“Undermine human dignity” – this is the sort of language that the Geneva Convention is written in. Very noble to want to stop such things no doubt, but what do the words actually mean? Is it undermining human dignity to make enemy captives dress in prison uniforms? Some of the IRA prisoners in Ulster certainly thought so – and starved themselves to death to make their point.
How about being questioned by a women – Islamic prisoners may well hold that to be undermining their dignity. What is a tough interrogation and what is torture? Should the line be left vague (perhaps to be decided by some international “court” hearing a case against American interrogators later) or should the line be set down clearly in law in advance?
If the line should be explained, in law, in advance – what words should be used? President Bush suggests using the words already used in the anti-torture statute passed by Congress last year. Those words were thought up by Senator John McCain and the opposition to using these words (indeed any words) to define what the vague Geneva Convention means is being led by – Senator John McCain.
The above is what is going in Washington DC in relation to the Geneva Convention. But you are not likely to see such a report on any British television station, or hear on any British radio station or read it in any British newspaper (no matter how ‘conservative’), as far as the British media are concerned President Bush is a beast (as well as a moron) who wants to torture people and hates the Geneva Convention, and Senator McCain is a saint.
As for the arguments of Senator McCain and company – they are uniformly worthless.
“President Bush wants to modify the Geneva Convention” – no he does not, he wants to define what its vague words mean in terms of law.
“The United States does not define treaties in terms of its laws” – wrong, it has done so many times.
“The world will hate us if we do this” – the “world” (i.e. the leftist establishment) has hated the United States since President Truman decided to be Joe Stalin’s door mat. And this is not going to change – no matter what the United States does or does not do.
“If we do this American prisoners will be treated badly by their captors” – American prisoners will be tortured and killed regardless of whether Islamic terrorists are put into orange jumpsuits or whatever else is done. The idea that by being nice to the Islamic terrorists (or whoever) they will be influenced to be nice to Americans is crap.
If Americans do not wish to be tortured or killed they had better avoid being captured, nothing that America does or does not do will influence their treatment in any way.
Of course, you are not likely to see, hear or read this in the British media either.
Spot on. We fight scum; always have and always will. Weren’t the North Vietnamese signatories to the Geneva Conventions?
At a US Army base last year I was talking with a Medic about his vehicle and asked about the fact that the Red Cross was on a metal flip up machanism.
He said that in Iraq the enemy preferred to shoot at vehicles with the Red Cross on them so they usually his the thing.
Then he said something very wise for a guy who was no more than 21. “Someday we may fight an enemy who respects the Red Cross.” Left unsaid was the pont that he was not holding his breath.
The conventions, like the League of Nations, the UN, these various councils and boards and commissions supposedly monitoring rights or treaties or laws, the international courts, the NGO’s with high sounding names, and all these other groups which claim a moral mandate from somewhere without ever specifying exactly where that somewhere is, are all part of a mythic universe inhabited by those who have set themselves up as arbiters of the human adventure.
But, as in Plato’s cave, they actually exist in a dark and uncertain place, able to perceive only dimly the flickering shadows and reflections of the truths of human existence, all the while proclaiming the clarity of their vision, and demanding that all of the rest of us accept their definitions as given, no matter how disconnected and tentative the fuzzy images upon which they are based.
Just as the Ethiopian Emperor was turned away after his fruitless plea for help against a fascist invasion, and the contempt of the Japanese when they walked out after rejecting the League’s order to cease invading China, demonstrated both the cowardice and toothlessness of that body, so the neverending agonizing over any and every action by the US and its allies, while the demonstrable barbarity of its opponents are ignored or explained away, demonstrates the unreality of the same tranzi group in this age as was responsible for the League’s failures in the past.
Unjustified complaint after unjustified complaint, meaningless distinction after meaningless distinction, petty quibble after petty quibble, ludicrous assertion after ludicrous assertion, the credibility of those who preach the multicultural tolerance of all by only some, and who proclaim the equivalence of all except for some, and who demand the respect of all, but receive from only some, is slowly but surely evaporating away.
What, then, when the voices that should have been raised in support of free societies, having defended only the unfree, are no longer heard? What, then, when the powers who were always powerless to distinguish between the moral and the immoral, decide the right from the unrighteous, or proclaim the rational as the best defense against the irrational, are cast aside, irrelevent to the task of survival?
We are approaching a moment of painful clarity. In millions of minds, hesitant and hopeful up to now, one last straw will be placed upon the camel’s back, and as his knees buckle, a simple, gruff decision will be made.
