« The Hypothetical Government | Main | Quote Of The Day »
May 17, 2007
Demagoguing Torture
Today in the Washington Post, the latest Parade of the DNC's Pet Generals comes forth with a real stunner:
These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb.
Really??? Even a little bit of torture causes abuse to "spread like wildfire"?
And "every captured prisoner" is now considered fodder for the torturers? So General Krulak, if we are not mistaken, has just done one of two things:
1. Either he admits that so far, there has been no real torture by US forces, and this is unlikely. Or,
2. He has just alleged that U.S. forces are engaged in the widespread torture of virtually "every captured prisoner".
Because if we assume he means what he says and accept that "even a little torture" inevitably leads to "abuse [that] spread[s] like wildfire, [until] every captured prisoner becomes the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb" this is exactly what the authors intended to imply. Not that they were engaging in fear mongering, mind you, because that is just wrong.
In case you're unclear on that point, Mssrs. Krulak and Hoar elaborate:
Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
The poll shows a "disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations"? Would some situations happen to include the factually impossible hypothetical situation posed by the poll: that one knew with certainty that torturing a detainee would save the life of one's comrade? Because in real life, one would never possess such a certainty, and the presence of doubt is a powerful disincentive to do something as morally repugnant as torturing a captive, even if one disallows the "defense of others" doctrine of self defense. Oddly, Mssrs. Krulak and Hoar remain serenely undisturbed by the propensity of their fellow citizens to approve exactly the same methods, even though they face neither battlefield exigencies nor the supposedly irrestistable influence of "just a little bit" of torture.
What, then, explains the fact that fewer of the military are willing to approve torture than the civilian voters at home? Somehow, we doubt these gentleman have an answer.
What is as certain as the sun rising, however, is that the brutal torture of detainees will go on, and on, and on:
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. . . .Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap," the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce."
And thus, in a gruesome tale of half-inflated balls, is our national character fully revealed. The editorial staff weeps for our lost innocence.
Update: in something of a shocker, William Arkin takes a measured and rational took at the same op-ed. While the editorial staff is not sure we agree with him, we're not entirely sure our positions are all that far apart either:
Those in favor of harsher treatment for terrorists -- I hesitate to say proponents of torture; that would be unfair -- argue that the conditions of the new war demand new rules and that terrorists are already outside of the law. Further, they argue, it is naïve to think terrorists would ever treat American prisoners humanely.Krulak and Hoar don't directly dispute these arguments. But they make a grander appeal for America to find a way to fight a lawless enemy in accordance with American values. The question, then, is what those values are.
Where we depart from Arkin's analysis is in his buy-in to the 'boomerang' effect and his failure to question the illogic behind the authors' contention that any use of what they call torture (which is undefined) will result in a situation where:
any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule
As noted earlier, if this were literally true, we'd be torturing all our detainees. But Arkin also neatly identifies the other fly in the anti-torture ointment:
What any Democratic Party candidate might actually do in office -- once faced with the realities of the big bad world -- is still a gigantic question mark.So again we come back to values.
I'm all for someone standing up and saying, here is what I believe in at my core and here is the foreign and defense policy that derives from that. I support transparency, the rule of law, an end to covert operations, pursuing non-military solutions, disarmament, accountability, humility, leadership that isn't based upon fear.
In the real world, however, I know that the Krulaks and Hoars would argue about this or that detail -- Get rid of all covert operations? Complete disarmament? And so we begin down the slippery slope of situational ethics and rule bending.
I agree with them that America must return to its values and get out of the post-9/11 syndrome of fear. But I think they are either being naïve or political in professing to believe that changing one aspect of American national security policy will have much effect.
Here's how I see it: Even if the new president were to institute a strict new policy against torture, the rest of the world -- terrorists and allies alike -- would still be skeptical. States often say one thing and do another, after all, and their leaders do as well.
What anti-torture advocates neatly ignore is that if world opinion is so exquisitely sensitive to even the slightest whiff of torture then an accusation is as good as evidence of actual brutality. We have handed our enemies the knife with which they will proceed to eviscerate us while disarming ourselves and securing no guarantee of reciprocal treatment.
The very issue of torture is, unfortunately, far too easy to demagogue. Once the editorial staff would have said it went without saying that no one wanted to see Americans torturing detainees. We no longer believe that, but by the same token in a world where what constitutes torture is constantly being defined down, we are both skeptical of accusations and mindful that there is value in the perception that we may be capable of such deeds, whether or not we actually perform them. And as Arkin notes, it is the real world in which we must live, not some hypothetical universe in which symbolic bills and nonbinding resolutions secure our freedoms.
Posted by Cassandra at May 17, 2007 08:02 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1529
Comments
Give the Blog Princess a little time away from the keyboard (a weekend away, cavorting [in an acceptable way] with the uniformed defenders of truth, justice and the American way, and her co-conspirators, their pulchritudinous admirers!), and she returns rejuvenated, ready to rumble, loaded for bear, eloquence and enthusiasm restored, vocabulary revivified, with a sparkle in her eye that warns: don't bother to challenge me if you can't keep up! Long live the Blog Princess !!
Posted by: An Incredulous Reader at May 17, 2007 03:00 PM
"Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. . . . "
Things have sure changed since I was with the Roman Army in Judea. We knew how to torture back then. We didn't do it for information, we did it for fun. And it usually involved a lot of blood splashing around.
Shaved his beard? Made him eat during a hunger strike? We would have considered those guards effeminate sissies.
[turning off the wayback machine...] I think most military men - including the ones who wear civvies and a gunbelt - consider information gained by torture as pretty unreliable. The enemy (like most people) seems to be divided into two camps: those who will not break, no matter what, and those who break at the mere sight of a claw hammer.
As for torture at Guantanamo - that's hard to show, since most all of the detainees have gained 5 - 10 pounds during their extended stay.
Posted by: ZZMike at May 17, 2007 08:49 PM
Based upon our experiences since WWII, I would say that the way we treat our prisoners has exactly absolutely no impact on the way our folks are treated when they become prisoners.
Posted by: yak at May 18, 2007 01:35 AM
Interesting. So is Cassie saying that we should engage in torture, or merely that we should not do so while somehow leaving everyone with the impression that we MAY be doing so? For that matter, I'm still waiting for her guidelines as to just how often, and under what circumstances, we should engage in it, and who should be allowed to make that decision.
As for "defining torture down": please. Take a look at the (confirmed) descriptions of the things we've been engaged in on Sullivan's site, and then tell me that again with a straight face.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at May 18, 2007 05:21 PM
I've already written on that subject, several times. I'm not going to do that on command just because you happened to drop by.
Short answer: it would be really, really special if Congress would do their job and define this by statute instead of leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse and adopting the Army Field Manual rules. We are supposed to have civilian control of the military, but they only want that when it damages the administration. If it requires actual work on their parts they're perfectly happy to pass the buck because they're too lazy and they cannot be bothered, just as they'd rather pontificate about how the NSA wiretapping program is horribly, terribly "illegal" but they won't cut off funding of this 'illegal' program.
Ahem.
And they want to end this illegal and immoral war, but likewise they won't use the power of the purse to do that either, they just leave our troops in theater while saying they "support them" while making it fricking impossible for them to get anything accomplished so they die in vain.
Way to go, 110th Congress of... oh excuse me... for the children.
Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at May 18, 2007 05:38 PM