Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Millman: Why did we torture? [View all]
(Don't freak out about the URL; Millman is a fascinating thinker.)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/why-did-we-torture/
Most commonly, tortures purpose is not to extract intelligence, but to extract confessions. Whether youre talking about the Inquisition or the NKVD, there is value to a given regime in proving that the accused is guilty. It vindicates the justice of the regimes actions generally; it demonstrates the power of the regime over truth itself. It may well be of distinctly secondary importance whether or not the confession is actually true, whether the accused is actually guilty. So long as he confesses, the regimes power is confirmed.
Relatedly, torture is a valuable tool to instill fear in the general population. Incarceration is fearful, but if incarceration brings with it terrible physical and psychological pain, including the possibility of permanent injury or death, then the possibility of being apprehended by the authorities is much more fearful, and ordinary civilians will be much more cautious about risking that possibility. If instilling fear is more important to a regime than inspiring confidence, cooperation and loyalty, then torture serves these purposes well.
...
Ive written before about the overwhelming fear that afflicted the country in the wake of 9-11, and how, perversely, exaggerating the severity of the threat from al Qaeda helped address that fear, because it made it acceptable to contemplate more extreme actions in response. If al Qaeda was really just a band of lunatics who got lucky, then 3,000 died because, well, because thats the kind of thing that can happen. If al Qaeda was the leading edge of a worldwide Islamo-fascist movement with the real potential to destroy the West, then we would be justified in nuking Mecca in response. Next to that kind of response, torture seems moderate.
Willingness to torture became, first within elite government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally, and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That proving ones seriousness in the fight was its primary purpose from the beginning, in my view. It was only secondarily about extracting intelligence. It certainly wasnt about instilling fear or extracting false confessions these would not have served American purposes. It was never about them at all. It was about us. It was our psychological security blanket, our best evidence that we were all-in in this war, the thing that proved to us that we were fierce enough to win.
Relatedly, torture is a valuable tool to instill fear in the general population. Incarceration is fearful, but if incarceration brings with it terrible physical and psychological pain, including the possibility of permanent injury or death, then the possibility of being apprehended by the authorities is much more fearful, and ordinary civilians will be much more cautious about risking that possibility. If instilling fear is more important to a regime than inspiring confidence, cooperation and loyalty, then torture serves these purposes well.
...
Ive written before about the overwhelming fear that afflicted the country in the wake of 9-11, and how, perversely, exaggerating the severity of the threat from al Qaeda helped address that fear, because it made it acceptable to contemplate more extreme actions in response. If al Qaeda was really just a band of lunatics who got lucky, then 3,000 died because, well, because thats the kind of thing that can happen. If al Qaeda was the leading edge of a worldwide Islamo-fascist movement with the real potential to destroy the West, then we would be justified in nuking Mecca in response. Next to that kind of response, torture seems moderate.
Willingness to torture became, first within elite government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally, and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That proving ones seriousness in the fight was its primary purpose from the beginning, in my view. It was only secondarily about extracting intelligence. It certainly wasnt about instilling fear or extracting false confessions these would not have served American purposes. It was never about them at all. It was about us. It was our psychological security blanket, our best evidence that we were all-in in this war, the thing that proved to us that we were fierce enough to win.
My snipping may seem to make the wrong point, incidentally. The first two paragraphs (which I included just because I think they're very good) are Millman's argument about what torture usually is used for: as a proof of control over truth itself ("There... are... four... lights!" . But he argues that Our Torture is Different (tm) because it was largely used as an internal signal of "strength" or will" or whatever.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
17 replies, 2450 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I don't think the general public can know 'why' 'we' tortured because the general public doesn't
NewDeal_Dem
Dec 2014
#1
That might fly if it was anyone except low level non officers being punished, which was the case
NewDeal_Dem
Dec 2014
#12
I don't need to educate myself. "if the order was illegal" being the sticking point. It's been a
NewDeal_Dem
Dec 2014
#9
"A long time since Nuremburg"? Oh, my, my, my. When such is said about living memory, what happens
WinkyDink
Dec 2014
#14
The first most people had an inkling was Abu Ghraib. For which only a few low-level peons got
NewDeal_Dem
Dec 2014
#10