Cheney Will Win the Torture Debate
Dick Cheney, and his neocon ilk, will win the torture debate if liberals continue to be flummoxed by one particular and extremely contextual argument. You know the one I mean, the one where our government is holding someone they are positive is a terrorist and who has just hidden a nuke in NYC. The clock is ticking and government officials, Jack Bauer like, torture that known guilty terrorist to save the city and its millions of citizens. We are flummoxed becuase, IMO, most liberals likely agree with that one argument! I mean, who could credibly argue that torture shouldn't be used in such an extreme and dire scenario? That extreme neocon premise makes liberal anti-torture arguments look like an exercise in intellectual hand-wringing that would result in the deaths of many Americans. Liberals always seem to fall for this framing and end up weakly debating conservatives on torture based upon some extremely contextual example of an immediate and existential necessity, instead of debating the implications of using torture as a regular policy.
I believe that the Bush/Cheney administration used torture not a last resort in some specific existential national emergency, but as a policy for conducting intelligence fishing expeditions. Torture, I have no doubt, more often elicited confessions of guilt from the innocent than it obtained useful information from the guilty. Cheney and the neocons say that it is not only proper to use torture, but is patriotic, and simply because torture makes the victim talk. It works. Torture could ONLY be wrong, by their logic, if it were not effective. If the ends are the protection of American lives, and if the ends justify the means, then most any means become justified.
If we were, however, to buy in to Cheney's and the neocon argument, that the efficacy of torture alone is the determinant of its just-ness, then why stop at only torturing the victim? Why not rape and torture his wife in front of him, if we believe it might provide us with useful information? How about torturing that suspect's child or his baby in front of him? If it makes him talk, if it "works", then, according to Cheney's logic, it must be justified. I heard David Shuster mention in passing, while he was subbing for Chris Matthews on Hardball yesterday, that if one agrees with Cheney, that torture is moral simply because it's effective, then doesn't it become immoral to NOT torture? Then, shouldn't our soldiers regularly torture everyone they encounter in
Liberals need to drill conservative proponents of torture on those sorts of questions, instead of starting from that now hackneyed, Jack Bauer, loose nuke worst case scenario. The real question is whether Americans of 2009 want their government to behave as if it were Hitler's Nazi Germany of 1940? Cheney and the Neocons have gone 'all in" on this torture question. Liberals must clearly expose the insanity of neocon philosophy, and should have neocons running for cover instead of watching them brag about how their barbarisms have saved the country.
Great post.
I like all your points, but I think it's important to add one important detail.
Cheney is going to win the argument because liberals are so focused on the emotional aspect of torture that they are forgetting the most important issue of all - to prove in any investigation (truth commission, special prosecutor, etc) that what they did qualifies as torture.
The biggest problem for liberals now is that they internalized "torture" and are already dealing with its consequences. This is what explains Pelosi's astonishing hypocrisy, Obama resisting investigation while Cheney is asking for it, etc.
If you take all the players involved then it's also interesting that Republicans have a far more structured position in the debate.
Josh Mashall pretends not to understand the nuance that Liz Cheney is making regarding using waterboarding on our own troops, but this is going to be a major point in deciding whether or not it was torture (intent, process and oversight).
Bottom line, Cheney will win because (a) Democrats are all over the place on this and (b) they are forgetting to focus on arguing whether or not it was legally torture.
May 13, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Lalo.
I agree with your point that liberals don't stay focused enough on the legal definition of torture in pressing their case against torture. Ultimately, that's where justice for the perpetrators would come. Yet, I also think there is an emotional/political debate which must also be won here.
To fight the emotional/political public argument that waterboarding and such are, indeed, torture, I would like to see liberals use the following soft definition of torture: If we would object to it being done to one of our own soldiers, then it is torture. If we would view waterboarding and the like treatment of Americans as torture, then it is torture for everyone else as well. Period. So, if Cheney and like-minded conservatives will go on public record as not objecting if those Americans fighting in Afghanistan were waterboarded by the Taliban, or by rogue elements in Iraq, then okay, I would accept that they truly don't believe waterboarding to be torture.
There are certainly many liberals who feel that the Democratic party leaders, such as Pelosi, are not truly liberal, but instead are moderate to right-leaning. Perhaps, due to the influence of too many years of Reagan-ism, the Moral-Majority, contract with America, Bush/Cheney/Likud neocons, and corporate money.
May 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You use "liberal" awfully loosely. There are not a lot of us left but those of us who are have not been inconsistent on any of this from the original Iraq War Resolution to our views on torture and all the other caves to the right from our current center-right administration.
Of course, Cheney will win the debate because the current Democratic party has no principles, stands for nothing and refuses to fight for anything unless they are paid by a lobbyist to fight for it.
May 13, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was with you until you got to Pelosi and hypocrisy.
