United States and Torture

Please offer your comments on the subject of the USA and Torture for our December topic. 

Also note Robert Daoust has new comments about his work on the subject

of human suffering.

Comments

[Robert Daoust]

Hi Phyllis, please note that in my comments to Glenn's seminar I was mainly referring to the work of Iain Wilkinson on the subject of human suffering, and not at all to my own work... Sorry that I did not make it clear... Thanks for what you are doing with this forum. Best regards.

[Robert Daoust]

Panetics Journal of December 2005 presents excellent texts on United States and torture.

For me, the right position is expressed by Krauthammer, p. 4-5 :

"Outside the military, however, I would propose, contra McCain, a ban against all forms of torture, coercive interrogation, and inhuman treatment, except in two contingencies: (1) the ticking time bomb and (2) the slower-fuse high-level terrorist (such as KSM). Each contingency would have its own set of rules. In the case of the ticking time bomb, the rules would be relatively simple: Nothing rationally related to getting accurate information would be ruled out. The case of the high-value suspect with slow-fuse information is more complicated. The principle would be that the level of inhumanity of the measures used (moral honesty is essential here--we would be using measures that are by definition inhumane) would be proportional to the need and value of the information. Interrogators would be constrained to use the least inhumane treatment necessary relative to the magnitude and imminence of the evil being prevented and the importance of the knowledge being obtained."

"These exceptions to the no-torture rule would not be granted to just any nonmilitary interrogators, or anyone with CIA credentials. They would be reserved for highly specialized agents who are experts and experienced in interrogation, and who are known not to abuse it for the satisfaction of a kind of sick sadomasochism Lynndie England and her cohorts indulged in at Abu Ghraib. Nor would they be acting on their own. They would be required to obtain written permission for such interrogations from the highest political authorities in the country (cabinet level) or from a quasi-judicial body modeled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which permits what would ordinarily be illegal searches and seizures in the war on terror). Or, if the bomb was truly ticking and there was no time, the interrogators would be allowed to act on their own, but would require post facto authorization within, say, 24 hours of their interrogation, so that they knew that whatever they did would be subject to review by others and be justified only under the most stringent terms."

There is a counterargument to this 'exceptionalist' position by Irvine, p. 19 :

"The Journal assumes that only the worst of the worst will be subjected to torture when it comes to ticking time bombs. Not only is that assumption unfounded, based upon the widespread abuses in Iraq, it was tried and abandoned by the Israelis. Because it is impossible to confirm with advance certainty what any suspect actually knows, ticking bomb torture can be justified in virtually every interrogation. When Israel experimented with "torture lite," supposedly reserved for ticking-bomb circumstances, it was not long before 85 percent of all Palestinian detainees were being given the harshest treatment allowed. The capability to finely calibrate torture has eluded every democratic government which has tried it."

Personally, I think the requirement made above of a 'post facto authorization' takes care of that counterargument.

Two other positions are of interest to me. There is the one by Dershowitz, p. 33 :

"The greatest danger facing the world today, says Alan M. Dershowitz, comes from religiously inspired, state-sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop weapons of mass destruction for use against civilian targets. In his newest book, Dershowitz argues passionately and persuasively that organized global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we must and can take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist attacks. Analyzing recent acts of terrorism and our reaction to them, Dershowitz explains that terrorism is successful when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists -- or even tries to understand and eliminate the "root causes" of terrorism. He discusses extreme approaches to wiping out international terrorism that would work if we were not constrained by legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations. And, given that we do operate under such constraints, he offers a series of proposals that would effectively reduce the frequency and severity of international terrorism by striking a balance between security and liberty. Lucidly written, powerfully argued, this book is an essential tool for combating terrorism while preserving our democratic values."

Dershowitz argues for what I would call 'extended controlled torture' because he sees it as a means to win the war, and to win it with less casualty on our side. I believe, on the contrary, that a war of white knights' desperately necessary evil against black knights' necessarily desperate evil could last in fact during decades and perhaps centuries, and during that time it would continue to make our world an awful place indeed! I pretend that we should let the evil ones be monstruous and try, for ourselves, to be benefactors : kindly heaping hot coals to warm our enemies is probably the surest means to discredit them and their cause, and win the war quickly.

The position of the status quo is expressed by Bowden, p. 22 :

"...Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone."

The problem with this position is that it assumes that the world cannot be bettered. Political realism is often the position of those who take advantage of others in the present reality. A panetic position should take into account the interests of all parties, and support those that furthers less severe infliction, optimally.