Torture Denial
I can't yet let go of the "torture memos," and I'll be posting more commentary on the legal and ethical problems that Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and others face for trying to justify the unjustifiable.
But I'm also bothered by what I can only call "torture denial." People who are saying that it wasn't really that painful, the standards were vague, some lawyers said it was okay, we had good reasons, it was effective, other countries do even worse, etc.
And so I'm going to want to address the justifications, rationalizations, and denials.
But for now I have a simple question: Does it work both ways?
Is it okay for Al Qaeda to waterboard our soldiers until they vomit? Is it okay for our sons and daughters to be kept awake for up to 10 days by bright lights and loud noises, while they are so cold that they shiver uncontrollably and their very bones ache from the cold? Is it okay to spit on the Bible? Do we have any problem with Americans being shackled in positions that eventually cause them to scream in pain?
Do we accept the principle that our enemies can apply pain to our friends and keep applying increasing amounts of pain until our friends break and are willing to say whatever our enemies want them to say?
Because that is what "harsh interrogation" (and "torture") means. You apply pressure and stress and pain until the subject does what you want. If that is acceptable for us, is it also acceptable for Al Qaeda and Iran and North Korea and anyone else in the world?
Saying "We're the good guys" isn't good enough. It's not enough to talk the talk. We also have to walk the walk.
Are we willing to accept a "level playing field" for pain and suffering, and allow our enemies the same liberties that we have allowed ourselves?
But I'm also bothered by what I can only call "torture denial." People who are saying that it wasn't really that painful, the standards were vague, some lawyers said it was okay, we had good reasons, it was effective, other countries do even worse, etc.
And so I'm going to want to address the justifications, rationalizations, and denials.
But for now I have a simple question: Does it work both ways?
Is it okay for Al Qaeda to waterboard our soldiers until they vomit? Is it okay for our sons and daughters to be kept awake for up to 10 days by bright lights and loud noises, while they are so cold that they shiver uncontrollably and their very bones ache from the cold? Is it okay to spit on the Bible? Do we have any problem with Americans being shackled in positions that eventually cause them to scream in pain?
Do we accept the principle that our enemies can apply pain to our friends and keep applying increasing amounts of pain until our friends break and are willing to say whatever our enemies want them to say?
Because that is what "harsh interrogation" (and "torture") means. You apply pressure and stress and pain until the subject does what you want. If that is acceptable for us, is it also acceptable for Al Qaeda and Iran and North Korea and anyone else in the world?
Saying "We're the good guys" isn't good enough. It's not enough to talk the talk. We also have to walk the walk.
Are we willing to accept a "level playing field" for pain and suffering, and allow our enemies the same liberties that we have allowed ourselves?
Advertisement
Al Qaeda cuts off our guys heads with a rusty knife and posts the video on Youtube...but that isn't what the argument should be about. Its not about them, its about us. Thats why we get to stand up and call them evil. Hard to be taken seriously if we are running our own dirty business on the side.
April 30, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I'm also bothered by what I can only call "torture denial." People who are saying that it wasn't really that painful, the standards were vague, some lawyers said it was okay, we had good reasons, it was effective, other countries do even worse, etc.
Ecclesiastes - with maybe a few exceptions, you're preaching to the wrong congregation in here. It's the wingnuts in the torture choir who are going to argue with your level playing field sermon. For the most part, this discordant group does NOT see Muslims as deserving of a level field, because the bad guys came to America to kill INNOCENT people and that means the evil is in their hearts, not ours. Accordingly, if torture can save just ONE US life, then it is not only acceptable, but a moral imperative. See Chief Sour Note Krauthammer for ways to rationalize torture into a moral duty.
The glee club for torture does not equally value an American life and a Muslim one. Without a doubt, the latter is easily expendable in service of Western civilization and Christianity.
April 30, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, hear.
Well said, seashell, and migwetch (thanks)for the link to Krauthammer's article. I read it and have to ask: What is the difference between an 'exception' and a 'legitimate exception' concerning torture?
April 30, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell, an argument we are still having
From Debate 3 Lincoln, Douglas Debates:
Douglas :
" Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Lovejoy in this particular, by reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men."Lincoln
April 30, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was the toxic mindset that Lincoln fought against and we are still fighting today
April 30, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here is what was said today:
Byron York: Black people don't count
April 30, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree with your definition. Here is the first paragraph of a blog I published a couple of days ago. It got pushed off the list pretty quickly so, I'm not sure who saw it:
There are many problems with current Republican arguments in favor of torture. Aside from the purely legal problems, their moral argument doesn't hold water for me. But, before getting to that, I'd like to offer a simple definition of torture since most Republicans are trying to obfuscate whether waterboarding and other acts even constitute torture. My definition is: If we would object to it being done to one of our own soldiers, then it is torture. So, if Republicans would not object to those Americans fighting in Afghanistan being waterboarded by the Taliban, or by rogue elements in Iraq, then okay. I will accept that they truly don't believe waterboarding is torture. If, however, they would view such treatment of Americans as torture, then it is torture for everyone else as well. Period.
April 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose, I should have provided a URL to the Torture blog I referenced. Here that is, if anyone cares:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/new10/2009/04/torture-versus-the-needs-of-th.php
April 30, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is it okay for"
Is that really the issue? Many things in life are not "okay" but we deal with them. Your description of your target is pretty vague and includes both wingnuts and more or less reasonable people.
You can look at Principles, Values, Morals, and Laws. But don't forget that the Geneva Conventions are conventions amongst signatories, so the legal symmetry argument fails since AQ is not a signatory. And even if we ignore that, if the definition of 'torture' requires that pain be "severe", where is the line between severe and not-severe pain? GC generally objects to ALL interrogation beyond the usual name rank and serial number, doesn't it?
Can you be specific as to your real target(s)?
April 30, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The denial of torture comes under: Denial of Evil.
April 30, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is there a doctrine of lesser evils which can justify lesser tortures?
April 30, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink