“If waterboarding isn’t torture, there is no such thing as torture.”
Last year, Christopher Hitchens defended the practice of waterboarding, drawing a line between extreme interrogation techniques–necessary, he argued, in a time of war–and outright torture. His critics said this was a sophist, intellectual distinction, and challenged him to try it himself.
Read the full article. It’s eye opening to say the least–and so is the accompanying video. What I thought was most illuminating, though, was the fact that Hitchens distinctly remembers saying the “safe word” that was the interrogators’ cue to stop the procedure. (The interrogators, by the way, were men who teach Green Berets how to resist torture in the event that they are captured.) But according to the interrogators, Hitchens never said a word. This made the author wonder at the possibility of false memories being created as the result of the stress of interrogation.
Keep in mind that this is a man who supported the war, and proudly became an American citizen in the midst of an administration widely loathed by residents of his home country. This is also a man who thinks Islam is a cult of wingbats, and has said so in about as many words. He is a democracy, whiskey, sexy kind of guy.
Denials? Rationales? Logical fallacies? Malkin’s already taken “it’s a stunt and I don’t believe it” so you’ll have to get creative. Anyone want to skip all that and go straight to “the terrorists in Gitmo are animals, they deserve to be treated like animals and I don’t care”? If this is what you think, there’s a prize if you’re willing to drop the BS and admit it.*
*Edited for specificity to avoid offending Martin.
105 comments
"There’s a prize for the brave soul willing to drop the BS and admit that this is what he believes."
Why does it take bravery to say that Hitchens believes whatever it is that he claims to believe? Unless I missed the news of his promotion, Hitchens isn’t God. His opinion isn’t binding on me in any way. It therefore costs me nothing to "admit" that Hitchens believes that waterboarding is torture. Can you explain why admitting this makes me brave?
Logical fallacy is exactly right. Rape, mutilation, and the rack all are in a whole different league from waterboarding. Talk to me when Mr. Hitchens volunteers for one of those.
And Willow, as for this:
Anyone want to skip all that and go straight to “the terrorists in Gitmo are animals, they deserve to be treated like animals and I don’t care”? There’s a prize for the brave soul willing to drop the BS and admit that this is what he believes.
That is the most despicable thing I’ve read on this blog in months, maybe years. If you truly think that’s what I think just because I disagree with your view on this issue, tell me where to mail my copy of Cairo. I wouldn’t want to sully your book with my barbarian hands.
Oh come on. Are you serious? Enough of this pussy-footing around. Answer the question I asked, not the one you made up in your head to avoid answering it. I am asking anyone who believes that the detainees in Gitmo deserve whatever treatment they get, and don’t care about fine distinctions like torture vs. extreme interrogation, to admit as much.
Next? I wasn’t kidding about the prize.
(that was for ctl)
Martin, why do you assume I believe that this is what you think? I’m asking those who *do* think so to come forward and drop the pretense. If you have no pretense, you have none to drop. These drawn out distinctions of ‘extreme interrogation’ vs. torture smack of deeper issues, and I think we should address them. But we can’t as long as people keep hiding behind long drawn-out essays that say nothing of the real human cost of this issue.
But Willow, I do see a clear, obvious distinction between extreme interrogation (no scare quotes) and torture. I also was one of Dean’s strongest defenders when he instituted his No Islamophobes policy. I have great respect for Aziz, and hope some day to meet him in person, because I think he’s probably a friend I’ve never met. I disagree vehemently with the dishonest ways Ali argues here, but have also strongly argued that he has a place here (though he seems to have dropped us). My dealings with DanielH have always been as pleasant and friendly as one can hope between relative strangers on the Internet.
And up until tonight, I thought the same of you. But now I find that you seem to think that drawing a distinction between extreme interrogation and torture makes me no better than the Islamophobes. And frankly, that hurts. It’s an ugly caricature, and ignores what a lot of very good people have written on this subject.
No, Martin, what I have a problem with is calling torture extreme interrogation to avoid having a real discussion about torture. This isn’t an Islamophobia issue; I would feel the same dismay if we were talking about Mormons or Hindus or atheists. (My note of Hitchens’ view on Islam was simply to illustrate that he has no liberal axe to grind.) This isn’t about religion, this is about human rights. If you genuinely believe that waterboarding is not torture, that’s fine. If you would simply like it not to be torture but suspect it is–which anyone must, I should think, given the evidence–then we (the broader we; we the nation) have a problem.
I think there are people out there who genuinely don’t care whether it’s torture or not.
I accept the edit as proof that I misread you. Thank you. I do know there are people who believe as you say. In my experience, they’re a small but ugly subset of all people who hold a common view on this issue that’s different from your view.
All these things were considered torture when they were done to our soldiers. And if (hopefully never) they are ever done to our soldiers in the future, we’ll probably consider them tortures again.
Bad’s last blog post..More Journalists Have Been Waterboarded Than Have Terrorists
Bad, exactly. This has been done to American troops–or at least, that was the impression I got from the article. How horrifying would it be if such a soldier came home and was told "Yeah but that’s not technically torture. Technically."
I have no doubt that there are bad men in Guantanamo–none whatsoever. But this should not be something Americans do.
I think everyone should see The Siege. It’s usually touted as a Reel Bad Arab movie and condemned by Muslims, but I think it’s brilliant. It contains one of the most eloquent condemnations of "water" I’ve ever heard. By Denzel Washington, no less.
Willow,
Sorry, I mis-read that sentence which I quoted; I thought that the antecedant to "he" was Hitchens. I’m barely used to "he" being used in English as a pronoun for both genders any more.
So, what do you think of the definition of torture which Michelle Malkin quotes approvingly:
What gives Christopher Hitchens the authority to define torture?
For example, on this very site, I’ve read mikeca describe the pleasures of anal intercourse with another man. And how that act of submission is ultimately an act of love.
And I can actually appreciate that frame of reference.
But if it happened to me, I would most certainly describe anal intercourse as torture.
What gives Christopher Hitchens the authority to define torture? For example, on this very site, I’ve read mikeca describe the pleasures of anal intercourse with another man. And how that act of submission is ultimately an act of love.And I can actually appreciate that frame of reference. But if it happened to me, I would most certainly describe anal intercourse as torture.
The key point is the difference in permission, or lack thereof. I think punching a hole through your penis is torture, but I know people who have theirs pierced. Since it was voluntary, it wasn’t torture.
Well… I say Michelle Malkin ought to try out this waterboarding thing. I mean, if it’s just a stunt and Hitchens is exaggerating, then I am sure she can do it as well and write an article about how the experience can and should never be called torture. I for one didn’t need him to subject himself to what is an equivalent to virtual drowning to believe it is torture, but well played.
That guy has some balls even if he "barely had his face washed".
SERE training includes waterboarding to help students learn how to resist it.
As best I can determine — details are classified, after all — SERE training does not include rape, mutiliation, or the rack.
There are two likely reasons for the difference: either rape, mutiliation, and the rack are considered beyond resistance, and so there’s no point in training troops to experience them; or else the fact that these will — not may in the case of accident, but will — cause severe and lasting physical trauma that the trainers choose not to inflict on troops.
In either case, the SERE specialists clearly see a difference in kind or degree between these treatments and waterboarding.
And therefore, Mr. Hitchens is clearly falling into a logical fallacy. Since there is a difference, it is logically possible for rape, mutilation, and the rack to fall into the set "torture" while waterboarding could still fall into the set "not torture". Mr. Hitchens asserts that either waterboarding is in the set "torture" or else the set is empty. That conclusion is by no means proven.
What we are doing is comparing a set of standards for training military personale and the actual anguish inflicted upon a human being undergoing the procedure. That is a logical fallacy since you clearly cannot compare the two. Setting a different standard for it on a piece of paper does not make the experience less cruel.
That’s kind of like saying that harming your wife and kids mentally and harming them physically are both bad, but mental harm is nowhere near as bad as physical harm so we should not legally classify mental duress as abuse. You can train a person to resist brainwashing and other tactics designed to change the mind or demoralize, so they should be counted as acceptable.
For anyone that thinks that waterboarding is not torture I will reluctantly waterboard anyone who would like to prove a point and volunteer for the procedure.
jrogge,I’ll volunteer, if you’ll volunteer to let me break you on the rack in return. After all, they’re both torture, right?
Does this qualify:
I believe any and all methods to extract information from prisoners should be at the disposal of the military should those prisoners be an illegal combatant or fighting on behalf of a nation not a Geneva Convention signatory.
The Geneva Convention exists not to protect foreign prisoners from domestic torture, but to protect domestic soldiers from foreign torture. It’s a selfish document therefore if we, the U.S., gain nothing by being a signatory of the Geneva Convention when fighting an enemy then those protections provided to us by that document do not apply to foreign prisoners in our possession.
The military should then be authorized to use any force it deems prudent to extract information from prisoners that are not wholly forthcoming.
Are the terrorists in Gitmo animals? No. But if we cannot demand a level of treatment for our soldiers in terrorist possession, we are tying an arm behind our back by extending it to terrorists in our possession.
The onus is on the enemy to ensure safe treatment of their soldiers in foreign possession.
That is: "We won’t fuck with your guys, don’t fuck with ours."
It seems al-Qaeda doesn’t care enough about its forces to grant that promise. And we shouldn’t be the one to give them the benefits of that promise without guarantee of reciprocation.
Until that promise is received, untie the military’s hands.
Martin, do you think it’s possible there are degrees of torture? That the rack and the waterboard are simply variant strains of the same thing? The purpose of both is to inflict physical and psychological pain so brutal that it would cause someone with more-than-average mental and physical stamina (like a soldier) to reveal serious intelligence. I appreciate that you are indeed trying to draw a line, but that line just looks very, very fine.
I just don’t think we would even be having this conversation if it was about American soldiers being interrogated via waterboarding at the hands of, say, FARC. Or a Colombian drug cartel.
As hair-splitting goes, to me this is akin to the free speech debate. I would love to classify hate speech and free speech separately, so that hate speech would fall outside the protection of free speech laws. But it’s a slippery slope. If we can’t determine a set-in-stone line between hate speech and free speech, hate speech must be treated as free speech–otherwise the free speech laws become vulnerable to plain old censorship. It absolutely kills me, but there it is.
To me this seems like the same thing. Would it be nice if there was a hard and fast category called ‘extreme interrogation techniques’ that was separate from torture? Of course. It would solve any number of problems. Only there isn’t, and it doesn’t.
The problem with your logic Kevin is that we don’t know whether all our prisoners are terrorists, so it’s not a tit-for-tat situation. Chances are good that there are people in Gitmo who know nothing of value and have seen nothing of consequence. It’s not as though terrorists wear uniforms and carry ID cards that make them immediately separable from civilians.
Either way, do you really think it behooves us to treat people with the same disregard as our enemies? Are our ideals as Americans contingent on everybody else behaving the same way? We’re going to wait until Al Qaeda starts hosting film festivals and sponsoring voter registration drives before we decide we have an obligation to live up to our own standards of decency?
jaymaster:
For example, on this very site, I’ve read mikeca describe the pleasures of anal intercourse with another man. And how that act of submission is ultimately an act of love.
That is total BS. Show me the link where I said that or apologize.
Torture != abuse.
A nice crisp definition of torture is
" a physical act performed with the malicious intent of causing a long lasting injury or extreme (physical) pain"
We shouldn’t (and don’t!) waterboard prisoners willy-nilly because it’s abusive. But it’s not torture**.
All too often people who oppose something try to claim thing a is thing b because thing b is much more emotionally charged (for example, see the use of fascism or racism). It’s frequently an effective tactic because the emotional reaction interferes with reason.
I, however, find the tactic intellectually dishonest and go out of my way to call the spade a spade even when I would otherwise agree with the point being made (in this case, we shouldn’t abuse our prisoners). I think it also turns off many others who might be more receptive to the argument because of past experiences with people who attempt to wrap their position in emotion rather than arguing their case on its actual merits.
** unless waterboarding is being done in a manner to intentionally cause long lasting injury, which it could easily be. Then it would be torture.
jodyneel’s last blog post..Why my job is so cool, Part 2
You’ve got is backwards. As I said, the Geneva Convention is a document signed for selfish reasons. It’s not there to protect foreign soldiers, it’s there to protect soldiers that are your own.
You agree not to torture their guys if, in return, they agree to not torture yours.
The idea being you won’t do everything in your power to extract information or exact revenge upon prisoners. You agree to withhold using every tool at your disposal from the captured enemy, not for the benefit of the enemy, but for the benefit of your men in enemy possession.
Since American soldiers in enemy hands do not gain any benefit by the U.S. withholding the full measure of force it could bring to bear on captured terrorists, we are under no obligation to continue to do so. There must be a fair exchange of benefit and there is none. We’re the ones, as I said, tying a hand behind our back for no goodly purpose.
You ask, "Are our ideals contingent on everybody else behaving the same way?" I ask you: Why should our enemies reap the reward of American mercy at the cost of American lives?
War is not something to be entered in to with kid gloves. If it must come to war then I support total war. We hit hard and without mercy until the enemy yields. Once they yield, I have no problem showering them with mercy and American compassion.
Remember, al-Qaeda started this war. We didn’t go looking for it and we didn’t ask for it. After 9/11, the full measure of American mercy was used up. Now it’s time to kill them until they lose all will to fight and cringe the next time they even think of looking cross at an American flag.
As for possible innocent people at Gitmo: The American military should make all reasonable attempts at the ascertaining guilt or innocence of those within its custody. But harm coming to innocent people is a calculated risk and I will not remove a tool for the military’s arsenal wholesale because innocent people might get hurt.
Innocent people get hurt in war. It’s an inescapable fact. Reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate those losses but the cost of innocent life is just one consideration to take in and should not be used to deter all possible actions alone. If the harm or death of an innocent was enough to call off a mission, the U.S. could not wage war.
While al-Qaeda could attack us with abandon.
So, could an innocent be harmed at Gitmo? Possibly. Is that enough to set methods of intelligence gathering aside permanently? Not in my opinion.
Innocent people will get hurt and will get killed in war. Which is why we need to hit hard and end it quickly. If this means innocent people are subjected to whatever passes for torture these days, it’s a price that must be paid.
Trying waterboarding with a "safe word", is not extreme interrogation, nor torture. If you know you have an out besides death…
Is waterboarding torture? Does that matter. If it is forced information that you are recieving, how can you know that it is true? If you place people (or any animal ) in a position where they must do anything to preserve their own life. Hey, then expect them to do the "anything". Then what have you proved?
The " it has been done to our soldiers" line is, I’m sorry "CRAP". Vulgur word. Not really equal to the fine opinions found here most of the time. Memories are getting clouded though, so there it is.
Reflect. The Hague was notified before troops went into "Afganistan" ( which was first if we all recall ) that US troops would not be held accountable nor chargeable to the war crimes commitions for actions that may arise from the war on terror. It was scary then. Still is. If US troops can get off scot-free then what do you expect their enimies to do? It was a stupid, wrong and degrading thing to dump against the american peoples. How was the world to come to rally to them in such an hour of need? Bagh!
Next item. The animals in Gitmo. Ah? War was declared publicly against them. Therefor they are prisoners of war. Bad move. Poorly thought out.
We are hurt and going to make you pay and you can’t do anything against us when we do something we say is illegal if done to us. What a spoiled child syndrome is this.
I just hope america’s fine people wake up. give their spokes people a good shake. Tell them the rest of the world want the old america back. You know the one that the other counries wanted to be allied with. Or be. The superpower. Not the stuper power.
Now to be fair. It is too easy to bash the United States of America. So let me remind everyone I am a Canadian. It is only fair to get slapped propper. Not as a " you are a disgrace to your nation" if you were thinking I am …american ( you know the whole calling yourselves american when there are more nations on this contenent then just you is confusing, but I am doing it here because it is a whole new topic line I think).
That is the mess. How to clean it up? Apply the laws. The real laws that existed befor the madness. Apply them to one and all. Take the high ground. It is time to climb out of the morass. To take responsability. Not just the Us. The world is not exempt in this. Not just allies, the world. Alas, this will be just one more ignored such pleas that have sounded since time began. Still it is to hope.
If it is forced information that you are recieving, how can you know that it is true
You, um, check it out. They’re not idiots.
Oddly enough, verification is also required for freely given information before it would be actionable.
Think "plea bargain" for a different context for the application of coerced information.
jodyneel’s last blog post..Why my job is so cool, Part 2
Hey jodyneel
Nice to see someone else out at this time of night.
I was expecting a stronger attack for my harsh comments. Thanks for that.
"Verification". "They check it out". "They aren’t idiots".
Sorry, but I gotta…
If they are smart enough to get information using other methodes… then ,that would be condusive to a better world if those avenues were used. Don’t you think so? As for all of the above quotes. Like I was saying. The US people got done bad by the powers that think they be. For sadly, even if it was true , there is a bad taste in the mouths of those that once could have believed. For we were told that there were WMD in Iraq. We couldn’t be trusted enough to be given the proof, but join the US or they would go it alone. Oh, that was followed by the announcement that that war was won, and over except for finding Sadam. Like I said. It is too easy, and it doesn’t help to fix the problem. We need to get this to higher ground.
Trust is highly bruised. But, it can and must be regained. You can’t force it though. . . safer words…trust me.
If they are smart enough to get information using other methodes… then ,that would be condusive to a better world if those avenues were used. Don’t you think so?
Verification is normally (at least) several orders of magnitude easier than independent discovery.
Example 1: I buried a pile of gold somewhere in America. Only I know where I buried it and when I buried it.
To find it independently, you’ll have to dig up America.
However, if I tell you where I buried it, you only have to dig up one spot.
Example 2: Nuclear proliferation. Took humanity 40,000 years to figure out how to make a nuclear bomb. Now everyone is doing it. (Or if you prefer, pick any other technology, e.g., bronze, iron, real dolls)
jodyneel’s last blog post..Why my job is so cool, Part 2
I appreciate that you are indeed trying to draw a line, but that line just looks very, very fine.
Willow,
To me, it looks large, and clear as a bell. If the intended effect is injury, it’s torture. If the intended effect is only initimidation, it’s not torture. That’s not a fine line at all.
The problem with your logic Kevin is that we don’t know whether all our prisoners are terrorists, so it’s not a tit-for-tat situation. Chances are good that there are people in Gitmo who know nothing of value and have seen nothing of consequence.
But since we have learned that we’ve used waterboarding only three times in this war – all exigent situations — those no-consequence prisoners in Guantanamo aren’t relevant to this discussion.
mikeca,
That is total BS. Show me the link where I said that or apologize.
I agree: total BS, and he owes you an apology. I’ve never seen anything like that from you, not even close.
I’m guessing jaymaster has you confused with Michael Demmons; but even there, I think he’s gone over the top. Michael may or may not participate in anal intercourse, but I can’t ever recall him discussing details here. He has the class to keep such details to himself.
"jrogge,I’ll volunteer, if you’ll volunteer to let me break you on the rack in return. After all, they’re both torture, right?"
I wouldn’t volunteer for either. See, I am in the camp that both are torture. Since y0u believe that waterboarding is not then you should be happily willing to do it. Your logic sucks. Thanks.
" a physical act performed with the malicious intent of causing a long lasting injury or extreme (physical) pain"
Barring the fact you used a bill o’ reilly interpretation of asshattery, sorry, torture. By bill o’ reilly I mean taking the parts of the definition you like and leaving out all other parts that say what you refuse to believe. I leave his name uncapitalized for the same reason I leave ‘douchebag’ uncapitalized.
I would still have to say the physical abuse can cause long lasting injury or extreme pain. So if you say abuse is not equal to torture then your argument to state this premise needs some more information. Here’s another definition of torture:
Webster’s:
1 a: anguish of body or (((((((mind))))))) : agony b: something that causes agony or pain: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: *distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument*.
Oxford:
1 the infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion. 2 great suffering or anxiety.
I would have to say waterboarding, or convincing someone that they are drowning, is agony of the mind and probably physical agony as well. I mean, if you think drowning is not agony and isn’t torture then by all means take my challenge. This whole interpretation of torture you have is TORTURE*!
Actually, your "logic" is that anything one is not "happily willing to do" is torture. Ergo, by your "logic", the following are all torture: IRS audits, root canals, long flight delays…
Whereas my logic is just the opposite: if there are two actions, and some people volunteer for the first one to prove a point but no one will volunteer for the second regardless of the point, then there is a clear category difference between the two. One is not torture, and the other is.
You "clever" people who say "then you get waterboarded if it’s not torture" keep missing that simple point: some people have willingly been waterboarded to prove a point; nobody willingly goes on the rack. That proves there’s a difference.
You "clever" people who say "then you get waterboarded if it’s not torture" keep missing that simple point: some people have willingly been waterboarded to prove a point; nobody willingly goes on the rack. That proves there’s a difference.
It proves that it is an underestimated form of torture and when people go through it and last 5 seconds because it really really sucks they figure out it is torture.
Actually my logic has nothing to do with anyone happily willing to go through waterboarding. Everyone knows that waterboarding sucks and would not do it under normal circustances. People have willingly doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire too. Does that mean we can douse people with gasoline in internment camos and set them on fire? I mean, people are willing to go through it so there must be a difference between that and the rack right? It has to be more humane to combust into flame and slowly burn to death, by your logic. In fact more people have willingly gone through it than waterboarding that I know of, so setting yourself on fire must be akin to getting tickled to death.
Back to my logic, I am not using a logical statement, really. I am pointing out the dark psychology of people who wish to torture our enemies and treat them like animals. They can’t say that they want to do this because it is wrong and they know it is. So they rationalize their dark motive by saying, ‘This is okay because it is not torture it is extreme interrogation." We lie to ourselves a lot to justify the horrible things we do as human beings and this extreme interrogation term is merely a way to fool a person’s self into thinking that what the id wants is okay.
We lie to ourselves a lot to justify the horrible things we do as human beings and this extreme interrogation term is merely a way to fool a person’s self into thinking that what the id wants is okay.
Or it’s an honest, principled distinction clearly expressed and defended with logic and reason; and because you can’t refute that, you stoop to "then you do it" and faux psychoanalysis. Stop the mind-reading. Don’t tell me "what I really think".
There are honest, good, principled people who disagree with you. Accept that. Stop demonizing. That’s just a way to bully people into agreement.
mikeca,
I apologize for attributing those statements to you. I have confused your comments with those of Michael Demmons several times in the past, and it is entirely possible that I did the same thing again.
After searching for several hours, with the local archive search tool (which is horrible) and with Google, I was not able to find any such discussions here where either you or Michael Demmons made such comments.
I am starting to think that the comments came from a guy named Vic or something like that. He was often much more crude than either of the Michaels. I haven’t seen him comment here for quite some time. But whatever the case, I can’t track down the exact thread I am referring to, and I am throwing in the towel now.
I have also reflected upon whether my example of anal intercourse versus anal rape was even appropriate for this discussion. I think it is. My main point being, how can we even begin to define torture?
Is placing someone in a cell for life torture? Is stripping a person naked, binding their hands and feet, blind folding them, then flying them off to a location unknown to them torture? Is guarding a prisoner with dogs torture?
Some folks would answer yes to all of the above. Some no.
If waterboarding is torture, we are torturing thousands of U.S. servicepeople. It is not voluntary — it is a requirement of service.
There are honest, good, principled people who disagree with you. Accept that. Stop demonizing. That’s just a way to bully people into agreement.
That is exactly why these honest, principled people want to believe that this is not torture. What kind of person would say, "We’re torturing them? Allright! Fuck yeah!" Not an honest princpled one.
No but every human is privy to emotion, especially anger. Anger is a common emotion especially when you are staring at the faces of people who may have killed a loved one, or killed a countryman. You feel very angry, I know I do. You might be so angry that you’re willing to allow or advocate the suffering of these people. It is not abnormal to want them to suffer at all. But, as an honest and principled human being you can’t allow yourself to say, "“the terrorists in Gitmo are animals, they deserve to be treated like animals and I don’t care." So how do we deal with this anger in the way I want to deal with it, without stooping to the levels I know I shouldn’t stoop to? I know! It isn’t torture at all, it’s extreme interrogation! That makes it okay.
Evil monsters would not try to rationalize away the concept of torture with a gentler concept to cushion the blow to the conscience because they do not have one. The principled people you speak of are exactly the people who would do so. Just because people want to fool themselves into thinking that waterboarding or other inhumane treatment of prisoners is not waterboarding does not make them evil and certainly not demons. It makes them very normal.
This does not change the fact however that waterboarding is torture.
I’ve written on this subject many times on this site. One of the first things I ever wrote on this blog was entitled "Torture Abu Zubaydah?" and I took a firm "absolutely not" stance. Since then I have had multiple experiences of being pilloried by the right for being much too gentle and wussified for opposing torture, and pilloried by the left for being a torture advocate. Does that make me right, because I’m "in the middle?" No. I merely point it out for anyone who’s tempted to start psychologically analyzing me and my motives. Take my arguments on their own merits, please. That’s all I ask.
I have seen the "slippery slope" logic applied to this many times. It is useful, therefore, to note that "slippery slope" is listed in virtually all references on elementary logic as a common logical fallacy. Here is a fairly good description of it in case you don’t believe it. And you can see that it’s a fallacy by turning it on its head.
The logical fear is that if we don’t recognize waterboarding as torture, soon we will allow just about anything, and eventually we’ll routinely see police ripping the fingernails off of suspected street muggers and kindergarteners put on the rack for bad grades. Maybe not right away, but it’s a first step down the slippery slope toward barbarism.
So, let’s turn this the other way: if we allow something which is arguably considerably less dangerous than playing High School football, and which almost never causes lasting harm (unlike High School football) to be defined as torture, will that not just as likely cause us to find much more horrible things more acceptable? Will the "slippery slope" not cause us to find it more acceptable to use torture that involves blowtorches, wrenches, and dildos, because we’ve gone ahead and described something so gentle as waterboarding as torture?
If you don’t accept that logic, consider this: I did not find the video of Hitchens being waterboarded eye-opening, because I’ve already seen many videos of waterboarding, produced by people against it, for it, and netural on it. And the effect on me is, every time I see it I grow less uncomfortable with the practice.
Yes, I said less uncomfortable with it.
I have also had the experience of shrieking "anti-torture" advocates describe things like loud music, mild food deprivation, and having dogs bark at people described as torture. Yes, I have. I find such logic to be corrosive, as it degrades the whole notion of real torture, like John McCain went through (and which crippled him for life, the man can’t even comb his own hair because he can’t raise his arms above his shoulders).
Would I undergo the waterboarding procedure? Actually I’ve made that offer publicly on this blog before: I’ll undergo it voluntarily if it’s at the hands of professionals trained in the technique. It is an open offer. I don’t have money to travel but if someone can arrange it I’ll do it, on camera, and put the results online. Name the time and place.
How do I suspect I’d do? I suspect I could make two minutes. Maybe not, but I think so. Sneering know-it-alls probably want to call me names and predict that I’m just bluffing or bragging and I don’t "really know" what it’s like. Well it’s true that I don’t really know what it’s like, but I’ve done quite a lot of things in life that normal people wouldn’t voluntarily do, which are extremely uncomfortable and frightening. I won’t bore you with the details, but I’ve had the experience of being emotionally utterly convinced that I was about to die, and going forward and doing it anyway. I also have nearly drowned before, and I don’t share the common phobia of it. If you were to tell me I had to die in a grisly fashion, and gave me a list of ten choices, drowning would be near the top as one I found least unappetizing (and fire would be at the top of what I found most frightening and to be avoided. Make of it what you will).
I don’t accept the logic that if we ever allow this ever, we are no better than our enemies. Nonsense; these are enemies that take captives they know are innocent, shriek abuse at them while they’re tied down, show them a knife, and then proceed to cut their heads off while they are conscious and screaming. I have seen real live videos of that, and I found that quite eye-opening. It made it clear to me that these are not people who are going to be enacting revenge for something as tame as waterboarding, because they’ve already gone far beyond anything like that. If anything, they’ll view our waterboarding as a sign of our weakness, not our strength, because we’re such big pussies we think waterboarding is torture. “Let us show you real torture, you weak and pampered fools!”
I also refute the assertion that America wasn’t doing things like this prior to 9/11 or the dastardly Bush regime. In fact we’ve many times done much worse–and I’m pretty sure the sainted Canadian government has too.
In my opinion, waterboarding runs up to the edge of torture but probably doesn’t qualify any more than a lot of other very unpleasant things. But it’s so nasty, it should only be done under fairly rigorously controlled and very rare circumstances, with heavy monitoring at the top levels of government.
What does that make me? A torture advocate? Okay. If that’s what you think, then keep in mind that turning me into a torture advocate makes it harder to distinguish me from someone who thinks it’s just peachy to take a blowtorch to someone’s face because he’s just another animal in Gitmo. Think I’m too quick to object to enhanced and ugly interrogation methods? Okay, then keep in mind that you’re suggesting I’m no different from a wailing sissy who thinks that letting a muzzled dog bark at someone and scare them is torture.
I’m glad we have this debate. Honestly, it indicates that we have a conscience and are conflicted as a people. Having a coinscience and being conflicted about these things demonstrates, to me, that we are better than our enemies.
Make of that what you will.
(Very good discussion so far. I may be back, I have to run off to work for a few hours today. Please keep it up, gang.)
That is exactly why these honest, principled people want to believe that this is not torture.
The faux psychoanalysis continues. Bullshit. This is not "want to believe". This is "disagree on the definition", and "disagree that you get to bully people into submitting to your definition".
There is a category difference between waterboarding and the rack. You admit as much. You believe the difference is between subsets of torture. I believe the difference is between subsets of coercion. My belief has nothing — let me spell it out to you, N-O-T-H-I-N-G — with guilt or fooling myself. It just means that I see a fundamental difference between intimidation and injury.
There’s an unspoken assumption here- Torture isn’t allowable, but extreme interrogation is. So the whole point is which category waterboarding falls into. I think the better method here is to examine what things, in a more specific sense, we are willing to do and what things we are not, in the context of a prison/detention center. Are we willing to cause permanent physical injury? Are we willing to cause permanent psychological injury? If yes to either, what degree of injury are we willing to cause? How do we factor in the potential gains from the injury? What is the balance there? As far as psychological injury, we are clearly willing to do that- prison does that by its very nature. But the question is simply one of degree. Hence, people of good faith will disagree.
Martin- I would like to mention that people, as a rule, underestimate psychological pain and overestimate physical pain, so the "people are willing to try this" argument is somewhat suspect.
For the record, I support waterboarding as a last resort technique against people that are known to have information and are known to be terrorist operatives. "Guy caught in war zone" isn’t going to hack it for me. "Guy on the video chopping aid workers heads off who had OBL’s email address on his laptop" does. Waterboard him till he rats Osama out. In any case, I think that we have to be willing to cause psychological harm, and that waterboarding is within the realm of acceptability to me, within the (admittedly fuzzy) bounds described above.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
[…] having a heated but fantastic discussion on torture. Please read it. (And put any comments or trackbacks in that thread and not […]
As a restatement of my first point, I think the argument is not whether waterboarding is torture. I don’t care what it’s called. I want to decide if it’s acceptable as policy. To do that, I need to examine what my standards of acceptability are and how waterboarding conforms (or doesn’t conform) to them. That’s the question to answer, not some semantic bullshit about what we call it.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
There is a category difference between waterboarding and the rack. You admit as much.
When? Seriously without quoting me out of context when did I ever say that Waterboarding was catagorically different?
The faux psychoanalysis continues. Bullshit. This is not "want to believe". This is "disagree on the definition", and "disagree that you get to bully people into submitting to your definition".
Actually you are saying what you want to believe. I think there’s some truth there. Dean’s argument is far more rational, but too if you read there is tons of anger there. Also Martin you say ‘continues’ as if the entire string of posts was one big psychoanalysis when in reality only one was. I really hate to say it but anyone reading closely and objectively would say you prove my point more succinctly that I was able to. Bravo.
To do that, I need to examine what my standards of acceptability are and how waterboarding conforms (or doesn’t conform) to them. That’s the question to answer, not some semantic bullshit about what we call it.
RyanR I agree with this. I may not agree on your limits of acceptability as we will call them but I do agree this is the real question.
Can I give a very rational sceanario?
This is taken as accurately as possible from stories vets have told me about World War II. You see, when the German army was losing, and they knew they were losing, many were starting to surrender to enemy forces rather than get killed in a losing battle. Here’s what I was told, perhaps it is true or perhaps it is exaggerated but here it is. I was told by multiple sources that were actually fighting or doing MP duty, that the Germans surrendered to the Americans exclusively because they knew their treatment would be fair.
The prisoners reported that if they saw the Russians they would rather fight to the death than have to suffer in their prisons, but they would surrender to the Americans because they knew that while they wouldn’t be treated nicely, persay, that they would have food and drink and not be treated like animals.
I think that’s a very powerful image because that allows us to win battles without shooting a single person, at least in the end game, and the end game is probably the most important time in a war.
Some people may argue that there is a big difference between those German soldiers and the Extremists we’re fighting today. We can’t compare the two. We can however compare them to the SS who were the extremists that gladly massacred millions of Jews and Polish people. I doubt the SS would have surrendered either. The bulk of the army though, sitting with normal and rational human minds, decided that surrender was the best option.
Will the extremists like Al Qaeda and Hamas surrender to American forces? Probably not, and we’d have to kill them. But other forces or the common army? If it were still known that American treats it’s prisoners like human beings then it is most likely so. However, each time we tarnish that image is another time we tell the world that if they go to war with America it is better to fight to the death than it is to surrender because we will torture you. Which wastes lives in the end.
Having moral superiority, TRUE moral superiority over your enemy is more advantageous than it is costly. You convert your enemies thinking over to yours far more easily as well.
I find the idea that because something doesn’t leave mark, it’s not "really" torture sort of silly. Torture is inflicting pain and suffering. In the not to distant future, we’ll be able to stimulate pain receptors directly, leaving no marks or evidence at all. That won’t be considered torture? Come on.
"Would I undergo the waterboarding procedure? Actually I’ve made that offer publicly on this blog before: I’ll undergo it voluntarily if it’s at the hands of professionals trained in the technique. It is an open offer. I don’t have money to travel but if someone can arrange it I’ll do it, on camera, and put the results online. Name the time and place."
I’m not sure why you think this is a good test of anything. Even Hitchens’ case is hardly a good test of anything. You want to test if you really think something is torture or not, then you don’t undergo it yourself, you hire those same professionals to do it to a loved one: without telling them what’s coming, what it’s all about, who those men are, or how far things are going to go. And no safe word. And it continues until they sign a confessing to a truly vile crime. Then we have a decent comparison to work with, and you in a decent position to judge (unlike the position in which you are simply knowingly subjecting yourself to something with a point on the line).
By and large though, I’m with RyanR: a last resort in situations with a clear and present threat on the line, always questionable, never routine.
I do think the US stepped over this line and began using torture techniques routinely, on people that in several cases turned out to be innocent, and that this is simply an embarrasment for a country that should be an example to the world of the highest standards and principles.
But since then, it’s had to back off, and that’s a good thing. That doesn’t mean that in a pinch, people aren’t going to do what’s necessary. But they are also going to have to answer or it and justify it after the fact. Unfortunately, I still don’t see much evidence of this sort of accountability, and that’s something we need to work on.