And all the delicate and nuanced moralizing, and the careful rhetoric, and the endlessly patient diplomacy will be ignored, as meaningless as the buzzing of pesky but impotent flies, and all the finely crafted rules and carefully delineated requirements will be cast aside.
Men and women who demand nothing more than to be left alone to work, and live, in peace will set down their tools, their daily concerns and personal cares, and they will take up the sword, and it will not be sheathed again until its work is done.
And those in the cave will plead that they see the truth amid the shadows, and cry to be recognized, but they will not be heard.
The left has a double standard for the US. It must not cannot shall not ever treat anyone or any prisoner in any sort of way that could be at all interpreted as rough. Even loud music is too rough for these poor souls that just happened to be found on a battle field in Afghanistan thousands of miles away from their home country (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, etc) with an AK-47 in their hand aimed at troops from the western world. They were probably there for humanitarian reasons.
The US must honor all treaties it signs to the fullest extent of the law possible. The rest of the world though, oh, they’re just barbarians and we can’t expect them to abide by treaties or laws or anything like that. We can’t expect others to sign treaties and actually follow them. They’re uncivilized. The US must lead the way by example. That’s just the way they are. And if the US engages in anything close to rough treatment of its detainees, well, that means it has sunken to the level of its enemies and is a piece of sh…t not worth defending.
It’s both saddening and ridiculous that otherwise intelligent people think like this.
OT: Ahmananutjob –
“Britain’s demise is on our agenda”
I wish there was an anthology of all veryretired’s comments.
Great summation, Mr. Marks!
President Bush has never been met “half-way” when he tries to seek the rational middle ground on any policy, domestic or international. From what I’ve read from blog analysis ( Hewitt, Volohk, and others) the US Court did not demand that the Conventions be applied uniformly to the un-uniformed terrorists. The Court said that the executive was too far outside of its authority to assume that they didn’t need legislation for the treatment of unlawful combatants. It seems to me that Bush could have then insisted Congress draft law that gives the military a free rein to treat the UC’s as the military sees fit. Instead, he is asking Congress to adapt the Conventions’s guidelines into acutal restrictions.
And, as you concisely point out, he is met with non-arguments. As questionable as it is to ascribe motives to others involved in politics, I really feel that this dangerous contradictionism is a combination of Bush Derangement Syndrome and the “anointed” complex.
BDS has a long and well-exemplified history after only 6 years of the Bush administration. Of course, the term is used half-jokingly, but it is apt for unfortunately so many on the left. If Bush declared breathing good for the world, millions of lefties would pass out blue in the face.
The anointed term is from Thomas Sowell’s 1995 book, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy.” The “anointed are possessed by a demon vision which is oblivious to reason or facts.” LaissezFaireBooks. Sowell deals mainly with US domestic policies but I think the term applies to a lot more.
While like others on this blog I laugh at the Bush-bashers who seem to have lost their sanity, there seems to be a perfectly reasonable argument to be had for clarifying what sort of interrogation methods are justified and what are not. The great danger for liberty and civilsation is vagueness. That also means spelling out some of the gory details so we know what we are talking about. Is waterboarding — pushing someone under water until they nearly drown, for instance — legitimate or not? and so on.
1. We will still be arguing about human rights as the mushroom cloud rises over London.
2. The West is far from perfect, but we ARE better than them. We are fighting for freedom, which they hate. We are fighting for life. They profess to hate life. So what’s a little torture?
As someone living in Iran, I can tell you that this argument is not exactly valid:
Why? Because America purports to offer an alternative to the status quo in many parts of the world which is, in fact, that people do get tortured.
The point is not to appeal to Islamists, but to appeal to the huge silent majority that is looking for an alternative to extremism. You may be right that how America treats prisoners may not affect the way American prisoners are treated by extremists. But America is supposed to offer an alternative to extremism not a match to it. The treatment of its prisoners will indeed affect how Americans are seen in the world. It will also affect how the American rhetoric is interpreted.
Iranians were so incredibly pro-Bush at the beginning of the war with Iraq. That support has crumbled with the revelations of torture (although Iranians did not get in a huff about it because they know that torture, like sh**, happens) and other embarassments.
America says to the world “We are free. We are better. We are democratic.” This means that it *does* have to be better behaved.
I was getting depressed reading these comments, mostly because I agreed with most of them. Then along came Esther and I was elated.
