The Wrong Torture Question

[davidswanson]

When Americans get "ethical" these days they ponder the great moral mysteries, like "Is public health coverage fair to insurance companies?" or "If we increase the military budget but reduce one section of it, can the whole world still be safe?" or "Would you still oppose torture if it worked?"

Let me suggest a few reasons why I think that last question is the wrong one.

First, torture DID work. It forced false agreement with war lies, helping to launch a long-desired illegal war. And it persuaded many Americans that some very scary and very foreign people were out to get them, people so scary that they had to be tortured in order to talk with them, people whose every false utterance, aimed at stopping the pain, instead generated color-coded horror warnings.

Second, torture has boosted recruitment for anti-U.S. organizations tremendously, horribly damaged the United States' image, stripped U.S. diplomats of the power to address human rights abuses abroad, as well as stripping U.S. citizens of a clear moral right to protest being tortured, and set an example that has spread far and wide. Torture has brutalized participants and witnesses, and we are all witnesses, and it has destroyed lives both through torture to the point of death and through torture to the point of unbearable life.

Third, if you're going to violate particular laws and treaties, you can either repeal them and leave all the other ones intact, or you can simply proceed criminally, thereby assaulting the whole structure of law, leaving everyone in doubt whether ANY laws will be enforced against important people. Our government has taken the latter approach and redefined crimes as "policy differences," which is why torture is ongoing and no criminal penalty will deter its future expansion or the commission of other crimes of whatever sort by high officials.

Fourth, if torture had produced life-saving information, we would have long since heard that fact shouted from every television studio. In fact, we did hear such claims made. They just all turned out to be fictional. In the latest claim of this sort, torture supposedly produced information on the planned bombing of a building in Los Angeles, and this information was transported back in time to the moment at which investigators had already discovered that proposal and laughed heartily at the then-debunked claim that a serious plot had ever developed. The fact that Dick Cheney is pushing this nonsense on us is not actually a compelling reason to believe it unquestioningly.

Fifth, if torture ever produced life-saving information it would be through sheer luck and not intention. Nobody tortures with that intention, because expert interrogators believe other methods are more effective than torture. And if that lucky day ever came, there would be no basis on which to surmise that other methods would not have been at least as effective as the torture was. So, even if a real ticking time bomb situation could be created, there would be no reason to believe torture to be the best tool. And if you could magically design a situation in which, by definition, torture was the ethical choice, you still would not have created a situation in which ignoring the crime of torture would do less damage than pardoning the torturers.

So, do ends justify means? Is torture just plain wrong even in those cases when it would save more lives than it cost? These are intensely ignorant questions. Ends must always be made to justify any means, but the ends must be understood in their entirety. If one result of an action is damage to the rule of law or exacerbation of international hatred or promotion of senseless fear, that must be part of the calculation. Of course torture would not be wrong in a situation in which, all things considered, it did more good than harm; but that situation cannot be found. Whether you claim to simply adhere to a blanket rule, or you consider all the consequences of your actions, you arrive at the same conclusion: torture must be abolished.

But so must the debate over whether torture must be abolished. Torture is illegal. Our laws must be enforced. Torture's recent prominent use by the United States came about in an attempt to promote a far worse crime than torture, the crime of aggressive war. We should not be asking ourselves whether torture was an acceptable means toward that end. We should be asking ourselves how we can best rid the world of wars of aggression.

[vixengrl]

1. The debate is repugnant, and I think those who advocate

for the allowance of some torture techniques in some instances have simply failed to ask themselves when and where the reasonable cut-offs should be, and how likely it is that such a time-sensitive situation as the "ticking time-bomb" scenario would ever take place. And they abandon the question of "blowback" abroad as a result of torture because they've adopted a short-sighted propostion I think of as "provisional security." They don't care what happens elsewhere, or to other people, or in the long run, so long as they feel safe, right now.