Bad’s last blog post..Obama Against ?Mental? Exceptions to Late-Term Abortion Bans
I leave his name uncapitalized for the same reason I leave ‘douchebag’ uncapitalized.
Explain. I don’t capitalize a noun when it’s a common noun. Since douche bag is clearly not a proper noun, does that mean that to you "bill o’reilly" is a common noun of which there are many examples in the world?
Aside 1 - To reflect their relative importance in the world, when are we going to get a douche bag statue? There’s an enema statue.
Aside 2 - Others, please don’t respond to tell me what jrogge was driving at. I know full well. However, he doesn’t appear to want to discuss this in good faith (see "asshattery"), so I shall play tit-for-tat.
jodyneel’s last blog post..Why my job is so cool, Part 2
There is a category difference between waterboarding and the rack. You admit as much.
When? Seriously without quoting me out of context when did I ever say that Waterboarding was catagorically different?
Throughout the entire thread. You correctly draw a distinction between mental and physical. That’s a categorical difference.
Actually you are saying what you want to believe.
No. What I do believe. Why this persistent need to psychoanlyze me into the strawman you want to refute?
Also Martin you say ‘continues’ as if the entire string of posts was one big psychoanalysis when in reality only one was.
Not the entire string. Yet another attempt to read into my words the point you want to refute, but I’m not letting you get away with that one. Not the entire string, but a definite continuing pattern:
1: I am pointing out the dark psychology of people who wish to torture our enemies and treat them like animals.
2: That is exactly why these honest, principled people want to believe that this is not torture.
And now 3: I really hate to say it but anyone reading closely and objectively would say you prove my point more succinctly that I was able to.
Anyone reading closely and objectively would call that continuing. But by all means, keep diagnosing me. (Your psych credentials are what, again? They can’t be very much, because no credentialed and ethical psychologist would diagnose based on comment threads without ever meeting the subject.) Whatever you do, don’t follow Dean’s advice:
I merely point it out for anyone who’s tempted to start psychologically analyzing me and my motives. Take my arguments on their own merits, please. That’s all I ask.
And as for this:
Having moral superiority, TRUE moral superiority over your enemy is more advantageous than it is costly.
It remains an open question: how do you get the privilege of defining "TRUE" moral superiority? Kevin has pointed out the counter-argument: by following the Geneva Conventions even with non-signatories who don’t follow them, we reduce the incentives for others to follow them. That puts our troops at more risk. I would call that moral inferiority.
I find the idea that because something doesn’t leave mark, it’s not "really" torture sort of silly.
If the "sort of silly" argument is dispositive, then I find that statement sort of silly. It also ignores the argument. For instance, electrocution can be done in a way that leaves no mark, yet inflicts great pain. I would call that torture, mark or no mark. (Caveat: if it’s applied intentionally to cause pain. An electric fence: not torture. Hook up to a battery and turn on the juice until the subject is in tears: torture.) The argument — my argument, anyway — is that pain is not the same as mental distress, and should not be treated as the same.
In way, way too many political debates, we see reasoning that goes something like this:
* A implies B.
* X is analogous to or similar to A, so X implies B.
And before long it’s:
* Y is metaphorically like A, so Y implies B.
I reject the concept that two things related by analogy automatically have the same implications. I absolutely reject the concept that two things related only by metaphor have the same implications.
Torture is a form of coercion. Coercion is not a form of torture. Some forms of coercion are more acceptable than others.
We’re talking about three particular individuals, KSM, Abu Zubaydah and a third. KSM had been directly involved in planning at least two successful attacks on US soil and other failed ones.
Based on the information available, it seems highly likely to me that KSM had specific knowledge of one or more pending attacks.
I don’t have a problem with whatever was done to extract that information from him.
I agree with this statement, and with much of your ( and others) argument in general:
“Having moral superiority, TRUE moral superiority over your enemy is more advantageous than it is costly. You convert your enemies thinking over to yours far more easily as well.”
But Martin nails the problem exactly. What makes you, or Willow, or Hitchens the arbitrators of moral superiority?
IMO, even when we use a technique such as water boarding, we are still magnitudes above the actions of our current enemies.
We are using a reasonably safe, though controversial method, in an attempt to extract useful information.
But our enemies using rape, electrocution, live beheadings, etc., and not just in an effort to extract information, but as a means of retribution, punishment, and in some cases just to generate propaganda. That’s a major difference.
To those who condemn the 3 waterboardings…
Would you commit to the statement "Better a thousand should be murdered than one should be waterboarded."?
That is the actual ratio we’re talking about.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for your morals?
Bad: I’m not sure why you think it’s a good or bad test of anything except the moral resolve of those who say this isn’t torture, at least not capital-T Torture, and find its use acceptable under strictly limited circumstances. I do find it to be not-Torture, and I do find its use acceptable under strictly limited circumstances, and, further, I actually advocate its use. I further find that the more I learn about the procedure, the more comfortable I am taking this stance, morally and otherwise.
Since I take a generally pro-waterboarding stance–unabashedly so, I am flatly stating that I’m fine with it under proper circumstances–I often face what we have already seen in this thread: the insistence of some that if you don’t think it’s seriously Torture you should be willing to undergo it yourself. I say "okay, let’s do it." I’m still willing. If you know anyone who’s qualified who’s willing to put me through it, on camera or off (I prefer on, just so no one calls me a liar) let’s set it up. Drop a comment here, or call me at home at 734-641-6618. You just need to be qualified, fully trained to the standards the military uses, and to be able to get to me or get me to you. I’ll even pass the hat to get me to you if we have no other way.
Now, to make a true "test" if this is a useful coerced interrogation technique is much more difficult. As you know, for example, it would be wrong to intentionally take an innocent and unwilling person and do this to them. It would also not be a valid test to try to intentionally get bad information out of them, unless your goal was to prove that you could get bad information (which would be stupid because everyone knows you can get bad information that way, that’s not why people use this technique).
What would be a valid test would be to use it on someone we have every reason to believe is guilty, and to show that we got useful information that we weren’t able to get other ways. Oh wait, we had that test. It worked. Some of the information was questionable, some of it saved lives. Test accomplished, in the affirmative. So now what’s left to test, except the moral resolve of those of us who say "yes, this is sometimes worth it?"
My phone # again, in case you missed it, is 734-641-6618. So now anyone who says I’m not willing to do this can put up or shut up, m’kay?
As to whether our government was in the habit of doing this: so far as I know it’s only been done a very scant handful of times, under very controlled circumstances when no other technique worked. If you know of any evidence of any other use, I’d like to see it.
I take one part back: I’m not willing to do it off-camera, as I’m not willing to be called a liar, period. The rest stands.
jrogge makes a good point- if our enemies know we’re humane, they’re more likely to surrender. The problem is that even if we are, they’ll hear that we aren’t. Koran flushing incident, anyone? Remember that the Germans didn’t have a fundamental beef with America, while our current enemy thinks we’re the spawn of Satan. They’ll hate and fear us regardless of what we do. So I think that the point is good, but not completely applicable here. These questions are never easy because you’re risking thousands of lives by not doing it, but if you use the prevention of some hypothetical future evil to justify a very real present evil, you can justify all sorts of horrible things. There’s no easy answer, and a hard and fast rule probably doesn’t exist. "Never waterboard" probably isn’t tenable, but neither is "Waterboard whenever the guy might know something". It’s going to be a judgment call every time.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
"Better a thousand should die than one innocent be waterboarded" is probably the best one-line response to those who claim to have the moral high ground simply because they’re in the "never under any circumstances" camp. No, you really don’t have the moral high ground, although I’m sure it feels good to have that level of confidence. Especially since you won’t have to watch those people die, or if you do you’ll probably be able to tell yourself your moral position contributed absolutely nothing to their deaths. I’m sure that will help you sleep at night, but will the rest of us sleep so well?
Moral ambiguity is often tough stuff.
Martin,
actually the rack and waterboarding may not be as different as you think. the standard hitchens had to live up to to be able to claim that he had been waterboarded was to survive 5 seconds. Could you survive the rack for 5 seconds? I think you probably could, and without physical mark or pain. If you simply throw out "would you rather be waterboarded or be on the rack?" maybe the answer is clearer. But if you say: "If I tell you that I’m going to put you on the rack, but one word or flick of the wrist will end the process." I think you’d find quite a few more takers. Possibly even as many as would be willing to undergo waterboarding under the same conditions. Therefore is the rack no longer torture?
In the end I think much of this is simply talking past one another, even among extraordinarily clear thinkers such as you and Willow. As you say, there are two definitions in effect and neither side is willing to accept the others’ definition. That seems to me to be an impasse to any attempt at productive discussion. I’m not sure how to get around that problem.
That’s just it zach- the definition of Torture is entirely irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether or not waterboarding is acceptable and under what conditions. Arguing over definition is a waste of time. It’s a question of balancing present real evil versus future hypothetical evil. And there’s no simple way of doing that. The high ground, as dean said, doesn’t really belong to either side. It’s just a question of how we weigh the options. And once again, arguing in the abstract isn’t productive. This decision has to be made over and over, on a case-by-case basis.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
"Never waterboard" probably isn’t tenable, but neither is "Waterboard whenever the guy might know something".
Agreed. To my knowledge, no one here is advocating the latter. Some are advocating the former, and insinuating that those who disagree with them are advocating the latter.
zach.,
Could you survive the rack for 5 seconds? I think you probably could, and without physical mark or pain.
If there’s no pain inflicted, I don’t see that as being on the rack. That’s the threat of being on the rack. There’s a difference. (And a whole new discussion.)
I really draw a distinction based on the pain; and I also have to draw a distinction between light pain that suggests more, and serious pain. When I teach self-defense, there are things I will do to the students just so that they’ll know how these things feel, and thus can understand how they can apply small force in simple ways to great effect. If they don’t feel the mild pain of a wrist lock, they won’t believe me when I tell them that they can use a wrist lock to subdue an opponent. To look at it, a properly applied wrist lock looks like nothing. When you feel it, though, you realize that it’s precisely targeting a joint in a way that’s hard to ignore.
But then there are things I won’t do to the students, even though the results would teach the students the same lesson, because I don’t want to injure them. I know that 15 pounds of pressure on that wrist will probably snap it. (More if the opponent has really tough wrists, of course.) I tell them that 15 pounds will snap the wrists. But I don’t apply those 15 pounds. If they don’t believe me, oh, well. The cost of convincing them is too high.
So when I apply that wrist lock with mild pressure, am I torturing the student? No. If a guard in Guantanamo applies a wrist lock to subdue a prisoner, is the guard torturing the prisoner? No. (He’s probably stupid, though, since he should have more effective techniques for subduing the prisoner.) If that same guard applies the wrist lock to a prisoner who’s cooperating, I still wouldn’t call it torture, but I would be happy with an abuse charge. If the guard intentionally applies the wrist lock and intentionally breaks the wrist, I would call that torture. It’s difficult to prove, because the subject of a wristlock can struggle and actually cause the break; but if the prisoner was cooperative, I would assume intent on the part of the guard.
As you say, there are two definitions in effect and neither side is willing to accept the others’ definition. That seems to me to be an impasse to any attempt at productive discussion. I’m not sure how to get around that problem.
The problem is that one definition is absolute. Absolutes allow no compromise. RyanR has a perfectly good compromise on the table, one I agree with and one which happens to comply precisely with what has actually happened. But as long as one side says "Absolutely No", the compromise is impossible.
Especially since you won’t have to watch those people die, or if you do you’ll probably be able to tell yourself your moral position contributed absolutely nothing to their deaths.
Dean, you’re not giving them enough credit. They won’t just deny culpability; they’ll blame President Bush. (Hey, faux psychoanalysis cuts both ways…)
It’s funny to consider whether it’s worth arguing over whether it’s torture. But there’s a reason for it; a lot of people, including myself, take the stance that torture, at least with a capital-T, is simply not acceptable unless there’s an overwhelmingly clear and imminent threat to innocent life. But we aren’t all that uncomfortable with what I think of as "little-t torture" like scaring people, giving them a bad night’s sleep, non-poisoned but lousy food, annoying music, etc. if it’s used to get potentially useful information. And, we view waterboarding as generally on the high end of the latter category, something that’s very scary and uncomfortable but only marginally dangerous at best when in professional hands; it looks to me like the prisoner is as likely to be killed in a car crash on the way to the waterboarding chamber as he is to be killed by the waterboarding (i.e. not bloody likely if the person is reasonably healthy). It’ll scare the crap out of them, give them nightmares possibly, and if you want to get on the high end of hysteria maybe some PTSD (although that seems less likely). I’m not impressed with thundering moral pronouncements about "mental scars" either, unless this is done to someone based on only flimsy evidence or in an unprofessional manner unlikely to get anything useful.
In my less irritable moments I think what we’re really talking about here is a line, which exists for almost everybody but which is drawn in a very slightly different place by everybody, so that for some this is just over the line into "unacceptable" territory and for others it’s just over the line into "acceptable" territory. I know only a few people who, when pushed into it, will take an absolute stance on either side (do it casually whenever you think it might be useful, or, never do it even if you’ll save Los Angeles from being flattened in one hour; such extremes serve only to illustrate, they do not provide answers).
And so we come around to Willow’s turn.
Willow, where do you stand on routine and ritual male genital mutilation, AKA medically unnecessary prepucectomy or male circumcision?
Since the difference in scales (limited to just the usa alone) of number of victims, their status, and the damage done them, among other characteristics, between routine and ritual male genital mutilation OOH and waterboarding OTOH are so immense, being —
approximately 1,000,000 versus 3;
innocent infants versus grown adults;
the permanent amputation of what would be, for females, TTBOOK, the clitoral hood and most or all of the inner labia, and the stripping out of an about inch-wide circumferential ring of the frontmost inner vaginal skin, with the two resulting raw edges being roughly and randomly sealed together again with thousands of pounds of compressive force, versus being made to feel as though is being forcibly drowned, but without any permanent gross tissue damage and consequential irreparable loss of functionality
– I believe that before you may justifiably question the rest of us about the propriety of waterboarding, you first need to establish where you stand on what is by far a much larger and most severe issue of State-condoned human rights abuse in the usa.
I make no assumptions about your view other than the normal and reasonable conclusion that silence indicates hypocritical consent — i.e., that while you oppose waterboarding, you have no real problem with the far more common, far more abusive, and far more harmful federally discriminatory sexual mutilation of male minors.
I don’t see it so much as a compromise as a new direction for the discussion. I saw a lot of semantic wrangling based on unspoken assumptions and invisible premises, and I wanted to call attention to those. They were clouding the discussion by distracting from the real question- Is waterboarding acceptable, and under what conditions, and subject to what limits? What we need is not so much a rule. What we need is to map from:
1. what they might know & how sure we are that they know it
2. what might happen if we don’t get the information and how sure we are of that.
to:
3. What level of pain we are willing to inflict
For some, there is no 1 & 2 that will ever raise 3 to the level of waterboarding, and that’s ok. They’re entitled to that opinion. For others, (like me) such situation do (rarely) exist. What we need to be discussing is that map.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..Faces of Math
I know only a few people who, when pushed into it, will take an absolute stance on either side (do it casually whenever you think it might be useful, or, never do it even if you’ll save Los Angeles from being flattened in one hour; such extremes serve only to illustrate, they do not provide answers).
Dean, if there’s anyone here who’s in the "it’s wrong, but if it’ll save LA, do it anway" camp, I haven’t seen those comments. If there’s anyone here who’s in the "it’s torture, but little-T torture, so it’s OK" camp, I missed that, too.
willow says it’s categorically torture. Maybe she meant to add "But torture’s OK in extreme circumstances", but I never saw it here. Maybe she meant to draw a line between little-t and big-T, but she forgot to do so.
Bad says it’s categorically torture. Maybe he meant to add "But torture’s OK in extreme circumstances", but I never saw it here. Maybe he meant to draw a line between little-t and big-T, but he forgot to do so.
TexasAg03 says it’s categorically torture. Maybe he meant to add "But torture’s OK in extreme circumstances", but I never saw it here. Maybe he meant to draw a line between little-t and big-T, but he forgot to do so.
jrogge says it’s categorically torture. Maybe he meant to add "But torture’s OK in extreme circumstances", but I never saw it here. Maybe he meant to draw a line between little-t and big-T, but he forgot to do so.
I’m willing to revise this if any of these individuals would like to take a more nuanced stand than they have so far; but per the evidence in this thread, they’re certainly taking an absolute stand. That’s four. Does that exceed your definition of "few"? (Semi-serious question. I had a teacher who once insisted that "few" has a precise meaning of "four our five", and "several" means "seven or eight". I’ve yet to meet another person with those precise definitions, but I’m sure I will some day.)
The problem is that when one side has an absolute view, everyone who disagrees has an absolute view, whether that’s what they intended or not. RyanR’s well-meaning compromise puts him on the opposite side from "Never under any circumstances", no matter how much he insists it’s a case-by-case issue. They’ll accuse him of rationalizing, they’ll pretend to know what he’s thinking better than he does himself, and they’ll invoke slippery slopes. The evidence is right here in this thread.
Oh, and BTW — is it really Michelle Malkin people are quoting about this, or are they referring to the ‘Best comment on the Hitchens waterboarding stunt (UPDATE for comparison)’ post by Hot Air’s See-Dubya?
‘Cause I’ve poked around a bit over there, and I haven’t see any comments by Michelle on Hitchens’s article yet; just See-Dubya’s one updated post.
What we need is not so much a rule. What we need is to map from:
1. what they might know & how sure we are that they know it
2. what might happen if we don’t get the information and how sure we are of that.
to:
3. What level of pain we are willing to inflict
And as I understand it, we have pretty much that map in place: an executive that decides, and a legislature that reviews those decisions. (That’s your missing step 4: How do we ensure we’re following 1-3 correctly?) Because these matters relate to both operational security and national security, both the decisions and the reviews are classified, but they are taking place.
And since — as has so far not been refuted here, nor even disputed — the executive has only reached step 3 on three occasions… And since the legislature, aware of those three occasions, has not elected to pursue charges related to any of them… Then I would say the map is basically working.
I look at people as a whole, and what I find is that if you really pin them to the wall and make them defend the idea that you can never justify any form of anything that seems at all like torture under any circumstances, only a tiny handful will obstinately insist that it is never justifiable (although they do exist). I suspect that is true of most of the individuals in this thread, although we’d have to test to find out.
By the way, do we have documentation on the claim that the government has only done this to three individuals in the last 7 or so years?
Oh, but, our friend Kevin has pretty much suggested that waterboarding and worse is just fine on Prisoners Of War. Now, his view is actually fairly sophisticated and nuanced, but he’s basically made it clear that the normal rules of prisoner treatment simply do not apply and brutality is allowable in his mind because war’s hell and if the enemy isn’t going to play by the Geneva Conventions then neither should we.
I myself think that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than Al Qaeda, but, I do generally sympathize with the view that we should not be bound by the conventions of "civilized warfare" when dealing with an enemy that does not. Which is why, for example, I’m a little disappointed by some of what American forces did in Japan during the invasion of Okinawa during World War II, but I can shed only so many tears as they were fighting an enemy that by the standards of the Geneva Conventions was simply beyond the pale (intentionally throwing civilians and even children into combat, torturing, murdering, and mutilating POWs, etc.).
I think we should have limits on how we treat captured suspected or confirmed Al Qaeda. Partly because we’re better than them, and partly because beyond a certain limited point and certain circumstances, brutality is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive anyway.
It’s so hard going through life taking on complex issues as if they really are complex.
If you’re right, Dean, then I’m not sure why there’s even a discussion here. If the "Not Evers" are really only "Last Resorts", then they’re in the exact same camp as me, and you and RyanR from what I can tell.
By the way, do we have documentation on the claim that the government has only done this to three individuals in the last 7 or so years?
Via wikipedia, there’s this:
[JURIST] The CIA has used waterboarding [JURIST news archive] "on only three detainees" since September 11, 2001, CIA Director Michael Hayden [official profile] told the US Senate Intelligence Committee [official website] Tuesday. Stipulating that the interrogation technique has not been used by the CIA in five years, Hayden for the first time named the men waterboarded: accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], senior al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah [BBC profile, JURIST news archive], and alleged mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri [GlobalSecurity profile; JURIST news archive]. Hayden said that at the time of the waterboardings, officials feared "imminent attack" on the US. He also said that less than one-third of the roughly 100 terror detainees held in CIA custody were exposed to any kind of coercive interrogation.
Oh, but, our friend Kevin has pretty much suggested that waterboarding and worse is just fine on Prisoners Of War.
Point of order: Prisoners of War — especially capitalized — is a term of art defined by the Geneva Conventions; and the prisoners in question do not qualify, for the reasons Kevin explains. Now there’s a long way from there to "Brutality’s OK." I won’t go that far. But I understand the argument: "If it’s OK to summarily execute them on the battlefield (and it is, by the Geneva Conventions), why isn’t it OK to keep them alive but beat the shit out of them?" I’ve radically exaggerated Kevin’s argument here to make an extreme example, but it’s where the argument leads. My answer is simple: when a dog is rabid, you don’t beat it to death once you’re safe from harm; you either get it treatment, or you give it a clean euthanasia (or a clean bullet in the head if you have no more humane tool to hand). An