Andrew Sullivan subjects president Bush’s speech, in which he admitted to secret CIA prisons but denied authorizing torture, to a critical look: 1, 2.
9 Responses to “Some Common (Moral) Sense about Torture”
Christopher J. Przywojski
Dr. Palmer,
First of all let me just say that I am new to this blog as I was introduced to it by Johnathon Burns, who you might recongize. Anyway, I am a political science student and I have, so far, enjoyed reading your blogs and the comments made. Anyway this is my first of, hopefully, many comments I’ll make…
This is a very tough issue for me. While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us. Brutally. The Geneva Convention was set up to prevent torture and other crimes against humanity but in the context of World War II. This is a much different war. This is a war of information. Lack of information will result in catostrophic events, i.e. Sept. 11, 2001. So the question is, at what cost must we attain information? A typical argument for torture asks: What proper methods should be used on an individual who may know the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon in the United States? Most Americans would respond, ‘every means possible.’ Now, of course, the situation in Abu Graib and Guantanomo involve individuals who may know the whereabouts of high level officials working for Al Queada, i.e. Bid Laden. Should torture be used in their case?
Also, President Bush can not openly admit to acts of torture because doing so would give every Muslim nation the right to torture our troops and civilians (of course some of them do so anyway). He may be dishonest, but if he’s trying to protect us than it is justified. But if he’s simply trying to cover his own ass than that’s a whole different story.
Chris,
This is a very tough issue for me. While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us. Brutally.
I think that the key thing to remember is that these are people that the administration thinks want to kill us. In many cases it has turned out that they weren’t in fact what the administration claimed. If there were some 100% infallible way of making sure that only the “bad guys” got tortured, you might have an argument. I’d still disagree with it, because I believe firmly that you can’t claim to be a good guy while embracing the tactics of the bad guys. However, you’d at least have an argument.
But when we’re merely dealing with people who are accused of being terrorists, and particularly with the evidence that Sullivan pointed out in the articles Tom linked to, it looks like many of these people might not be terrorists at all. In spite of what the President has claimed. When taken in that light, ie that we don’t have perfect information, you can no longer say that these are people who want to brutally kill us, and in fact might not even have been our enemies. When looked at in that light, advocating torture seems positively disturbing.
Christopher, your argument makes a very serious error: “While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us.”
The absence of judicial oversight & rule of law mean that we have no idea who the gov’t has imprisoned. People are arrested and tortured simply because someone suspects they might be terrorists. Who? On what grounds? Who is providing oversight? We’re supposed to take the word of George Bush, or Alberto Gonzalez, or whomever that the prisoners are guilty.
You are hardly the first person to make this argument — it’s the first point made by defenders (at AEI, Heritage, etc.) of the administration policy to critics, when they argue that both criminal trials and courts martial are inappropriate for terrorists. The argument simply assumes anyone accused is guilty (and “hence” undeserving of proper legal treatment). ((Exactly why the rule of law shouldn’t apply to the guilty is also a relevant question.)
You also suggest that this conflict is somehow different from, say, WWII — which I don’t see at all. If torturing German or Japanese prisoners might have saved American lives by revealing impending attacks, should torture have been employed? Your logic suggests yes, I think.
Finally, most people outside of the U.S. are already convinced that the U.S. gov’t uses torture and denies prisoners due process. It would be best if the president would come clean, confess, and then make certain it stops. Detainment of prisoners w/o due process and torture are immoral and unConstitutional, they turn world opinion against us, and they make us more like our enemies than we ever should have been.
As an aside to this discussion, how and who defines “torture”? Some of the techniques discussed lately do not seem to me to reach the severity of what I would define as torture.
Does the US Constitution apply when dealing with
foreign combatants? Or is the limitation on our agents regardless of who they are dealing with?
I have heard little discussion about these points.
Lots of important points, problems, and questions raised above.
First, the laws of war governing the treatment of prisoners predate World War II. The fact that you believe that someone intends to harm you does not, at least not by itself, justify torturing him. (For one thing, as Jonathan points out, he might be innocent.)