Just because others are foolish (many lefties) or others (terrorists) gain some advantage from immoral acts does not mean we should abandon our principals.
If we abandon our principals what is the point of living? It is how you live, and if necessary die, that matters.
David Roberts
Free-er
Certainly
So what? Democracy is not the solution to everything and is frankly vastly over-rated. Algeria was democratic and was about to elect an Islamist government before what was essentially a (quite justified) coup prevented it
David Roberts, I know what you mean. About six months ago I denounced torture and the “ends justifies the means” argument used, and about 80 pct of the comments were pro-torture. It was pretty depressing.
Naturally, the ghastly Verity – now no longer bothering us with her rants, thank goodness – was in favour of torture, so long as the government did not admit to using it. What a piece of work she was.
I’m with Esther on this one. America is not sufficiently threated by *anything* to adopt torture as means of bringing about victory.
The West is far from perfect, but we ARE better than them. We are fighting for freedom, which they hate. We are fighting for life. They profess to hate life. So what’s a little torture?
We are better than them. We are far from perfect. We may be fighting for freedom, although I don’t notice either us or them getting any freer any time soon. We are not fighting for life, because the threat is nothing like that severe. With the possible exceptions of some Shia cults, that take at least a neutral view to the value of being alive, I don’t know of any of them professing to hate life.*
But, even if I grant all the points above, WTF does that have to do with torture? Call me ‘un-nuanced’ if you will, but I consider torture to be a vice – that is to say something that is morally wrong in and of itself. Torture that makes you happy is wrong. Torture that saves lives is wrong. Torture that saves civilisations, that preserves freedom, that feeds the starving masses, is still wrong.
If you find this ‘black and white’ view of morality constraining, and prefer a more fluid approach, based perhaps on whether the person being tortured ‘hates us for our freedom’, then maybe you could let us know your justification.
* Although I find the West’s increasingly fanatical attachment to life rather odd. I don’t wholly go with the Japanese/Viking/Shia reverence for glorious death in the name of lost causes, but I don’t have a problem with people deciding it’s better to have a short life doing the right thing than a long one doing bugger all.
Spot on. We fight scum; always have and always will.
Especially true during the 1860’s….
Walked into that one mate.
I think this has all gone a little OT.
The intial point was more what constituted torture than to what extent it was acceptable.
I think the morality of torture is a very difficult thing to have a discussion of, especially on a blog. It’s like abortion – just too devisive.
Preventing atrocity and mass murder with some sleep deprivation is still better than rationalizing away real danger.
Amnesty International and the UN have not done anything about the torture that terrorist groups commit. It is interesting how a harsh interrogation by American forces gets our whole country condemned by the “world” community, like the definition of torture covers some incredibly broad range of methods (yelling in someones face, loud music, a wet towel over someones head). The sociopaths our armies are combatting right now cut the throats of their prisoners, a war crime the UN is supposed to prevent, and undeniably immoral.
If our enemies get a free pass to commit any crime against humanity, then we will eventually have to be as nasty as them (for a short while at least), or they will dominate us. So, if some of the commenters here don’t speak out against mild interrogations of unlawful combatants, I am not going to cry as hard about it as some of you. I am not as concerned about the moral high ground I guess.
I’m not sure I see how torturing someone for information is worse than shooting them dead on the battlefield.
Calculated interrogation techniques, even if some people want to define them as ‘torture’, are a far removed from the intentional attrocities commited by the terrorists being subjected to them.
It’s the difference between shooting someone because you absolutely hate their guts, and shooting someone in self defense. They are not morally equivalent acts.
I don’t think to torture or not to torture is only about morality, but also how to perpetuate “Western Values”. In my view to torture is to undermine those “Western Values”. In other word to win a battle but loose the war. Another problem is that ends always follow means. There is no guarantee that the means will work, and if they don’t work what then?
If you can’t discuss divisive issues, hopefully rationally, on a blog, particularly this blog, then what use is it?
David Roberts
When the remains of two of our captured soldiers had to be identified by DNA tests, the enemy forfeited all rights to humane treatment. There have always been instances when blatant violations of the rules of war by one party have resulted in their suspension against that party. Waffen SS troops were routinely killed, for example, while Wehrmacht soldiers might be captured and held. This is especially true when the violations were clearly a policy (Imperial Japan) rather than a deviation from it.
That said, I still oppose torture because of what it does to us, not because of what it does to them. The enemy in this case have no reasonable moral claim to be treated better than they would treat us if the positions were reversed. I object only to the coarsening of the spirit that would follow from treating them as cruelly as they deserve. Killing captured terrorists as punishment or as retaliation for atrocities committed by their forces may be a regrettable necessity, and certainly not unjust; partaking in their hideous delight in causing suffering is soul-destroying evil.
In the “ticking bomb” scenario, I’m afraid I’m going to have to be agnostic. There is a utilitarian argument in favor of extracting information, but utilitarian arguments assume that suffering and benefit are fungible, measurable, cumulative, and transferrable. Those who argue that torture is always and everywhere wrong (categorical imperative) can usually only muster a mere assertion and beg the question. This will not suffice. Torturing or harming an innocent person is clearly wrong by any reasonable (natural law) standard, but torturing a guilty party to prevent more harm being done to the innocent is not an obvious wrong.
Mitch makes a good point: torture is wrong often because of what it does to the people, and the society, that practices it.
As for the ticking bomb argument, I am not sure it is of much use. A suicidal character is hardly likely to be tortured out of betraying where his ticking nuke is, is he?
I find some of the arguments here bizarre. Shooting a man in the battlefield is a part of war between forces where one presumably knows who the opponents are. (Yes, accidents happen but that is besides the point). Torture, on the other hand, is done against people who might have something valuable to say. The key word is “might”.
Torturing someone for what they might know or say is beyond the pale because we realise that this could be used to torture anyone on the grounds of suspicion, however flimsy. I would have thought that centuries of bloody history, such as that involving the Spanish Inquisition, for example, should put us on guard against using torture and to be clear about what sort of interrogation techniques are within bounds.
I’m with Esther on this.
Perry, it’s not just Esther, America it self confuses ‘democracy’ with ‘freedom’.
As hopefully most regulars here know, we are not a ‘Democratic Republic’, we are a ‘Constitutional Republic’. It is in our constitution that freedom is protected, certainly not by what democratic features we have.
This has consequences not only in our foreign failures, (we should have done a McArther on Iraq and handed them their constitution on a platter) but in our domestic deterioration as well.
Wretchard dealt with this problem at the Belmont Club. Torture is evil, but a necessary one. If the state is not willing to take the necessary measures, there may yet come a day when they would just drop off ‘freed’ prisoners in a town of furious rednecks without any qualms.
Somebody always has to pay a price. To torture or not? What if it could have helped? What if it was useless? What if it yielded false information?
Why is torture necessary? My understanding is that limiting the freedom and power of government improves it’s efficiency, a standard libertarian argument.
How does torture improve the efficiency of the gathering of useful intelligence? I suspect the effect is negative, as we have a monopoly supplier with great power operating in secret, and I question the degree to to which the psychologically able to torture someone for extended periods is able to employ it judiciously.
My understanding is that when torture was banned in Israel, the Israeli intelligence services improved the quality of their interrogation techniques, just as limited government theory predicts.
Pro-torturers should seek to show research that torture is the most efficient use of intelligence resources and that the long term benefits excede the long term costs, taking into account externalities, opportunity costs, the degree of competition, etc.
For instance, does useful information procured via torture mask shoddy work by other parts of the intelligence agencies et al, which could be incentivised to produce better results without the use of torture, if the masking effect were removed?
This PC whining about victimization of the American government, and unilluminating “torture is a necessary benefit, it’s ickyness is the majority of its modest cost, and that’s that” is irrelevant and boring.
I would add that I think there is a double standard in operation. Because America is a civilized and enlightened country, bad policy by its government is so much more disapppointing than the relatively much larger crimes committed by those I expect to behave like savages anyway. Perhaps I am very naieve, but I feel the hysteria over this issue stems in part from a sense of respect having been betrayed, not hate. I do not believe that anti-Americanism is widespread or inevitable.
Also, wouldn’t it be silly to give away information in a ticking time bomb scenario? Just bear the torture a bitle longer until the bomb goes off. Mission accomplished.
The question at hand isn’t “Should we torture people?” but rather about what constitutes torture. The President wants to define what the Geneva Convention language means via US law. This is not the same thing as legalizing the use of coercive interrogation techniques. Indeed, I doubt anything would be put into that interpretation that would harm American troops if reciprocated by a foreign nation. That Al Qaeda and other terrorists will not abide by any civilized notions of the treatment of prisoners has to be taken for granted. So too that any nation the US finds itself in conflict with will flagrantly violate the Conventions. It’s not the prospect of reciprocity that must insure civilized behavior but rather innate decency and self-restraint that cannot be forgotten without betraying our fundamental nature. The US by extending the conventions to covering captured terrorists displays its nature; and the terrorists betray theirs with every attack.
That said, it would be rather hard to condemn an interrogator who uses torture to force out information from a terrorist in the “ticking bomb” scenario. But an individual can compromise his morals without compromising the broader social consensus on moral values that prohibit the routine use of torture.
Oops, typo.
I question the degree to which a person psychologically equipped to torture someone for extended periods is able to employ it judiciously.
One possible answer is to apply the Golden Rule, and define torture as beyond what you would be prepared to have done to yourselves.
Since most of the techniques authorised are based on those at the SERE courses, which so far as I know American servicemen have to volunteer for, that standard at least would be met. However, it does suffer the counterpoint that one should beware of Christian masochists – and bearing in mind that famous video of the Shia reveller bashing himself bloody with a big metal claw…
However you define it, a definition is needed. Some regard anything less than a 5 star hotel as demeaning. Others regard regular food and a roof over their heads as luxury. Prisons have to be harsh, otherwise everyone would want to be put inside, but not unbearably so. I think we are all in agreement that torture is always wrong. As a hypothetical case, one can argue that in extreme circumstances it may be the lesser of a choice of evils, and I accept some may think that applies here, although I personally am not convinced. However, there are a wealth of means of being unpleasant and making people want to cooperate short of torture.
The arguments here seem to be assuming that the idea is to somehow legalise torture. It isn’t, it’s to clarify and confirm the legality of treatment that isn’t torture, and to set limits to avoid ‘moral creep’ and nutters crossing the line and claiming they didn’t see it.
Right – and I think it’s a good idea. The military needs to know what legal limitations there are on its actions for two reasons: (1) so lefties cannot throw around baseless accusations of “torture” every time someone doesn’t get salt on his veal and (2) so that soldiers don’t get prosecuted for crossing lines they didn’t really know were there. “I know it when I see it” doesn’t exactly work for pornograpy, so it shouldn’t be surprising it doesn’t work for torture either.
As for the Geneva Conventions – they clearly do not apply to Islamofascists. The Conventions are between signatories or else a side that hasn’t signed but is willing to abide by their provisions. In response to Esther’s argument – the US should and does set a higher standard. There were, for example, some ghastly reports of torture from Abu Ghraib which the press reported and the military investigated. 17 people were sentenced as a result. I do not think it is reasonable for the world to expect that torture will never happen under stressful battle conditions against an enemy that refuses to hold itself to any kind of standard. It should be enough to know that the US military prosecutes people for engaging in extreme forms of such behavior rather than rewarding or otherwise encouraging them.
CIvilization doesn’t require us to treat everyone we encounter with dignity and respect for rights. For example – if someone breaks into my house, I think we can all agree that shooting him is not an uncivilized thing to do, though it would be completely forbidden in virtually all other circumstances. Ethical standards are not just something nice that we do so we can pat ourselves on the back and appease some mystical global conscience. They are a kind of contract. When someone demonstrates a total lack of respect for my property and safety by breaking into my house and seeking to do me harm, I am released from my obligation not to harm him.
Now, none of this is meant to suggest that Islamofascist POWs are toys that soldiers are free to play with. I’m just saying that the idea that there is some “standard” that applies to these people is in some sense absurd. They have already demonstrated that they will not play by the rules – so we have no motivation to play back. Should they come forward and wish to hold themselves to standards, the US would also be willing to accept (until such time as they demonstrate they were being deceitful, which wouldn’t, I think, take very long). The world knows this is true. And so I think the US doesn’t have anything to prove here.
President Bush is right to seek clarification on these issues. For non-signatories, I think the military should have clear standards (and, as I understand it, it does – there are certain acts that are forbidden by federal law). I agree that we should set some limits for ourselves for no other reason than to keep from turning our soldiers into a bunch of bloodthirsty brutes. But these standards should be lower than for Geneva Conventions signatories – if for no other reason than it gives people who haven’t signed on some motive for doing so.
Midwesterner:
Agreed. As one of my friends put it: why all the fuss over a new Iraqi constitution. Just photocopy ours, hand it over and tell them…”so far, it’s worked for us”.