May 14, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The legal definition of torture has been resolved to the nines, among any lawyers that were worth their salt. This is not in play, anywhere but among the pundits. Prosecutorial lawyers and judges know what torture is, and they know that Yoo's opinions are indefensible, if the defense's lawyers don't know this, they're dumber than they look.
What the democrats are missing as the best argument is this: that once torture is used on an individual, it is too tempting to do it again to the same individual, until you're certain you've "wrung him dry". If you torture him, trying to see if his story stays the same under sustained torture in order to be certain you've "wrung him dry", and you've mis-estimated his backbone or willingness or motivation to stick to the truth after having told it to you once, then he starts leading you a merry chase, just to get you to stop. (And remember, his only motivation, since there's no hope for release, is to get you to stop.) After having done this with mulitple people, you develop a cloud of uncertainty, that grows with every individual you incorrectly guage, and it's a negative feedback loop (with each individual you have to go farther, generating more fiction, more uncertainty, especially if you ask leading questions, so they know what you want to hear), to the point where you're groping around in the dark and guessing at what may be true among all the things that all the people tortured have asserted as true, to get you to stop.
So then, the only time this torture-to-get-the-truth-in-an-emergency scenario has any merit is when the only guy you torture is the last guy, and if he tells you a lie to hold out until it doesn't matter is the strategy he picks, YOU'RE STILL SCREWED, THE BOMB GOES OFF, WHILE YOU'RE OFF CHASING HIS COCKAMAMY STORY.
To recapitulate: torture doesn't work in the long term, because it inspires the innocent to make shit up, just to get some relief, and it doesn't work well enough in the short term, because the guilty can lie to you, to prevent you succeeding, and perversely, to get some release.
May 13, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Cheney/neocon "torture to stop a nuclear detonation" example is probably never going to occur in a real situation. The problem is that that scenario makes torture sound rational, indeed, even patriotic.
Liberals should concede that a Jack Bauer type of extreme situation may justify extreme measures. Such extreme measures should only be approved by the President, via a written executive order, and only for some specific single case.
Then, move the debate away from that fantasy and over to the reality, to the actual situations in which torture WAS being used. Debating neocons over the morality of their favorite hypothetical worst-case torture scenario is not productive, nor is it illustrative to the public of the real concerns.
May 13, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Liberals must clearly expose the insanity of neocon philosophy, and should have neocons running for cover instead of watching them brag about how their barbarisms have saved the country."
Where do you suppose we do this? The MSM will not grant sufficient exposure to this view. There are a number of reasonably prudent and professional attorneys and judges who can lay out the definition of torture. But that doesn't garner ratings and keep the left/right dichotomy alive.
The fact is that this nation shouldn't be having this argument. A real media would PLAINLY note after doing RESEARCH that the Bush administration acted illegally. A real media would plainly note that there are reams of research that prove the inefficacy of torture as an intelligence gathering mechanism... research that stretches over centuries.
I don't like this post because it makes it the liberals' responsibility to somehow tame the military/media complex. That is patently bogus.
May 13, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may not like that the burden of denouncing torture has fallen to liberals, but, just as you indicate, no one else is denouncing it. If not us, then who? Among the liberals who I was referring to in my post are those TV talking-heads debating Frank Gaffney, or Ron Christie, or Lynn Cheney, or whomever else that conservatives put forth to argue in favor of a U.S. torture policy.
May 13, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I agree. The clock is ticking bullshit. The other though I think is blame the democrats, we are all guilty blah blah blah.
May 13, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post continues the idea that we are or should be arguing about under what circumstances we should condone torture or whether tortuce is effective. That's the distraction, not the point.
The point is: Torture is illegal. Waterboarding is torture. If you waterboarded, you committed a crime. (repeat as often as necessary)
They did it, they broke the law. Period.
A bank robber who robbed a bank to pay for his mother's surgery, still has to go to jail for committing the crime.
May 13, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct 100%!!!!!!!!!!
The problem is not the framing. The problem is that we are debating whether or not there has been a crime when that debate is settled. A crime HAS most definitely occured. The law requires investigation, and where warranted, prosecution. It really is that simple.
May 13, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree. That bank robber may have broken the law, but a jury might sympathize with his argument that he faced extreme circumstances. Extreme to the degree that the jury might feel they would probably do the same if they were in the robbers shoes, and acquit him. I believe that is what Cheney is up to, jury nullification.
Cheney and the neocons aren't so much arguing the law, although they are doing some of that by questioning the definition of torture, so much as they are seeking to own the hearts & minds of the jury of American public opinion.
May 13, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
spelling...grrr. Torture, not tortuce.
May 13, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Cheney Can Kiss My Ex-military Ass . . .
Back on April 24th ...
I had the fortunate opportunity to have attended this conference at UCLA:
Interrogators Say Human Connection, Not Torture, Yields Results
These two fellas fully understand what torture is. They also know that it was employed. They also know where the orders came from on high.
BTW -- Lalo can also kiss my ex-military ass.
~OGD~
May 13, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the torture apologists will "win" the debate, not because of the fecklessness of congressional Democrats (though on this issue, as so many others, they have long lost whatever feck they had) but because the American public is not willing to overturn the stone and see what icky things have been living under it for the last eight years.
Obama's line -- that waterboarding was a "mistake" -- and not a premeditated crime planned and authorized at the highest levels of government, combined with the endless insinuation from the Right that somehow this mistake saved us from another 911, will, I am reluctantly forced to believe, be enough to flush waterboarding down the memory hole.
In a democracy it is ultimately up to the people to hold their government accountable for its misdeeds. I just don't think the American people are up to the task anymore. (If ever they were.)
May 13, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot agree with your reasoning here. The American people are docile and apathetic on this issue. It isn't that they are unwiling to turn over the stone. They don't even know they need to. They assume the authorities will do the right thing and they don't think they need to even be concerned about it until the authorities do their job. It is our leaders who are unilling to turn over the stone.
May 13, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I should have said, "The American people are unwilling to face the consequences of what will happen when the stone gets overturned."
May 14, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again the question to ask is at what point is it OK to torture that robbery suspect from Iowa to really get the truth?
OR
What are we going to tell the sheriff deputy that waterboards a DUI suspect to make him to take a Breathalyzer test? This guy is gonna argue that the DOJ said it is OK.
May 13, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only relevant consideration relative to torture is that it is illegal.
I must give Cheney credit for successfully leading the media, both traditional and of the blogosphere, into endless, irrelevant discussions of the efficacy of torture, rather than discussing the only relevant consideration. It’s illegal.
Given Cheney ordered the torture of prisoners, it’s no wonder the guy wants to change the subject.
Relative to torture the line is bright. Civilized folks don't torture. Never.
May 13, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney has already won.
Read what Feinstein said today trying to defend Pelosi.
"“I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that,” she said.
“I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”
Republicans are helpfully distributing the clip of Chuck Schumer from 2004 hearing when he's using Bauer analogy and says "So it’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you’re in the foxhole, it’s a very different deal."
Against this backdrop, today's hearing only reinforces the suspicion (if someone wasn't already clear about that) that the current torture scandal is just political revenge.
It's over.
This debate has become too ideological, too partisan, and too tainted.
May 13, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points.
May 13, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's just warming up.
The punditocracy faux-debate may be over in some sense, but they'll cobble together more faux-outrage to feed to their loyal viewers/readers to keep their jobs.
I have no clue what debate you think Cheney has won or will win. But it's surely not justified by your comments here unless you mean some debate in Cheney's head. Reinforcement of suspicion, even if that happens significantly, is hardly the end of the debate.
May 14, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Obama's national security policy.
It's looking more and more like Bush's third term. It's as if he now thinks the release of torture memos was a mistake.
No prisoner abuse photos. Military tribunals are coming back. The Gitmo plan now includes indefinite detentions and no trials, but it's even worse because the prisoners are going to be a social class all its own, inside the US. And we're going to "look forward" on torture.
If all this is the debate in Cheney's head, I wanna know where I can get the stuff you're smoking.
May 14, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
The bozo sayeth ... so it is so . . .
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Ticking Time Bomb Theory (TTBT) is nonsense and a fantasy. Historically, when was the last time we heard of one and how was it stopped?
Suitcase nukes are in the same fantasy world as the TBBT - but just say a terrorist managed to hide one somewhere in Times Square. Does anyone here believe that interrogators with only one chance of getting the information, and getting it soon, are going to get it by (1) depriving the suspect of his clothes or (2) playing loud music or (3) waterboarding him or (4) depriving him of sleep for what - an hour or two? or (5) kicking the shit out of him?
Most Democrats are aware of this. I haven't even heard this come up for debate recently.
If Cheney was winning the torture debate, the GOP would be prancing and singing his praises all over America. Ummm, OK. That hasn't happened. All the reports indicate that the GOP just wishes he would disappear, preferably to an undisclosed location without a phone, fax or computer. And the American people are unlikely to be persuaded by a figure that most of them dislike intensely, anyway.
May 14, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with much of what you wrote. The problem with the TTBT isn't that it has never or will never occur in the real world. It's that it is the ONLY scenario that makes torture SEEM like a rational, even patriotic, action to normal people. Once Cheney and the neocons have established such a use of torture beachhead, they can infiltrate the public conscience with the idea that torture should become part of U.S. intelligence policy.
Dick Cheney truly is an evil and anti-American personality. But, it's not just him. Yes, the GOP is not been defending what Cheney has been saying, but neither have they condemned it. Meanwhile, the neocons, such as Frank Gaffney, and Ron Christie are on TV proudly defending Cheney and the use of torture. The GOP, Cheney, and the neocons have not be winning the torture debate, but neither are they losing it. So far, I don't feel encouraged by the performance of Democrats and progressives in the battle skirmishes I've witnessed on TV.
May 14, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink