Almost any coercive act sustained long enough against a person in captivity can become torture.But having made that point, he then goes on to state that
The test for torture is whether it is of sufficient immediate or cumulative force to rob the capacity of a human being to say voluntarily what he or she knows to be true.There's one slight problem with that definition. It is still vague and subject to interpretation. It does not help define torture. This is something Sullivan doesn't understand. He's blinded by his own preconceptions and assumptions, and can't seem to grasp that others actually do define and interpret things differently. Sullivan then goes on to make a one of his patented false assumptions, saying that the purpose of torture
can therefore never be to get truly reliable information. The purpose is to get answers the victim imagines the torturers want to hear.That could be true, but it doesn't have to be. All situations involving torture are not the same. Interrogations are highly dependent on the interrogator, the interrogatee, and numerous other factors. It is quite possible that the interrogator could be looking for specific information that can be independently confirmed. Again, Sullivan's type of argument, which is regularly made by torture opponents, ignores the fact that good information doesn't turn bad just because of the way it was extracted. That's really a very simple concept, but for some reason many just don't get it. If a prisoner reveals the location of an arms cache under torture, that cache doesn't suddenly disappear because torture was used to obtain the information. If a terrorist reveals the names of his associates under torture, those associates can be investigated using ordinary police methods, to determine if there is any evidence which corroborates the information extracted through torture. Many opponents of torture fail to understand that torture is just one type of interrogation, and can work in conjunction with other investigative tools. Interrogators don't have to be blind fools who unquestionably accept anything told to them under torture. There's no reason a torturer can't recognize the strengths and weaknesses of torture, and evaluate any information accordingly.
A stronger argument rests on the corrupting influence of torture. Sullivan writes that
the power that torture gives to torturers is an inherently total and invariably corrupting one. It darkens the souls of those tasked with carrying it out; and more profoundly poisons the entire polity that authorizes itI agree. But it still might be a necessary possible option under certain conditions. We have to contemplate, and sometimes carry out, various measures that have damaging effects on those who employ them. We are willing and able to slaughter innocent civilians, including children, sometimes in large numbers, if such killing is deemed necessary and unavoidable during military operations. Yet torturing some terrorists is too horrible and corrupting to even contemplate?
Finally, Sullivan asks: "Does torture become something less awful when we do it?" Naturally he thinks the answer is no, and I basically agree. But like most who take a moral absolutist position against torture, he fails to ask another more important question. Does it matter who is being tortured? Is torturing the innocent or the suspected the same as torturing the guilty? The reason moral absolutists don't bother with such a question, is that they see torture itself as morally wrong in all cases. That's fine if you live in a world where moral questions are black and white. But some of us see many shades of gray.
Some of us don't see shades of gray on the issue of torture any more than we see shades of gray on the issue of murder. You mention:
ReplyDelete"We are willing and able to slaughter innocent civilians, including children, sometimes in large numbers, if such killing is deemed necessary and unavoidable during military operations."
It is true that we sometimes kill civilians. However we never intentionally do so, and this difference in intent is what distinguishes it from murder. Torture is always intentional, just like murder and terrorism.
You think Sullivan's test for torture is vague and subject to interpretation. If so then you should provide a concrete example. Moreover pointing this out is only useful if you have a better definition.
Sullivan would probably contend, and I would agree, that if there is any doubt about whether something might be interpreted as torture then as a matter of policy it should not be sanctioned.
But for instance waterboarding is not subject to interpretation. It is clearly torture. Bush's assertion that "we do not torture" was false, and in my estimation clearly a more grievous wrong than e.g. anything Nixon did. Of course, my saying that is a moral judgment. If the law is unlcear on this point then it should be made clear, or at least as absolutely clear as possible. There should be no grey areas if we can avoid them. And if something in the law remains subject to interpretation then such a ruling should come from a court of law; it's their job.
"Some of us don't see shades of gray on the issue of torture any more than we see shades of gray on the issue of murder."
ReplyDeleteReally? So you think gunning down a helpless old lady after robbing her is equivalent to killing an armed police officer in a shootout? They're both murder. There are shades of gray even within murder. And as I mentioned in the article, you completely ignore the question about who is being tortured. Actions against the innocent, whether killing or torture, are not the same as actions taken against the guilty. Torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not the same as torturing some innocent victim. Simply stating that torture is inherently morally wrong convinces no one, except those who already believe that.