This "safe for now, by any means necessary" attitude is a position I think of as both cowardly and immoral, and because there has been a strain of thought in our society that actually encourages this outlook, and has even labeled it "patriotic" to indulge in this bloody-mindedness, I think further investigations and proseutions will be actually necessary to shake people out of this moral torpor. The torture apologists "weasel" about on the subject, either trying to stick to the line that such things are "enhanced interrogation" (without really being able to justify where a line on techniques should be drawn), they weasel about by being uninformed as if, a la Noonan, they prefer to keep it mysterious (Gingrich was most recently caught in this, "Gee, I don't know what torture is..." nonsense) and they also are weasels again when they have to admit it's torture, but "it works." It is surprising to me that so many people who probably think of themselves as "law and order"-oriented people who despise moral relativism, have been reduced to "Well, whether it is torture depends on the meaning of 'is'."

I find the connection of the endorsement of these techniques to the gathering of "intelligence" specifically relating to an al-Qaeda/Iraq link especially troubling. It provides a sordid motive outside of the "security" justification that really should make people sick when we consider the sheer human toll of the Iraq War. To me, this is clearly an abuse of the power of the White House, and I really think it needs to go to the highest level, because that was where the most harm was done. It has been said that the Justice Department can't make that happen, or that the Senate lacks the political will--

I can't help but suppose "political will" comes from--um, us? The electorate? For the sake of saying what you already know, we can bring all the stuff we have to our representatives, but a good part of what we have to do, is keep whacking at the aopologists. Spread the information. Get the more egregious parts publicized so that people more readily grasp that injustice and cruelty were institutionalized. Never fail to mention--"and our troops have paid a price for this."

And I also hope they release more documentation. I clearly recall how appalled people were by the Abu Ghraib pictures when they came out--They depicted something viscerally wrong, gut-wrenchingly wrong, and I'm afraid that for too many people--words aren't enough. But that time--they could get away with their "few bad apples", "blame the grunts" line.

With the memos we've seen--not any more.

The law on torture is an absolute. The US Convention on Torture is pretty clear. History gives up many examples (any of which Bybee, Yoo, and Bradbury could've drawn from, if they intended to advise scrupulously, and not from compulsion to arrive at a predetermined decision) of instances where techniques in use by the US, were previously prosecuted. There isn't any "weasel" room. This "unworthy" (to use David Broder's word) outlook that the law is what makes us a functioning civilization has to take precedence over the idea that people will be just too, too very upset if our former leaders were ever held accountable, or that we somehow should prostitute our morality and values for temporary safety, or that they, you know, were all "bad guys" and had it coming.

A lot of the anti-terror people have said we are in a war for our Western Civilization. Good. Let's stand for it then. This means a rejection of torture, a due process under the law for the perpetrators of the crimes, and a retoration of our values of freedom and human rights over tyranny.

[vixengrl]

2. Also for the sake of kicking, I don't mean to disparage weasels--

as in the small, ferret-like vermin that suck eggs in chicken coops and are therefore considered a form of opportunistic vermin. They're just small mammals doing what small mammals do, and just like I defend the stately, matriarchal tribe of elephants from being associated with the current Republican Party, I also release the weasels from their association. Weasels deserve better.

[rhett o rick]

8. What I read in this post, correct me if I am wrong, is that vermin like the bush torturers

like weasels, do what they do. Those that should be ashamed are those of us that stood by and watched knowing that our government was being run by weasels. Oops sorry for the association, as you said, weasels deserve better.

[vixengrl]

16. Unfortunately, the Bush torturers have to be called human,

and be called to account as human beings, even if they have displayed behavior beneath our standards. Unlike animals, they knew what they were doing, they could draw from history, they had a better capacity to understand that their actions would have consequences--but I wish that more people had looked past the respect for the offices they held, and grasped what sort of people they really were, before they did so much harm. It would be way better if they just sucked eggs, instead of sucking away our national reputation.

I think the "bystanders" don't really share equal blame--many of us could see what was going on and went in for impeachment and protest whenever we could. But those who went in for the defense of "enhanced torture techniques", or who went all in for the war in Iraq, without catching the little lies there that would have given away the bigger problem--they need to stop defending it now that it's become so blatantly indefensible because that we have so much more information. When Tom Friedman, or David Broder, and any of these other mainstrean asshats want to still give it lipservice--"Oh, it was in response to national tragedy", or, "Our leaders did what they thought they had to do"--*they* are the problem. They keep us from moving forwards. We need more people with the courage to say, "No wait, this really was bad."

I think there's a tendency in MSM reporting of this issue to be "balanced"--like they insist that there should be a pro-torture voice out there. I just wish more people had the stones to say, like, on tv, where people could hear, "This is actually very illegal and a war crime, and whether it works is not any kind of standard at all, because 'illegal' means illegal."

[rhett o rick]

9. Those that advocate "some torture" are missing the point entirely.

You either support torture or you don't. Torture is intended to obtain false confessions and to terrorize both the tortured and the public.
If you want to get good intelligence then you don't use torture at all, and that includes "some torture". Those that believe in "some torture" believe in torture and are just to cowardly to admit it.

[earcandle]

3. I finally read your Bio. Thanks for your work. I know I appreciate it.

I wish you would grant me permission to repost it on my site,
or you would post it on the guestbook, or I could post a link
in my website.  People come to my site to read, and they are
not really privy to this kind of work.  This would help the
world and America move forward faster if more people NOT like
this group could see it, taste it, feel it. 

Great writing.
Thanks again.

[davidswanson]

6. thanks

please post everything i write everywhere
that goes for everyone
:-)

[earcandle]

11. Cool!

[kas125]

4. As always, you are so right, David. I want to say a public

thank you to you for everything you do. It is greatly needed and very much appreciated.

[democrank]

5. The fact that pro-torture pundits and anchors

are willing to say so on national television is beyond disturbing. Imagine...torture advocates in our government, in the media, even high up in our courts. It sickens me.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Well said

Very well said.

[barbtries]

10. you make a great point here David:

Of course torture would not be wrong in a situation in which, all things considered, it did more good than harm; but that situation cannot be found.

so true. torture will never do more good than harm and it never did. in my world, i would add, the ends do NOT justify the means.

and since we have a torture thread going, i just want to rant for a minute about how the focus in the discussion appears to be limited to waterboarding, stress positions, or sleep deprivation. it went way way beyond that. forced nudity sometimes for days or weeks. being collared like an animal. heads covered forced blindness. extremes of hot or cold. starvation. humiliation, sexual and religious. forced shaving. ridicule. being kept in solitary confinement for years. no visitors, family left in the dark about whether their loved one was dead or alive. loud noise 24 hours a day, bright lights 24 hours a day. no access to running water or any way to maintain hygiene. they couldn't even wipe their ass! some forced to wear diapers...all of these aspects would be torture to me.

i was in jail for 5 days once - it was a hateful experience. just knowing i could not walk out the door did a number on my peace of mind that i would never want to relive. i am so mortified by what my country has done to these people. some are guilty no doubt but some also are innocent, including some who died from the abuse. and all have been punished without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom and without a nod to the fact of their humanity.

:cry:

[Overseas]

12. K&R !! Because I oppose "harsh techniques" a.k.a. torture

I also oppose "aggressive interrogation," a.k.a. torture, for all the reasons you described so well.

And we haven't discussed just how we are going to issue pardons to those people we hanged for doing the same things.

And even if apologists dig up three useful things they learned from the brutal questioning (a.k.a. torture), 3 out of 300+ incidents is not an excusable result. Especially since expert interrogators have gotten far better information through softer techniques.

And if we have heard from experts that torture doesn't work, surely our legislators and executive branch also had that information available to them.

I know the Bush Administration marginalized experts in preference of government doing "a heck of a job," but that willful ignorance doesn't excuse their crimes.

[spanone]

13. when America starts 'spinning' torturing anyone we are in serious trouble as 'America'

[pberq]

14. Kick and nominated

[davidswanson]

15. Is It Treason?

By Robert C. Koehler, Tribune Media Services

None dare call it . . . what is that word again?

http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/42154