Four torture myths
Glad to hear today that Attorney General Holder is going to start an investigation into the CIA’s torture practices during the past administration. Deciding whom to punish and how can be tricky—morally, legally, and politically—but I’m glad that President Obama’s previous approach (namely, hoping the problem would go away) has proven politically untenable.
Anyhow, since any investigation is guaranteed to give rise to much outrage on all sides, I figured I should write up some thoughts I had during the last round of debates.
In short, it would be helpful if the following were more widely understood as myths:
1. Torture is justified because of the ticking time bomb scenario
On the surface, this is quite compelling: a terrorist has hidden a time bomb, whose detonation will kill thousands of people. You have him in custody. Shouldn’t you torture him until he tells you where it is?
The more you think about this, the more preposterous it seems. To make this work as a policy, you would need to have 1) an imminent threat of mass destruction; 2) a suspect in custody; and 3) virtual certainty of the existence of the bomb and the guilt of the suspect. (Number 3 is vitally important, otherwise this is a warrant to torture anyone at any time on the presumption of a plot). Has this situation ever occurred outside of Die Hard and 24?
But even if it did—let’s say we managed to intercept one of the hijackers on September 11 and he told us there was a plot but not the details—that is no reason to make torture official policy, as the Bush administration did. Would the capturing FBI agent be morally correct to use torture to solicit the necessary information? Yes, and if one is a particularly ruthless utilitarian, one could even argue that that agent is morally required to torture one person to save thousands. But, as Kevin Drum once pointed out if such an unlikely situation were to occur, and an agent “successfully” tortured the subject, the president would no doubt issue a pardon. A policy to make torture legal ahead of time is counterproductive.
2. Torture is justified because it is applied only to terrorists who deserve no better
Khaled Sheikh Muhammed is a mass murderer, why should we care what happens to him? The problem is that many of the suspected terrorists (a majority of those at Guantanamo) subject to inhumane detention were not like KSM. They were either completely innocent, or else relatively minor players—like Abu Zubaida. This fact, despite its frequent appearance in magazine articles (and even on This American Life) never seems to have bubbled up into the top level discourse to the point where torture apologists have had to take notice.
3. Torture harms only the victim
“Enhanced interrogation techniques” cause their victims extreme anguish. Waterboarding, as defined by the ICRC is torture. (And as Mark Danner has pointed out, the SERE program on which interrogation policies are based was itself based directly on the illegal techniques used by such paragons of virtue as 1950s-era China). But a policy of torture also turns Americans into torturers—and not simply in the moral, abstract sense, but concretely. Someone has to slam those prisoners against walls and listen to their gasping screams as cascades of water convince them they will drown. This isn’t healthy.
4. Torture means shooting someone in the kneecap
Thanks to TV, we tend to think that only physical violence—breaking fingers, burning eyelids, ripping out fingernails—counts as torture. We don’t fully realize the physical pain that comes from being shackled in a standing position with arms overhead for hours or days at a time, nor the emotional trauma caused by sleep or sensory deprivation (Atul Gawande wrote an excellent article on the almost certain insanity caused by extended solitary confinement – definitely worth reading).
I’m not even touching here the debate about whether or not torture produces reliable intelligence that could not be attained by other means, nor the legal questions.
In terms of what should be done going forward, the overriding goal ought to be the creation of a durable and powerful opinion—in government circles and the public at large—against torture. We must create an atmosphere in which no reputable public figure can endorse torture (with torture understood broadly, as explained above). A good start would be a 9/11 Commission-style endeavor to produce a document that has wide public credibility and that lays bare some of the misconceptions that still pervade our discourse on the subject. I don’t think that Congress is capable of doing this—only an external “bipartisan” commission would be capable.
Anyhow, since any investigation is guaranteed to give rise to much outrage on all sides, I figured I should write up some thoughts I had during the last round of debates.
In short, it would be helpful if the following were more widely understood as myths:
1. Torture is justified because of the ticking time bomb scenario
On the surface, this is quite compelling: a terrorist has hidden a time bomb, whose detonation will kill thousands of people. You have him in custody. Shouldn’t you torture him until he tells you where it is?
The more you think about this, the more preposterous it seems. To make this work as a policy, you would need to have 1) an imminent threat of mass destruction; 2) a suspect in custody; and 3) virtual certainty of the existence of the bomb and the guilt of the suspect. (Number 3 is vitally important, otherwise this is a warrant to torture anyone at any time on the presumption of a plot). Has this situation ever occurred outside of Die Hard and 24?
But even if it did—let’s say we managed to intercept one of the hijackers on September 11 and he told us there was a plot but not the details—that is no reason to make torture official policy, as the Bush administration did. Would the capturing FBI agent be morally correct to use torture to solicit the necessary information? Yes, and if one is a particularly ruthless utilitarian, one could even argue that that agent is morally required to torture one person to save thousands. But, as Kevin Drum once pointed out if such an unlikely situation were to occur, and an agent “successfully” tortured the subject, the president would no doubt issue a pardon. A policy to make torture legal ahead of time is counterproductive.
2. Torture is justified because it is applied only to terrorists who deserve no better
Khaled Sheikh Muhammed is a mass murderer, why should we care what happens to him? The problem is that many of the suspected terrorists (a majority of those at Guantanamo) subject to inhumane detention were not like KSM. They were either completely innocent, or else relatively minor players—like Abu Zubaida. This fact, despite its frequent appearance in magazine articles (and even on This American Life) never seems to have bubbled up into the top level discourse to the point where torture apologists have had to take notice.
3. Torture harms only the victim
“Enhanced interrogation techniques” cause their victims extreme anguish. Waterboarding, as defined by the ICRC is torture. (And as Mark Danner has pointed out, the SERE program on which interrogation policies are based was itself based directly on the illegal techniques used by such paragons of virtue as 1950s-era China). But a policy of torture also turns Americans into torturers—and not simply in the moral, abstract sense, but concretely. Someone has to slam those prisoners against walls and listen to their gasping screams as cascades of water convince them they will drown. This isn’t healthy.
4. Torture means shooting someone in the kneecap
Thanks to TV, we tend to think that only physical violence—breaking fingers, burning eyelids, ripping out fingernails—counts as torture. We don’t fully realize the physical pain that comes from being shackled in a standing position with arms overhead for hours or days at a time, nor the emotional trauma caused by sleep or sensory deprivation (Atul Gawande wrote an excellent article on the almost certain insanity caused by extended solitary confinement – definitely worth reading).
I’m not even touching here the debate about whether or not torture produces reliable intelligence that could not be attained by other means, nor the legal questions.
In terms of what should be done going forward, the overriding goal ought to be the creation of a durable and powerful opinion—in government circles and the public at large—against torture. We must create an atmosphere in which no reputable public figure can endorse torture (with torture understood broadly, as explained above). A good start would be a 9/11 Commission-style endeavor to produce a document that has wide public credibility and that lays bare some of the misconceptions that still pervade our discourse on the subject. I don’t think that Congress is capable of doing this—only an external “bipartisan” commission would be capable.
posted by bc at 12:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home