As to what constitutes torture, I’ve no clearly formulated views on that topic. There is, however, a body of international and domestic law on the matter and it seems pretty clear that the U.S. government has flaunted the standards articulated in those laws. I don’t object to psychological manipulation, nor do I consider stressful interrogation to be per se torture. But to keep someone’s head under water so that he feels like he is drowning sure sounds like torture to me. And when you stuff an enemy general (who was clearly protected by the Geneva Convention, whereas not *all*–although certainly some–of the requirements of the Geneva Convention are required by law to be applied to non-state combatants, i.e., Al Qaeda, or to combatants from non-signatory states, i.e., the Taliban) into a sleeping bag and beat and suffocate him, you’re clearly engaged in torture.
I have no sympathy for the 14 vicious killers who have been transferred to Guantanamo. But I do think that the law should be applied to them and that lawfulness should distinguish us from them. That does not mean that people captured on the battlefield or enemy combatants deserve the same standards of conduct as would be applied in a U.S. court for an act of domestic violence. But even those captured on the battlefield should be handled in a lawful way.
I agree that the US should adhere to a higher standard. But, I ask you to ask any combat veteran if he thinks laws of war are realistic.
The problem is that civilians are putting our troops in harms way by calling the shots on a field that they have no expertise. The grunt in the foxhole could care less if you guys are disturb by the act of torture. Survival is their focus by any means necessary.
You can not fight war legalistically. I am willing to say that there are some US battle deaths caused by a soldier’s hesitation to engage battle because he or she had to think if it was legal or not to do so. This happened in Beirut in 1983. The suicide truck was able to drive through the barracks gate unabated because the Marine guards were not issued bullets for their weapons. They had no bullets because our very bright politicians feared that there would be accidental shootings of civilians in a war zone. Imagine that. In the end, 241 defenseless US Marines wasted.
I am totally against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, it was and it is a pipe dream to think that the people of those nations in their region would welcome and adopt constitutional republicanism or representative democracy at gun point. If they wanted it, they would make the effort to attain it. US actions to liberate people in Afghanstan and Iraq are not appreciated and not welcomed. Imagine that.
I, also, do not agree with or advocate torture, but I am at a lost on what other method or methods of attaining info from terrorist prisoners can be exercised. If a viable and doable alternative of interrogation could be use, maybe and hopefully torture can be thrown out the window. Do any one have any ideas?
I certainly disagree with violent tortue.The case of Guantanamo is pretty alarming.The fact that most of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism-a study this year by a New Jersey law school found 90 % of the inmates had nothing to do with terrorism- is all the more despicable. If the U.S government gave individuals hearings to ensure that they are actually terrorist, if it had treated them lawfully rather than horrendously interrogating them, and keeping them for an indefinite period of time, things would be different. Even innocent prisoners, as part of a repatriation process, will return to their countries carrying the stigma of Guantanamo, and that itself is a problem. Countries are reluctant in taking back innocent prisoner- specially those who doesn’t belong to the Saudi, Yemenite, and Afghani majority- merely because they are branded as terrorist by the US. It took the U.S authority almost two-and-a- half years to find a shelter for five innocent Chinese prisoners who were eventually released in Mai in Albania. The same problem applies to other Libyan prisoners. Moreover, the covert prison system believed to be set up by the CIA in eight countries including Afghanistan, Thailand and several other countries in Eastern Europe is all the more appalling.
It is not the U.S. constitution per se that applies in this case but rather the laws of the U.S. and treaties the U.S. has signed outlawing torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. These laws apply to both CIA agents and military personnel.
As for what constitutes torture, the law is vague and deliberately so. This way, someone can not argue that some vicious way of treating prisoners is not torture since it is not explicitly covered by some statute — exactly the strategy of the Bush administration. The terms used to describe torture in law are variously cruel, inhuman, degrading, actions that “shock the conscience,” etc. I think most civilized people know what these terms mean.
The worst fallacy in the torture debate is the argument used by John Yoo and other defenders of the president that for an action to be torture it has to inflict permanent injury. This is nonsense. Anyone who wants to argue this is welcome to go to the local dentist to get a deep cavity filled and refuse any anesthetic. As far as I know, there will be no permanent injury from this although the nerve may be excited for several hours afterwards. For that matter, sticking bamboo shoots under the fingernails does not cause permanent injury either.
Dr. Palmer,
First of all let me just say that I am new to this blog as I was introduced to it by Johnathon Burns, who you might recongize. Anyway, I am a political science student and I have, so far, enjoyed reading your blogs and the comments made. Anyway this is my first of, hopefully, many comments I’ll make…
This is a very tough issue for me. While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us. Brutally. The Geneva Convention was set up to prevent torture and other crimes against humanity but in the context of World War II. This is a much different war. This is a war of information. Lack of information will result in catostrophic events, i.e. Sept. 11, 2001. So the question is, at what cost must we attain information? A typical argument for torture asks: What proper methods should be used on an individual who may know the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon in the United States? Most Americans would respond, ‘every means possible.’ Now, of course, the situation in Abu Graib and Guantanomo involve individuals who may know the whereabouts of high level officials working for Al Queada, i.e. Bid Laden. Should torture be used in their case?
Also, President Bush can not openly admit to acts of torture because doing so would give every Muslim nation the right to torture our troops and civilians (of course some of them do so anyway). He may be dishonest, but if he’s trying to protect us than it is justified. But if he’s simply trying to cover his own ass than that’s a whole different story.
Chris,
This is a very tough issue for me. While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us. Brutally.
I think that the key thing to remember is that these are people that the administration thinks want to kill us. In many cases it has turned out that they weren’t in fact what the administration claimed. If there were some 100% infallible way of making sure that only the “bad guys” got tortured, you might have an argument. I’d still disagree with it, because I believe firmly that you can’t claim to be a good guy while embracing the tactics of the bad guys. However, you’d at least have an argument.
But when we’re merely dealing with people who are accused of being terrorists, and particularly with the evidence that Sullivan pointed out in the articles Tom linked to, it looks like many of these people might not be terrorists at all. In spite of what the President has claimed. When taken in that light, ie that we don’t have perfect information, you can no longer say that these are people who want to brutally kill us, and in fact might not even have been our enemies. When looked at in that light, advocating torture seems positively disturbing.
~Jon
Crud, all the formatting I wanted to use in that last post didn’t go through…
Christopher, your argument makes a very serious error: “While I do not favor torture, we must remind ourselves that these people who we are keeping in prison want to kill us.”
The absence of judicial oversight & rule of law mean that we have no idea who the gov’t has imprisoned. People are arrested and tortured simply because someone suspects they might be terrorists. Who? On what grounds? Who is providing oversight? We’re supposed to take the word of George Bush, or Alberto Gonzalez, or whomever that the prisoners are guilty.
You are hardly the first person to make this argument — it’s the first point made by defenders (at AEI, Heritage, etc.) of the administration policy to critics, when they argue that both criminal trials and courts martial are inappropriate for terrorists. The argument simply assumes anyone accused is guilty (and “hence” undeserving of proper legal treatment). ((Exactly why the rule of law shouldn’t apply to the guilty is also a relevant question.)
You also suggest that this conflict is somehow different from, say, WWII — which I don’t see at all. If torturing German or Japanese prisoners might have saved American lives by revealing impending attacks, should torture have been employed? Your logic suggests yes, I think.
Finally, most people outside of the U.S. are already convinced that the U.S. gov’t uses torture and denies prisoners due process. It would be best if the president would come clean, confess, and then make certain it stops. Detainment of prisoners w/o due process and torture are immoral and unConstitutional, they turn world opinion against us, and they make us more like our enemies than we ever should have been.
As an aside to this discussion, how and who defines “torture”? Some of the techniques discussed lately do not seem to me to reach the severity of what I would define as torture.
Does the US Constitution apply when dealing with
foreign combatants? Or is the limitation on our agents regardless of who they are dealing with?
I have heard little discussion about these points.
Lots of important points, problems, and questions raised above.
First, the laws of war governing the treatment of prisoners predate World War II. The fact that you believe that someone intends to harm you does not, at least not by itself, justify torturing him. (For one thing, as Jonathan points out, he might be innocent.)
As to what constitutes torture, I’ve no clearly formulated views on that topic. There is, however, a body of international and domestic law on the matter and it seems pretty clear that the U.S. government has flaunted the standards articulated in those laws. I don’t object to psychological manipulation, nor do I consider stressful interrogation to be per se torture. But to keep someone’s head under water so that he feels like he is drowning sure sounds like torture to me. And when you stuff an enemy general (who was clearly protected by the Geneva Convention, whereas not *all*–although certainly some–of the requirements of the Geneva Convention are required by law to be applied to non-state combatants, i.e., Al Qaeda, or to combatants from non-signatory states, i.e., the Taliban) into a sleeping bag and beat and suffocate him, you’re clearly engaged in torture.
I have no sympathy for the 14 vicious killers who have been transferred to Guantanamo. But I do think that the law should be applied to them and that lawfulness should distinguish us from them. That does not mean that people captured on the battlefield or enemy combatants deserve the same standards of conduct as would be applied in a U.S. court for an act of domestic violence. But even those captured on the battlefield should be handled in a lawful way.
I agree that the US should adhere to a higher standard. But, I ask you to ask any combat veteran if he thinks laws of war are realistic.
The problem is that civilians are putting our troops in harms way by calling the shots on a field that they have no expertise. The grunt in the foxhole could care less if you guys are disturb by the act of torture. Survival is their focus by any means necessary.
You can not fight war legalistically. I am willing to say that there are some US battle deaths caused by a soldier’s hesitation to engage battle because he or she had to think if it was legal or not to do so. This happened in Beirut in 1983. The suicide truck was able to drive through the barracks gate unabated because the Marine guards were not issued bullets for their weapons. They had no bullets because our very bright politicians feared that there would be accidental shootings of civilians in a war zone. Imagine that. In the end, 241 defenseless US Marines wasted.
I am totally against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, it was and it is a pipe dream to think that the people of those nations in their region would welcome and adopt constitutional republicanism or representative democracy at gun point. If they wanted it, they would make the effort to attain it. US actions to liberate people in Afghanstan and Iraq are not appreciated and not welcomed. Imagine that.
I, also, do not agree with or advocate torture, but I am at a lost on what other method or methods of attaining info from terrorist prisoners can be exercised. If a viable and doable alternative of interrogation could be use, maybe and hopefully torture can be thrown out the window. Do any one have any ideas?
I certainly disagree with violent tortue.The case of Guantanamo is pretty alarming.The fact that most of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism-a study this year by a New Jersey law school found 90 % of the inmates had nothing to do with terrorism- is all the more despicable. If the U.S government gave individuals hearings to ensure that they are actually terrorist, if it had treated them lawfully rather than horrendously interrogating them, and keeping them for an indefinite period of time, things would be different. Even innocent prisoners, as part of a repatriation process, will return to their countries carrying the stigma of Guantanamo, and that itself is a problem. Countries are reluctant in taking back innocent prisoner- specially those who doesn’t belong to the Saudi, Yemenite, and Afghani majority- merely because they are branded as terrorist by the US. It took the U.S authority almost two-and-a- half years to find a shelter for five innocent Chinese prisoners who were eventually released in Mai in Albania. The same problem applies to other Libyan prisoners. Moreover, the covert prison system believed to be set up by the CIA in eight countries including Afghanistan, Thailand and several other countries in Eastern Europe is all the more appalling.
Mike,
It is not the U.S. constitution per se that applies in this case but rather the laws of the U.S. and treaties the U.S. has signed outlawing torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. These laws apply to both CIA agents and military personnel.
As for what constitutes torture, the law is vague and deliberately so. This way, someone can not argue that some vicious way of treating prisoners is not torture since it is not explicitly covered by some statute — exactly the strategy of the Bush administration. The terms used to describe torture in law are variously cruel, inhuman, degrading, actions that “shock the conscience,” etc. I think most civilized people know what these terms mean.
The worst fallacy in the torture debate is the argument used by John Yoo and other defenders of the president that for an action to be torture it has to inflict permanent injury. This is nonsense. Anyone who wants to argue this is welcome to go to the local dentist to get a deep cavity filled and refuse any anesthetic. As far as I know, there will be no permanent injury from this although the nerve may be excited for several hours afterwards. For that matter, sticking bamboo shoots under the fingernails does not cause permanent injury either.