.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why not just let the Moslems take over so everyone can become believers in Fatalism, then convince them to accept your brand of Fatalism instead?

    ReplyDelete
  13. PAUL C SAID:

    “Torture is… Convention Against Torture, ratified by the US on 21 October 1994.”

    Several problems:

    i) Yes, you can furnish a legal definition of torture. But I believe that Patrick is dealing with people, many of whom simply have a knee-jerk reaction to methods they informally classify as “torture.”

    ii) Liberal opponents of Bush policies on “torture” reject the primary of original intent in favor of a “living Constitution,” in which judges decide what a law means—regardless of original intent.

    Hence, it won’t do to simply cite the text of an international law.

    iii) There is also the question of which judicial bodies have the authority to interpret international law: national bodies or international bodies?

    iv) You only deal with the first part of Patrick’s statement. Citing international law, even if your interpretation were sound, fails to address the moral question. Legality and morality are not interchangeable, unless you’re a Hobbesean contract theorist.

    “By ‘no better than’, I assume that people mean that we abide by common standards of international law based on a shared moral sense that torture is unacceptable, and that they do not.”

    That begs several questions:

    i) International law reflects elite opinion, not popular opinion.

    ii) You also need to explain why a “shared moral sense” is equivalent to objective moral norms.

    In Muslim culture, honor killings and suicide bombing tap into a “shared moral sense.” In Aztec culture, human sacrifice tapped into a “shared moral sense.” In Nazi German, anti-Semitism tapped into a “shared moral sense.”

    iii) The question at issue is whether a terrorist has the moral right to withhold information about future plots to kill innocent people.

    Not only does he have no such right, but, to the contrary, he has a duty to divulge any foreknowledge of an impending attack.

    “Yes. The Convention Against Torture, which is now part of American law, applies in general.”

    Irrelevant. Patrick wasn’t discussion the state of the law, but the application of ethics.

    Do you think morality and legality are interchangeable? Was interracial marriage immoral back when we had laws against miscegenation?

    “No, but they do have rights under international law, and since they are being dealt with in the international arena those rights obtain.”

    But that sidesteps the question of whether we have good laws or bad laws. What’s the purpose of a law? To protect the victim? Or protect the assailant?

    If current laws do not allow us to defend ourselves against terrorists, then we need to change the law.

    GRIFMAN SAID:

    “Just an historical note. The US did not engage in torture in World War 2 against the Germans or Japanese. I would argue that that was a far more serious threat than that posed by terrorism today.”

    So where’s the argument?

    “If we didn't torture German generals to get information about Hitler's plans, then why should we be torturing captured terrorists?”

    i) How many German generals did we capture before Germany surrendered?

    ii) How do you know we didn’t “torture” any German generals during WWII? Are you assuming that if we did, such activity would have been reported?

    “Slogging through Western Europe cost the US tens of thousands of casualties, yet not once did we decide to torture German officers to obtain information to attempt to reduce the cost of that campaign.”

    i) Assuming that’s the case, then one can easily reverse your argument: in hindsight, we should have “tortured” German generals to reduce the body count.

    ii) You’re also failing to distinguish between POWs and unlawful combatants.

    “Tell me how this war and times are so different that they require the US to do what it did not do in WW2. That's the argument I'm waiting for.”

    Your comparison is a diversionary tactic. The question at issue is whether the use of coercive interrogation enables us to intercept a terrorist plot, thereby saving innocent lives. Even critics of the administration like George Tenet admit the value of coercive interrogation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I said: I would argue that that was a far more serious threat than that posed by terrorism today.

    Steve said: ”So where’s the argument?"

    Reply: Easy enough, I didn't realize a statement such as that would require an argument really. It seems pretty obvious to me. Germany and Japan had far greater militaries in number and capabilities, and the case of Germany some technological advantages over the Allies, than the jihadists do over the US today. The jihadists are far fewer in number, limited in resources/technology compared with the Axis.

    Indeed, they resort to terror because of their weakness - their tactics are a symptom of their inherent weaknesses.

    I said: If we didn't torture German generals to get information about Hitler's plans, then why should we be torturing captured terrorists?

    Steve asked: "i) How many German generals did we capture before Germany surrendered?"

    Response - I don't have an exact number, but I read a lot of military history and we did capture a number of them. When the US/UK captured Tunisia in 1943, we captured around 100,000 Germans, including a number of generals such as von Arnim, the commander of Army Group Tunisia. And of course we captured hundreds of thousands of enlisted men and lower officers too who weren't tortured either.

    Of note, I found a list of German generals housed at Camp Clinton, Mississippi, all captured before 1945. This list totals 37. I have their names/ranks if you want them.

    So, it's pretty clear that's it more than just a handful.

    Steve asked: "ii) How do you know we didn’t “torture” any German generals during WWII? Are you assuming that if we did, such activity would have been reported?"

    I reply: There's no documented evidence that we did. It was the stated policy of the US to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on POW's which forbids torture. I am not aware that any surviving German general ever claimed to be tortured by the Western Allies. That's what I know. What do you know? Do you have evidence otherwise?

    I said: Slogging through Western Europe cost the US tens of thousands of casualties, yet not once did we decide to torture German officers to obtain information to attempt to reduce the cost of that campaign.

    Steve replied: "i) Assuming that’s the case, then one can easily reverse your argument: in hindsight, we should have “tortured” German generals to reduce the body count."

    Sure, one can make all sorts of arguments. But as you said to me above, "Where's the argument?" But that doesn't change the fact that we didn't and apparently didn't feel the need to.

    Steve said: "ii) You’re also failing to distinguish between POWs and unlawful combatants."

    I don't need to. I merely stating the fact that the US didn't torture in WW2 when circumstances were more dire. Their "status" is irrelevant to that argument.

    I said: Tell me how this war and times are so different that they require the US to do what it did not do in WW2. That's the argument I'm waiting for.

    Steve said: "Your comparison is a diversionary tactic. The question at issue is whether the use of coercive interrogation enables us to intercept a terrorist plot, thereby saving innocent lives. Even critics of the administration like George Tenet admit the value of coercive interrogation."

    My comparison is not diversionary at all. It is entirely relevant. If coercive interrogation is effective, if it can save lives, then why didn't we use it during WW2 when greater stakes were involved. And if we didn't use it then, why should we use it now?

    ReplyDelete
  15. GRIFMAN SAID:

    “Reply: Easy enough, I didn't realize a statement such as that would require an argument really. It seems pretty obvious to me. Germany and Japan had far greater militaries in number and capabilities, and the case of Germany some technological advantages over the Allies, than the jihadists do over the US today. The jihadists are far fewer in number, limited in resources/technology compared with the Axis.”

    That’s a silly comparison on several grounds:

    i) You’re failing to distinguish between the threat which Germany posed to England and the Continent with the threat that Germany posed to the US.

    ii) It’s not as if Germany and Japan were ever in much position to, say, invade the American mainland with Panzer units. Many of their military assets were pretty irrelevant.

    iii) WW2 technology is hardly comparable to contemporary technology, viz. biochemterrorism, cyberterrorism, &c.

    “And of course we captured hundreds of thousands of enlisted men and lower officers too who weren't tortured either.”

    Now you’re moving the goalpost.

    “I reply: There's no documented evidence that we did. It was the stated policy of the US to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions on POW's which forbids torture.”

    i) Which version of the Geneva Conventions are you referring to? These were revised on several occasions. Specify by document and date.

    ii) And what specific techniques were banned? You like to bandy the word “torture.” That begs the question.

    If, say, sleep deprivation “torture”? If sleep deprivation were the only way to extract actionable info from a terrorist, would you still oppose the use of sleep deprivation?

    “If coercive interrogation is effective, if it can save lives, then why didn't we use it during WW2 when greater stakes were involved. And if we didn't use it then, why should we use it now?”

    i) You’re quite selective in your appeal to historical precedent. For one thing, you disregard the use of “torture” during the Cold War—not to mention other methods (e.g. assassination).

    ii) And if you’re going to use WW2 as the standard of comparison, we also used carpet-bombing, flamethrowers, internment, and the atom bomb. We were pretty ruthless in doing whatever it takes to win. Do you think we should revert to those tried-and-true tactics?

    "My comparison is not diversionary at all. It is entirely relevant. If coercive interrogation is effective, if it can save lives, then why didn't we use it during WW2."

    That's a nonsequitur. That doesn't begin to prove its ineffectiveness. And I note you're ducking the testimony of men like Tenet.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Grifman,

    Steve's already furnished a more than sufficient response to your argument.

    But, even if we play along with your "argument" for a moment, I'll add that one reason might be that the Allies had cracked Enigma. The Allies were able to decrypt German ciphered communication based on Enigma.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Grifman said:

    If coercive interrogation is effective, if it can save lives, then why didn't we use it during WW2 when greater stakes were involved. And if we didn't use it then, why should we use it now?

    If giving flowers and chocolates to a girl is effective, if it allows me to get a date with her, then why didn't I give flowers and chocolates to Sarah years ago when greater stakes were involved? And if I didn't give flowers and chocolates to Sarah years ago, then why should I give flowers and chocolates to Ashley today?

    ReplyDelete
  18. GRIFMAN SAID:

    "The jihadists are far fewer in number, limited in resources/technology compared with the Axis."

    That comparison disregards the role of state sponsors of terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Grifman said...

    "My comparison is not diversionary at all. It is entirely relevant. If coercive interrogation is effective, if it can save lives, then why didn't we use it during WW2."

    Yes, it's a diversionary tactic. We can have direct evidence for the effectiveness of coercive interrogation. We don't need need an argument from analogy to establish this.

    Indeed, the very fact that you resort to this very roundabout argument is a tacit admission that you have no direct evidence to the contrary.

    Your historical analogy doesn't prove that coercive interrogation is ineffective. Indeed, it couldn't prove that.

    How could the *lack* of coercive interrogation prove that coercive interrogation is ineffective? The only thing which could prove that is if we use coercive interrogation, and it proves to be ineffective.

    Conversely, we can have direct evidence for the effectiveness of coercive interrogation. If we do it, and it works, that's the only evidence we need. The only evidence that's even pertinent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. GRIFMAN SAID:

    “I don't need to. I merely stating the fact that the US didn't torture in WW2 when circumstances were more dire. Their ‘status’ is irrelevant to that argument.”

    It’s quite relevant to the argument. The rationale for treating the two groups differently involves the principle of reciprocity: we won’t harm the POWs in our custody if you don’t harm the POWs in your custody.

    We might well benefit from coercively interrogating some high-ranking POWs, but the enemy would benefit from doing the same. Therefore, we sacrifice a strategic advantage in the interests of better conditions for our captured soldiers.

    The principle of reciprocity does not apply to unlawful combatants since they don’t honor the rules of warfare. Therefore, there’s no reason to sacrifice a strategic benefit by not subjecting a high-value terrorist to coercive interrogation. Terrorists don’t return the favor in case they capture one of our own.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Adding on a bit, when you're fighting against uniformed armies who obey the Geneva Convention, you don't need to worry about torturing the other side. Armies move pretty much in the open, and they go against other armies, and while the goal is to try to limit casualites on your side as much as possible, when it gets down to conflict it's fairly straightforward between the two armies and the "rules" are fairly well placed already.

    But those rules don't apply to non-uniformed individuals. Spies, for example. Consider just the simple fact that according to the rules of war you cannot execute a captured soldier but you can execute a captured spy. Why would that be? Because spies are not operating in the normal mode of an army, even though every country's military forces use them. They do not have the same "rights" as soldiers on the battlefield do for the simple reason that their jobs are quite different.

    If you are going to make a comparison between US tactics in previous wars and the way the US behaves towards Jihadists, you MUST compare the way that the US behaves towards NON-UNIFORMED captures and the Jihadists, because the Jihadists are not a typical army.

    And if you believe the US never tortured captured spies, then you're more naive than I thought.

    Furthermore, the claim that an army would have more supplies and therefore it would be more necessary for us to torture regular army officers than the Jihadists is a farce on the face of it. Jihadists can strike in areas an army can never reach precisely because they violate all the "rules" of war that an army follows. Jihadists don't care about innocents--in fact, they seek them out for maximum punishment. They are not obvious, they are hidden targets. There is no chain of command where higher ups can keep the enlisted men in line when things go south. There is no typical army discipline at all; there is only the indoctrination of the Jihad.