". Torture is always intentional, just like murder and terrorism."
True, but not relevant to my point, which was that sometimes we decide to do things that are morally repugnant and have negative effects on us.
"Moreover pointing this out is only useful if you have a better definition."
No, the point is that it is very difficult to define -- not to try to give a better definition. Sullivan even agrees, when he says that almost anything can become torture.
"Sullivan would probably contend, and I would agree, that if there is any doubt about whether something might be interpreted as torture then as a matter of policy it should not be sanctioned."
And I would think that was an extremist and illogical position, because many types of treatment can easily be defined as torture -- including much of what we do to civilian criminals. Is shooting someone with a taser torture? It sure seems like it.
"But for instance waterboarding is not subject to interpretation. It is clearly torture. "
It is subject to interpretation. I agree with you that it is torture. But many do not. It is by no means clear to them. And just to make one of their arguments... If it's torture, why can we use it on our own military personnel in training?
"There should be no grey areas if we can avoid them."
There are almost always gray areas. Again, as Sullivan points out, certain things become torture because of severity and duration. And that sort of thing is subject to interpretation.
"And if something in the law remains subject to interpretation then such a ruling should come from a court of law; it's their job."
That depends on the situation. And I'm not making an argument about legality.
>> "Torture is always intentional, just like murder and terrorism."
ReplyDelete> "True, but not relevant to my point, which was that sometimes we decide to do things that are morally repugnant and have negative effects on us."
Maybe not relevant to your point, but relevant to mine, which is that the intent in torture and murder are both always wrong.
> Simply stating that torture is inherently morally wrong convinces no one, except those who already believe that.
Just like simply stating that murder is inherently morally wrong would convince no one except those who already believe it?
Some things are so widely agreed on they don't have to be justified, because to do so is to state the obvious.
Thankfully we have laws against torture, just as we have laws against murder.
You can argue on a case by case basis whether something matches the legal understanding of torture, as the Bush administration tried to do for waterboarding. But the point of contention is not whether torture is sanctioned -- because it isn't -- but rather whether something was torture.
Sullivan put forth his own test, which I hope is close to current law but obviously the Bush lawyers disagreed. So that matter of law needs to be settled, and if we need to create clearer laws we should do so.
"Maybe not relevant to your point, but relevant to mine, which is that the intent in torture and murder are both always wrong."
ReplyDeleteMurder isn't a good analogy to torture. Killing would be a better one. Killing can sometimes be justified. So can torture -- in my opinion of course. And no, the intent in torture is not always wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with attempting to gain information, assuming it's being done for a good reason. I would even argue that torture as a punishment for actual crimes isn't morally wrong -- barbaric and unnecessary yes, but not always wrong, depending on the crime.
"Just like simply stating that murder is inherently morally wrong would convince no one except those who already believe it?"
Again, two different things. Murder is already a value judgement about killing. We call unjustifiable killing "murder."
"Some things are so widely agreed on they don't have to be justified, because to do so is to state the obvious."
Yes, and that's not a situation that applies to torture, which is a) difficult to define, and b) not seen as always inherently wrong by a significant number of people.
"But the point of contention is not whether torture is sanctioned -- because it isn't -- but rather whether something was torture."
That's not my point. I'm arguing about the morality & possible utility of torture in exceptional situations, not about the legality. The legal issue is beside the point.
"So that matter of law needs to be settled, and if we need to create clearer laws we should do so."
I'm not sure that's possible or even desirable, given the problems with defining torture. Plus people are pretty ingenious at finding loopholes in laws.
Murder is the proper analogy, because people try to justify murder in the same way they try to justify torture. Just construct an analogous "exceptional situation" similar to the never-encountered ticking time bomb scenario.
ReplyDeleteFor instance if you knew with 95% certainty that someone was going to, say, fly a plane into a building and kill thousands within 1 hour, but (hypothetically) killing them now was the only way to stop them, would you do it?
That would be murder. Some people might choose to do it in this "exceptional situation", but it could never be sanctioned. The same goes for any situation in which you think torture could be justified.
Laws matter because the United States is a are country of law. Regardless of "exceptional situations" if a US citizen, official, or agent decides to break the law in then the most they should be able to hope for is pleading their case to a jury.
That's how we do it in this country. Anything less is illiberal, unamerican, and in the majority's of people's opinion clearly wrong.
Let's keep it that way, for any society that would give up essential liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both.
A lot of good people died to secure and defend the liberty of the US and other similarly free nations. Now perhaps you don't value their sacrifice, but if you do then in my estimation any advocacy of torture as policy dishonors that sacrifice.
When Bush said "we do not torture" he was tragically wrong about what constitutes torture, but he was not mistaken about our lawful and liberal ideals.
"Murder is the proper analogy, because people try to justify murder in the same way they try to justify torture"
ReplyDeleteI disagree, for the reasons I already stated. The difference is that torture can be justified. If killing is justified, it isn't murder.
" killing them now was the only way to stop them, would you do it?"
probably
"That would be murder."
No it wouldn't. At the very least it would be highly debatable.
" but it could never be sanctioned."
Sure it could. We do it now. If someone kills a person because they believed their life was in danger -- before the person had actually harmed them -- we make a determination as to whether they acted reasonably in self-defense. It's a judgement call.
"That's how we do it in this country. Anything less is illiberal, unamerican, and in the majority's of people's opinion clearly wrong."
I'm not impressed by that type of argument. If I were, I wouldn't be giving my opinion on anything on which I held a minority opinion. The idea that torture is somehow "unAmerican" is silly and ahistorical. We've employed torture at various times throughout history. And again, when I'm talking about a moral question I don't care about legality. It's irrelevant to the argument. I'm not arguing whether things should be legal or illegal -- just whether they may be necessary/useful/moral/justified.
"Let's keep it that way, for any society that would give up essential liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both."
Except that torturing some known alien terrorists in exceptional cases doesn't give up any essential liberty. It has little to do with liberty at all. In case you missed it in my earlier posts, I do not believe that U.S. constitutional rights extend to non-U.S. citizens (with limited exception in the case of legal aliens), and particularly not to known enemies of the country. And I do not believe in the idea of natural rights (except as a useful philosophical concept for creating rights within a political system).
"if you do then in my estimation any advocacy of torture as policy dishonors that sacrifice."
I find that to be complete nonsense. Nothing that I'm talking about has the slightest thing to do with anyones' sacrifice.
"When Bush said "we do not torture" he was tragically wrong about what constitutes torture"
I was not in favor of Bush's attempts to blur the line even more between what is and is not torture, or of his use of questionable techniques on suspects -- especially low level types. But there were situations where I believe he was correct to consider using torture -- such as in the case of KSM.
"but he was not mistaken about our lawful and liberal ideals."
Ideals are fine. But they sometimes clash with reality. Pretty much every rule has exceptions, or might need to be violated under certain circumstances.
Right to self defense is a well established legal principle, and yes it includes the defense of others. But as far as I'm aware it's not applicable to a situation in which you can kill someone based on a suspicion (even a 95% certainty) that they're going to kill some others at a future point in time. Those others have to be in immediate danger.
ReplyDeleteYou may think it morally justifiable -- just like you might think going back in time to murder Hitler before he commits crimes would be morally justifiable -- but it could never be lawful to do so...at least not in our legal system.
Now you've repeatedly said that you're not interested in the letter of the law and want to ignore it for exceptional situations or allow for "exceptions in certain circumstances". As an example of such an exceptional case you cite KSM. From a previous post:
"Torturing a known terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not the same thing as torturing a mere suspect, or an innocent."
But who gets the power to decide that Khalid is not a suspect but a "known terrorist" ? Is he not an "alleged terrorist" until tried in a lawful court? Are you saying that if anyone "knows" someone else is a terrorist they are justified in doing away with "guilty until proven innocent" niceties, taking matters into their own hands, and torturing that person in hopes of getting verifiable information about present operations or future plans?
Since you don't care about laws let's forget about Geneva and other international and domestic ones for a minute: Can you also imagine situations in which it would be justifiable to torture, say, an Axis POW in WWII or a domestic terrorist like Ted Kaczynski? If so please tell us about it, because presumably you apply the same lawless justification logic to all cases and don't see these situations as badly damaging to U.S. military, diplomatic, and law enforcement credibility both abroad and domestically.
> "Ideals are fine. But they sometimes clash with reality. Pretty much every rule has exceptions, or might need to be violated under certain circumstances."
In summary you approve of ceding the lawful moral high ground when dealing with "known" terrorists. You believe this is justified, and you don't think this stance violates the essential liberty of due process --- or if it does you're willing to pay that price in the name of safety.
" But as far as I'm aware it's not applicable to a situation in which you can kill someone based on a suspicion (even a 95% certainty) that they're going to kill some others at a future point in time. "
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer but there have been numerous such situations. For example, a woman who kills an abusive husband, even though he wasn't actually in the act of abusing her, because she feared he would kill her in the future. At the very least that usually gets her a lesser sentence, such as manslaughter instead of murder.
"But who gets the power to decide that Khalid is not a suspect but a "known terrorist" "
When I say "known terrorist" I mean "known." I don't mean, we happen to think he might be a terrorist. For example, bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are known and self-declared leaders of Al Qaeda. Their status is not in doubt.
"Are you saying that if anyone "knows" someone else is a terrorist they are justified in doing away with "guilty until proven innocent" niceties, taking matters into their own hands, and torturing that person in hopes of getting verifiable information about present operations or future plans?"
Yes. I don't believe someone in the class of the two people I just mentioned is entitled to any rights whatsoever.
"Since you don't care about laws"
No, I said legal issues were not relevant to the particular argument that I am making.
"Can you also imagine situations in which it would be justifiable to torture, say, an Axis POW in WWII or a domestic terrorist like Ted Kaczynski? "
As a purely philosophical exercise, I could definitely construct other scenarios where torture might be justifiable. But I'm not arguing in favor of those.
" you apply the same lawless justification logic to all cases"
There are all sorts of factors to consider.
"don't see these situations as badly damaging to U.S. military, diplomatic, and law enforcement credibility both abroad and domestically."
Why would I not see that? All actions have consequences. I'm only arguing that torture is an option to be considered. Whether it should actually be resorted to depends on a combination of circumstances.
"In summary you approve of ceding the lawful moral high ground when dealing with "known" terrorists. "
I reject the idea that torturing known terrorist leaders cedes the moral high ground. We could have restorted to extreme physical torture of KSM and executed him without trial, and we'd still hold the moral high ground over Al Qaeda.
"you don't think this stance violates the essential liberty of due process"
Exactly. In my opinion, known alien terrorists are not and should not be entitled to due process. Their status should be as if under a suspended death sentence. By their own actions they have forfeited any consideration of rights -- including life. Note - that's not a legal argument. That's just my personal belief of how they should be viewed -- as spies, saboteurs, and terrorist types have been seen for much of history.
>> "In summary you approve of ceding the lawful moral high ground when dealing with "known" terrorists."
ReplyDelete> "I reject the idea that torturing known terrorist leaders cedes the moral high ground. We could have restorted to extreme physical torture of KSM and executed him without trial, and we'd still hold the moral high ground over Al Qaeda."
You omitted the word lawful, which is central my restatement of your position.
> "We could have restorted to extreme physical torture of KSM and executed him without trial, and we'd still hold the moral high ground over Al Qaeda."
Are you so certain? How many innocents must a man like KSM be "known" (unproven in court) to have personally killed before this "extreme physical torture" becomes justified? One? 10? 100? ...? Where do you draw the line, and how is it not arbitrary? Who makes the determination, and how do they do so without the law as a guide?
What torture advocates like you miss is that without the backing of the law we become no better than thugs.
Granted this does not put us at as low of a level as mass murderers like Al Qaeda, but it still greatly diminishes us.
You and a disturbingly large minority of Americans are willing to make that trade.
I am not, and I reject it being done in my name.
"How many innocents must a man like KSM be "known" (unproven in court) to have personally killed"
ReplyDeleteNone. I'm not arguing that he be tortured for punishment. I'm only advocating that the option to torture him for information -- given a certain set of circumstances -- be kept open as a possibility.
"how do they do so without the law as a guide?"
Good question. There are certainly plenty of difficult details. I have some ideas about how it might be handled, but that's really a whole other topic.
" without the backing of the law we become no better than thugs."
I just find that type of assertion silly. I don't view most things in stark black & white, either/or terms.
"it still greatly diminishes us."
I don't think it diminishes us at all, let alone greatly. Instead, I think that granting unwarranted rights to alien terrorists diminishes us and is far more dangerous.
"I reject it being done in my name"
I'm reasonably confident that the government, even the Obama administration, is not going to stand on moral absolutist principles, if they deem it necessary to do some unpleasant things in order to protect the country. I'd also be willing to bet that a solid majority of Americans, depending on how the question was phrased, would agree with torturing for information under certain extreme circumstances.
>>> "We could have restorted to extreme physical torture of KSM and executed him without trial, and we'd still hold the moral high ground over Al Qaeda."
ReplyDelete>> "Are you so certain? How many innocents must a man like KSM be "known" (unproven in court) to have personally killed before this "extreme physical torture" becomes justified? One? 10? 100? ...?"
> "None. I'm not arguing that he be tortured for punishment. I'm only advocating that the option to torture him for information -- given a certain set of circumstances -- be kept open as a possibility."
Huh? Not only do you presume to "know" a guy like KSM is a terrorist without due process, but you are able to divine this without him having killed anyone yet?
In other words anyone you claim to "know" has the intent to kill innocents in the future may be justifiably tortured for information and executed without trial?
Wow.
"Huh? Not only do you presume to "know" a guy like KSM is a terrorist without due process"
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the ridiculous scare quotes around know? Are you actually pretending that we don't know that Osama or al Zawahiri are Al Qaeda leaders? KSM made no secret of his Al Qaeda affiliation. Do you need a court to tell you that Putin is a Russian leader, or is that a known fact?
Remember how we deliberately targeted and killed Zarqawi with an air strike? How did we know he was a terrorist leader? I don't remember him being convicted of anything in court. Amazingly enough, that didn't stop us from repeatedly trying to kill him. Why? Because he was a known terrorist leader. Had he been captured, we would have been equally justified in torturing him for information, should that have been necessary or useful.
"In other words anyone you claim to "know" has the intent to kill innocents in the future"
No that's most definitely not what I said.
"Wow"
You are impressed by your own strawman?
You seem to disregard intention an awful lot for someone who justifies Israel's attack on Gaza, which killed about 700 civilians.
ReplyDelete>> "In other words anyone you claim to "know" has the intent to kill innocents in the future"
ReplyDelete> "No that's most definitely not what I said."
You approve of torturing someone who's kill count is "None", and say it's not about punishment but for information. I presumed you base your justification on knowledge of intent to kill innocents, because it didn't seem likely you'd advocate torture based on casual suspicion....
> "What's with the ridiculous scare quotes around know? Are you actually pretending that we don't know that Osama or al Zawahiri are Al Qaeda leaders? KSM made no secret of his Al Qaeda affiliation."
Ah! So this is all about affiliation. If tomorrow I formed a group that sought ties with Al Qaeda, might I be tortured? How about Bin Laden's driver? Iran is a terror sponsoring state...is this affiliation enough? May we torture any Iranian official we suspect has information about terror? At what point is someone a "known" terrorist?
The quotes are there because it's your word; if I knew what you meant by it I'd use more definitive phrasing.
> Remember how we deliberately targeted and killed Zarqawi with an air strike? How did we know he was a terrorist leader? I don't remember him being convicted of anything in court. Amazingly enough, that didn't stop us from repeatedly trying to kill him. Why? Because he was a known terrorist leader. Had he been captured, we would have been equally justified in torturing him for information, should that have been necessary or useful.
Killing armed enemies who seek to kill innocents falls under either just war or self-defense, depending on the situation. These are well understood legal principles. They're clearly different situations from capturing an enemy and then torturing or executing without trial as you advocate.
"You seem to disregard intention an awful lot for someone who justifies Israel's attack on Gaza, which killed about 700 civilians."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what connection you are making there.
"I presumed you base your justification on knowledge of intent to kill innocents,"
No, I base it on who the person is. That's why I've repeatedly used terms like known terrorist leader.
"Ah! So this is all about affiliation."
I don't know how I can be any more clear about the type of individual that I'm talking about.
"The quotes are there because it's your word; if I knew what you meant by it I'd use more definitive phrasing."
I've already given you several examples: KSM, Zarqawi, bin Laden, Zawahiri.
"They're clearly different situations from capturing an enemy and then torturing or executing without trial as you advocate."
It's not anywhere near that clear cut of a difference. Because certain individuals are terrorists we deliberately target them for assassination. We do this to people who's terrorist indentification is much shakier than Zarqawi's. We send drones into Pakistan specifically to kill people, and we do so despite the risk and likelihood of killing civilians. So basically you are arguing that it is ok to assassinate people because we suspect they are terrorists, but if we have a known terrorist like Zarqawi in custody, we can't even think about torturing him.
Killing suspects = ok.
Torturing the guilty = bad
If those are well understood legal principles, I'm glad I'm not the one relying on legalistic arguments.
So it's all about terrorist leaders, specifically?
ReplyDeleteWhat of an individual independent terrorist acting or planning to act alone? Should he ever be tortured?
> "Because certain individuals are terrorists we deliberately target them for assassination. We do this to people who's terrorist indentification is much shakier than Zarqawi's. We send drones into Pakistan specifically to kill people, and we do so despite the risk and likelihood of killing civilians."
What we do is try to kill or capture them -- our express goal is to bring them to justice -- legal justice -- not to torture or execute them in captivity without trials.
> "So basically you are arguing that it is ok to assassinate people because we suspect they are terrorists,"
I do not consider combating enemies to be "assassination". We use lethal force when there is no better alternative.
> "but if we have a known terrorist like Zarqawi in custody, we can't even think about torturing him."
Correct. To torture, or to execute without trial, goes against the rule of law and principles we stand for.
Read up on the Nuremberg trials. They weren't perfect, but they were a good effort. What is it about KSM, Zarqawi, Bin Laden, Zawahiri etc. that makes them less deserving in your mind?
> "Killing suspects = ok.
Torturing the guilty = bad"
Killing enemies who are trying to attack you is only okay when you have no better alternative. Torturing people or declaring them guilty without trial is always wrong, certainly. Welcome to western civilization.
"So it's all about terrorist leaders, specifically"
ReplyDeleteFor the argument I'm making here, yes. I don't think the costs of resorting to torture are worth it for low level individuals.
"What of an individual independent terrorist acting or planning to act alone? Should he ever be tortured?"
That would depend on the particular circumstances. There's too many possible factors to answer that one way or the other.
"What we do is try to kill or capture them -- our express goal is to bring them to justice -- legal justice"
Drones firing hellfires don't capture people. The goal is to kill.
"I do not consider combating enemies to be "assassination". We use lethal force when there is no better alternative."
Semantic difference. Targeting someone and sending a missile through the window of his house is a form of assassination. We aren't killing people who are clear, unambiguous enemies fighting against us. We are killing suspects. Every time we kill someone in Pakistan with a drone, there is a big protest from people who claim the target was innocent. Do you think we are 100% correct in our target identification, every time? The people we are killing haven't been convicted of anything. We suspect them of being terrorists.
"To torture, or to execute without trial, goes against the rule of law and principles we stand for."
Again, I'm not making a legal argument. Sometimes it is necessary or justifiable to violate the law.
"Read up on the Nuremberg trials. They weren't perfect, but they were a good effort."
The Nuremberg trials are completely irrelevant. Nothing I'm arguing has anything to do with punishment or trials. It has to do with methods of interrogating certain individuals.
"Torturing people or declaring them guilty without trial is always wrong, certainly. "
Certainly not. If there was any certainty that torture was always wrong, no one would be arguing about it.
"Welcome to western civilization."
Western civilization used to regularly use torture, and still does in certain cases. Depending on your definition of torture, it could be argued that it is still widely practiced within our prison systems.
Torturing a few terrorist leaders under exceptional circumstances does not imperil civilization.