What is Torture?
There's a very interesting but somewhat one-sided discussion about the subject over at Sid's place, so I thought I'd bring it over here for my readers to have a go at the topic.
Here are my thoughts:
Torture is basically putting someone in an uncomfortable situation to try to influence their behavior. The difficulty is drawing the line to decide what is allowed treatment of prisoners and what is not.
Is harsh questioning torture? Is a cold room? How cold? What about making someone stand up for a long time in one place? Or listen to music they don't like? Or depriving them of sleep? Heck, so far that sounds like my third year surgery rotation.
Our special forces go through much more hostile training than that, although I understand the difference that since it is on a voluntary basis and that they can quit at any time, it's not really the same thing at all. But the differences are mostly psychological. Torture, like pain, is based on individual perception. To some, sitting through an entire baseball game might be torture; to others, that's a nice way to spend an afternoon.
Is denying prisoners such comfort items as cigarettes considered torture? The Geneva Convention specifically states that POWs should have access to cigarettes and a commissary, among other benefits (articles 26-28). Of course there is some controversy about whether terrorist groups qualify under that document.
How about verbally misleading a prisoner? You could show him a finger from a corpse and tell him it is from one of his family members; every day he doesn't cooperate, you will bring him another one. Too gruesome and cruel? But yet since nobody is physically harmed with that technique, is it really "torture?"
What about verbal threats? Threatening them with a dog? With a gun? With a mock execution? That particular mock execution produced very important information which may have saved several of our soldiers' lives, if I recall correctly.
What about loud noises, either sudden and unexpected or constant and blaring? What about visual or auditory propaganda? Bright lights? Solitary confinement?
Are these things really torture? We aren't talking about using power drills or car batteries here. Or is any "mistreatment" of prisoners so abhorrent that we should always provide them with comfy feather beds, morning coffee, afternoon tea, Marlboros, and internet access? Is any attempt to extract information from prisoners always wrong?
Let's hear it.
(picture via The Smoking Gun)
Labels: general interest, politics, torture
posted by scalpel at 1:25 PM
33 Comments:
If you can somehow provide a rational moral argument aggression against an innocent individual, I would love to hear it... Statists for the last several millennia have tried and failed, but perhaps you can surprise me.
I've always thought that the Golden Rule applied well to this topic.
We may do to them whatever we would be comfortable with them doing to our prisoners.
So fine, if you don't mind our prisoners being denied cigarettes etc, then lets have at it. But if you were disgusted by any of your suggestions had they been performed on a GI by Al Qaida, then chances are no, it's no good.
Just because they refuse to follow that rule doesn't justify us in following suit.
I don't know. I looked at the crap the terrorists do. All that torture--things that cause physical pain (how I define it)--is unthinkable. I can't beleive how wicked some people are. But I DON'T think we should do an of that to "them." On the other hand, I don't want our people to die while we have captured some of the smug assholes who know the plans and enjoy a fine quality of living at our expense while they refuse to tell us what they know and profess to hate us while they enjoy all the benefits of America. It is so hard. What about sodium pentothol? Does that stuff REALLY work or is that just Hollywood? If it did work, then I would advocate letting them live comfortably, using the truth serum on them until we know all they know, and then humanely executing them. Maybe we could mix in a little pig's blood to put fear in the SOULS of would-be terrorists!
Well, one of Bush's minions defines it as interrogation that leads to organ failure. That should give you comfortable leeway.
The point of my post was, as stated: until Bush, waterboarding (not cold rooms, not looking at someone's former finger) has been DEFINED as torture; not only by various international bodies, but by the US Military, who prosecuted its own for doing it, and Japanese for doing it to ours. Bush told the world "The US doesn't torture." Singlehandedly, unilaterally, he undefined waterboarding as torture. That was my point. He lied, or he simply, like Humpty Dumpty (words mean whatever I choose them to mean) made up his own definition against all prior law. I went on to say, he should man up and argue why the US ought to torture, in the form of waterboarding, and stop treating us like idiots and the law like his personal playground with his own rules. THAT was my point.
Maybe you could go offer to be a POW for awhile, like maybe 18-20 years,and then come back and tell us how nice and fuzzy it all was. At least that way, you get all the information you seem to seek first hand.
From what I've read about waterboarding, it should only be defined as torture if there is more than a "sensation" of drowning. You shouldn't, for instance, make it so the person can't swallow and then pour water into his lungs.
When we give up the moral high ground, our credibility and stature in the international arena suffers terribly. We used to be able to make the unvarnished claim to being the good guys. Nurenberg established our bona fides as the moral compass for the world. We would appear to have squandered that.
I only hope that President McCain or Obama, upon taking office, will repudiate the Bush torture doctrine.
Oh, never mind. Apparently, McCain today voted against a ban on waterboarding.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
I don't know the details, but I heard that after WWII, the US charged Japanese soldiers with torture, convicted, and executed them based on the fact that they had waterboarded US soldiers.
The issue isn't as black/white as some of you would like to make it. All of us would likely agree that scooping out someone's eyeball should not be allowed. And yet even the most self-righteous torture critics probably wouldn't uniformly agree that prisoners should have unlimited access to cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. In between lies the gray area.
Comparing our relatively benign forms of coercive interrogation to the brutal and pointless pre-execution torture which is practiced by some of our enemies is ridiculous. We still claim moral superiority by not sinking to their level, by trying to minimize civilian casualties, and by punishing our own who deviate from our standards.
Even if we occasionally put a panty on someone's head, or frighten them with a scary woof-woof dog.
Justice Scalia weighs in.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Except for denying luxury goods to prisoners, I would consider all other examples you mentioned in your post as torture.
How about the famous prison "food loaf?"
It's nutritionally fulfilling, and halal too!
In over half the world, a few slices of that loaf would be regarded as luxury beyond belief. It's a matter of perspective.
Hey Shadowfizzle dizzle et al.: Would you allow for "waterboarding" (the "sensation" of drowning, now, with little to no physical harm) of at least major figures of the opposition if less intense methods of questioning didn't yield any information? Doesn't being a major player in a terrorist network plotting against the USA sort of have the built-in disclaimer that bad stuff might happen to you?
ie Could such a practice be deemed "torture" to a poorly-trained footsoldier, but necessary and even moral given the situation if you happen to capture a "general" or whatever high-up al-Q operatives call themselves?
I thought it was reasonably well agreed-upon that terrorist groups like al-Q do not fall under the Geneva convention, BTW.
The thing is, Scalp, you've run into a religion argument. Torture works as a way of getting information. If I, for instance, let it be known that I have a canister of Sarin in the London Underground, or the Paris Metro, or the Moscow subway I know damn well that I will be tortured for that information. And I will sing like a canary.
The point is, that a lot of folks in the government are saying, that the people who get the information when it's needed shouldn't be penalized for it. If they do it when it's not needed, yeah, they're SOL.
Terrorists abide by no rule of law or treaty. They fire weapons from behind the skirts of women, schools of children, and places of worship. The only thing they understand is force and the willingness to use that force against them. This is the only thing they respect or fear. We can not continue to take the PC moral high ground any longer. This will restrict our ability to garner information that can save civilian (non combatant) lives. If some terrorist has to endure some discomfort in the process, than so be it, they knew what they were signing up for.
Democracy and humanitarianism.
Being nice doesn't get results.
What exactly is gained by torture?
Does the value of what is "gained" offset the loss of esteem from our peers around the world?
Does the value of what is "gained" offset the degradation of the torturers?
Newsflash: some of us don't care as much as some of you what "our peers around the world" think.
Putting that aside, however, I'm trying to ascertain whether any form of psychological manipulation or rigorous interrogation is acceptable to those who argue so vehemently against "torture."
Putting someone in solitary confinement, making them listen to Metallica, or feeding them a nasty but nutritious food loaf isn't exactly the same thing as shoving toothpicks under their fingernails or burning them with a blowtorch. And yet many of you seem to insist on their moral equivalence.
If you were to take a poll on the subject, most everyone would answer that they do not approve of "torture" (myself included). It's all in how you define it.
I wouldn't trivialize the "moral high ground" argument. We are, as I said in my post, in a battle of ideas in the longest of runs. And we bandy about all these opinions of whether torture works. We do know it got John McCain to confess to things he never did; as it did "witches" here and abroad. How much "actionable intelligence?" Well, of course that's classified. Except that there have plenty of intelligence experts, from the FBI, CIA, saying it doesn't give reliable information. Moreover, the "ticking time-bomb" scenario, like amnesia, appears frequently on TV. Seen any amnesia cases in the ER?
I can't say for sure that if I had my hands around the neck of a guy who had my wife in a buried coffin somewhere, that I'd not torture him to get the info. But in making it nearly routine, allowing Abu Ghrab, Guantanamo, rendtions, warrantless spying, Bush has told the world that our claim to be a nation of laws, and our demanding it of others, becomes a joke at best, an embarrassment at medium, and a reason for others to hate us at worst. Don't care? Okay. But by hate us, I mean convincing young boys and girls to strap on bombs and set forth...
Some are going to hate us and strap on bombs whether we waterboard their brethren or not. We are just kafir to them, and nothing we can say or do will ever change that.
Howdy folks, I'm an avid reader of this blog (and others on the blogroll), but never felt the need to comment before.
I'm in the medical field now (X-Ray tech), but I had the privilege of serving my country as an infantry Marine for many years.
One thing that needs to be said that I haven't seen mentioned is this:
These people have been CAPTURED, not ARRESTED. There is a big difference. They are not being held to determine their innocence or guilt, they have been taken off of a battlefield. They are being interrogated (not questioned by a detective) to provide actionable intel.
Many people in this debate seem to be framing the question like we are talking about Sumdood who got arrested for passing a bad check.
Fail.
Mr. Hadji was caught trying to perforate my (or someone like me) tender pink body with high speed pieces of hot, sharp metal. He does not rate the same treatment an American Citizen accused/convicted of a crime.
That being said, there is a sound tactical/strategic reason for treating most prisoners well - you have to release them someday. You do not want to create life long enemies, and you also want to make surrender to American forces an attractive option. It's a lot easier to process EPWs than it is to fight people who would rather die than be captured.
In my opinion, we have the policy just about correct right now. The vast majority of EPWs are treated humanely. Mr. Hadji knows this, and he surrenders sometimes. Someone very high up in the chain of command should have the authority to ratchet up the pressure on Mr. Hadji if it is deemed necessary. He will then be held accountable to the American people for the result. He will also have to live with himself afterwords.
Remember, the people we capture aren't in trouble for not paying a speeding ticket. They want to kill YOU. Yes, YOU, the person who is reading this right now. Mr. Hadji would kill you today, right now if he could, high five his buddy, and then go right to lunch without a second thought. You cannot frame this in your mind entirely as a matter of principle. You must first stay alive to worry about morality.
Interrogation policy must be predicated on the approach that provides the best long term outcome. There needs to be a balance between treating EPWs humanely (if you don't, no one will surrender) and accomplishing the mission.
Sorry about the length (not the girth)
The fact that anyone on this blog, which I read and usually enjoy, can condone any method of torture for any purpose is incredible to me, and furthermore a worrying reflection of the state of mind of America.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And as many of the other posters point out, terrorists do terrible things and therefore do not deserve the respect of the world. How is America any different to terrorists if it tortures too? As for 'what is torture', to my mind it is the use of force, psychological or physical, to influence a person, for any purpose.
savage henry: your argument as well applies to US soldiers who have been captured. Fair is fair? We've prosecuted others for treating ours as we are now treating them. We did, after all, sign the Geneva Conventions. But our president says it doesn't apply, if the victim isn't wearing a uniform. If it matters, I served too, in Vietnam. And I loved it when the Marines were around. Fewer rockets rained in. But I still hate the idea that the US now, as policy, tortures people.
The Geneva Conventions at the very least need to be revised.
Unless we want to become like Redcoats marching into battle in well-ordered lines while our opponents decimate us from the shadows.
Comments to above: To this point in our Middle Eastern campaign(s), most captured American soldiers have summarily been: executed, beheaded, dismembered, lit a fire, just to name a few. In future, I don't think we have any hope of dealing with an enemy that will actually honor the Geneva Convention rules for treating prisoners.
Sid Scwab, thanks for your service. Welcome home, and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of your era left us some big shoes to fill. Hopefully you feel like we're doing you proud.
Dr. Scalpel, I ask your forbearance, as this may get a little long winded.
Mr. Schwab, the "rules" as you see them do not apply equally to US personnel vs. Taliban/AQ/Fedayeen/**Insert insurgent of your choice here**
Here is why:
The law applicable in this case is the Third Geneva Convention Article 4. A lawful combatant is someone who fulfils the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
You can see that Mr. Hadji does not abide by some, or even any of these requirements. The example you picked out was letter (b). He has no "symbol visible at a distance" - it doesn't need to be a uniform replete with gold braid and saber. This condition could be met by something as simple as tying an armband on. He fails to do this. It is easy to tell a dogface or jarhead apart from a civilian - not so for Mr. Hadji. Doesn't jive, does it? Most insurgent group's methodology is not in line with the Geneva Conventions, hence, they are unlawful combatants.
Note that members of Iraq's military that surrendered during OIF 1 were accorded full protection under the Geneva Conventions, because they were lawful combatants.
Mr. Hadji marches to the beat of a different drummer. He fails (in most cases) to do the things necessary to be termed a lawful combatant.
Now, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed - hell, I was only a Sergeant in the Marines, and I drive an X-Ray machine now- but I can see the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants. If you don't like the present policies, you should be calling for amendments to the Geneva Conventions, not castigating the President or the JCS.
I'm not arguing morality in this comment, only stating laws and defining terms. My moral stance can be found in my previous comment. Hopefully this will clear things up for some folks.
Thanks for providing this forum for rational debate, Dr. Scalpel. By the way, the commenters on your blog are being very civil to each other, and should be commended for doing so.
Come by anytime. I appreciate your comments as well as your service to our country.
I would add that I agree with Petri's comment above (comment #2). The Golden Rule rules all.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting on this and not saying something to the effect that, "We're America, we would never do anything to hurt anyone ever. If we do bad things we are no different than them."
I appreciate the thoughtful framing of the point that there is a large continuum of easy treatment to barbaric torture. We need to have a serious discussion, with people from all sides giving intelligent comment, about what we will and will not accept as a nation.
As it was stated above, these guys are not standing accused of parking in a handicapped spot, they are people on the wrong side of the gun trying to kill our own.
I don't pretend that this is a cut and dried scenario for which there is a specific set of rules we can all agree upon. Again, I am glad this post will lead to discussion and not demonizing the "other" side (read: proponents of harsh interrogations).
Sid,
The US now, as policy, tortures people. Is this something that just started with Bush in office? While maybe not policy prior to Bush, I'm sure the US has employed torture to gain valuable intel.
Might I suggest you read this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/opinion/14kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
If waterboarding a terrorist prevents the loss of American life, I am not against it. You cannot play nice with these people.
Terrorists are not enemy soldiers (as the Germans were in World War II) fighting a declared war. They are international thugs.
This is a fight for our very survival. We cannot afford to lose.
Exactly how many times has America been invaded by a foreign power?
Post a Comment
<< Home