    A small number of disguised individuals can inflict far more damage than a sizeable army ever could, because the sizeable army can be met immediately with another sizeable army whereas it takes a great deal of intelligence to track down who the hidden Jihadists are. This is common sense, which is why liberals never get it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But what if someone takes issue with this definition or at least certain portions of this definition, or would like further clarification (e.g. how severe is "severe," what precisely constitutes "intimidation" or "coercion" or "discrimination," what if some forms of alleged "torture" are or become "lawful sanctions")?

    Would it be relevant if, having committed a murder, an individual took issue with the definition of murder? Your moral relativism here is extremely dangerous - imagine if everybody was allowed to define what was legal solely on their own terms! Clarification is a more valid question, and in that area you might be able to find some room to justify waterboarding - although that justification is unlikely to stick, as we are finding out.

    Okay, that's fine, but why do you think that?

    Let me give you a parallel - tongue in cheek, obviously. Perhaps it's true the United States can win the war against drugs without nuking Afghanistan into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. But just because we can, does that then mean we should?

    I don't think we need "real-life examples." I mean, we can imagine realistic hypotheticals, and there's nothing wrong with that, is there? For example, the oft-cited "ticking time bomb" scenario. It's a realistic possibility.

    Actually I think we do need real-life examples, for two main reasons. First, one could completely reject your notion that your hypotheticals are "realistic" if you do not provide any examples that would validate them as realistic. Second, we are talking about practices which will be applied in real life, not merely theoretically, and that means that we have to discuss not what is possible, but what is likely - many things are possible, but not all of them are likely. For example, I could conjure a realistic situation in which the only way to save the population of the USA is to sacrifice a living baby (although that sounds more like a plot twist in 24...), but that doesn't mean that we should pass legislation to allow baby sacrifice in case one day that scenario comes to pass.

    For starters, let's say as expressed in the Bill of Rights.

    It doesn't seem very likely that this is what your opponents refer to when they say that torture is un-American, does it? What do you think *they* mean when they say American values?

    I would've thought that at some point during one of our wars we've successfully used "torture" to save many lives?

    This would appear to be a concession that you are not in fact aware of any situations in which torture has been successfully used to save many lives. Given that you lack any evidence, why do you hold this belief?

    Also, even if they do constitute torture, can torture sometimes be acceptable under certain conditions?

    No. It might be necessary, but that's not the same thing as being acceptable.

    However, if we want to move more toward the legal, then what's more fundamental: whether a govt protects its own people and citizens or those of other nations (assuming we have to choose one or the other)? Isn't the social contract between a democratic govt and its people more fundamental?

    The Convention Against Torture is intended to protect your fellow citizens against torture, both from your own government and from other governments.

    Yes, so you say, but where's the argument that it's "better for the society that lets them go free"?

    That is my argument. I prefer to live in a society that is not prepared to grind up the innocent in order to get to the guilty; therefore - all other factors being equal - I deem that society "better". I find this incredibly obvious, and I wonder why you find it a difficult question to answer.

    I'd think it matters in the sense that their ethical or moral framework as a whole is inconsistent.

    Not really. An argument within an inconsistent framework may be consistent in itself. You might challenge them about their priorities, but not about their reasoning.

    Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you perhaps suggesting you don't think it's possible for some govts to officially or openly disassociate themselves from terrorism in some measure while secretly supporting it? Also, that terrorists aren't given safe haven by certain govts, or at least embed themselves in regions which aren't directly controlled by a govt?

    No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that your political opponents are concerned primarily by the actions of their government (the US government, remember), with whom they have a direct political and social link, as well as some measure of responsibility for; rather than for armed groups in foreign countries with which they have no substantial relationships.

    I think some terrorist organizations are more militarily powerful and perhaps even financially solvent than some govts.

    Really? Can you name them for us, please?

    However, I think it's indicative of the fact that some cultures and societies have flawed ethics or morals. In this sense it's relevant to whether we're better than our enemies.

    It's relevant only if you accept the very argument that you're trying to attack. You're seem to be arguing that because our enemies have flawed ethics that allow them to engage in things we consider morally unacceptable (like torture), we are allowed to use torture on them - because we're more moral?

    ReplyDelete
  23. FYI: this thread is continued here.

    ReplyDelete