Joshua,
I agree with you on the Geneva Convention thing. Your idea might also just encourage more folk to sign up to it and respect it – though I’m not holding my breath. Just don’t call them POWs, that could get the US and allies into a whole lot of hot water. That’s why the holidaymakers at Camp Gitmo The Unhappiest Place In The World(TM) are called “enemy combatants”.
My feeling is the kind of psychological “torture” which the UK used in NI is acceptable against this scum. I also consider mocking their religious beliefs* is OK. People when riled and very upset can often give away more than they want to. Afterall, I’m sure they mocked some aspects of Nazism with captured Gestapo. There is “an end justifies the means” aspect to this. If it is shown to be ineffectual torture should not be carried out because that would be mere sadism. That’s not an argument at all that utilitarianism overrides moral values at all.
We can’t really justify though getting out the thumb-screws and the rectal pear in any circumstance I can envisage. At least not unless we want to descend as a society to the level of the likes of Idi Amin.
I say that because when I see some of these scum I can’t help but think “Just give me 20 minutes alone with the bastard and my toolbox”. There is a slippery slope here in a kinda Lord of the Flies way.
And that’s why I think the line should be drawn at causing interogotees physical harm. It is clear, distinct and allows more than enough leeway for our security forces.
*Mocking their religous beliefs is not the same as mocking their religion per se. Just a shame their isn’t more of that coming from “moderate” muslims aimed at their more, ahem, zealous brothers and sisters.
Nate,
You just reminded me. Midwesterner said something I’ve been thinking for ages now. I have no idea why we didn’t impose a constitution. I mean didn’t that work out so terribly with Germany and Japan?
It’s taken the Iraq’s for-bloody-ever to work theirs out and I think they’re still faffing about over it. I kinda thought we’d do it like those fill-in-the-blanks wills you can get from stationers.
And the Afghan Constitution is a bloody nightmare. Even the preamble is screwed-up claiming that it seeks it’s authority from both Sharia and the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Didn’t take long until those two clashed headlong over that guy who converted to Christianity did it?
Small point. Germany did write its own constitution post WW2.
Well said!
Too many inside the beltway, academia and the press have created an imaginary world for themselves where the people we hire to protect us are more to be feared than Al Qaeda. Anyone with such paranoid thinking should not be allowed to occupy a position of power.
McCain seems anxious to show that he’s more loyal to “principles” than to political contingencies. This would be fine, if he could think his way through all the sophistries that have been used by the left and the media. He may be a straight talker, but he’s no straight thinker. This is just the latest in a long series of childish pouts, and if he gets nominated for president, it’s not likely be by Republicans.
ResidentAlien,
I stand corrected.
“the “world” (i.e. the leftist establishment) has hated the United States since President Truman decided to be Joe Stalin’s door mat.”
Don’t you mean “declined”? I would think the left would have been happy to have Truman be Stalin’s doormat.
Word blindness strikes again.
I (of course) meant that “the world” (i.e. the leftist establishment) has hated the United States since President Truman decided NOT to be Joe Stalin’s door mat.
Leaving out the word “not” did rather change the meaning of the sentence.
As for Senator McCain and “principle” – well a man who refuses to use his own words (as enacted by Congress) to define what “torture” means has an interesting set of “principles”. Basically he refuses to have any set of words clearly define what the Geneva Convention is supposed to mean (thus leaving the definition of it to so called international “courts” and other such), because this is what the “great and the good” tell him is the moral thing to do.
My guess is that Senator McCain’s main principle is saying things that he finds that academics and media people like – not for political advantage (he understands that this hurts him with the Republican base), but because he likes being treated with kind respect by seemingly intelligent, educated and cultured people.
“If these special people like me, I must be a special person myself” – that sort of thinking.
Senator McCain is not himself a leftist – but he craves being treated with kind respect by people who are (this is not good).
A Republican should wear the hatred and abuse of the mainstream media and academia as a badge of pride.
On Iraq – the Constitution has been done (as far as I know) for about a year and the second elections (i.e. the elections under the new constitution) were held last year.
Of course the Sunni Arabs would like amendments – but such is life.
On the Afghan stuff (I am not fond of the word “Afghani”), sure they cite both Islamic law and the U.N. declaration on Human Rights – and (yes) they are not compatible (for example women’s rights is not compatible with four pius male witnessess to prove a rape).
Actually both sources of law are shit. It made my skin crawl to hear the President speak nicely about the declaration of Human Rights stuff in his speech to the U.N. on Tuesday.
I hope President Bush has never actually read the damn thing – but then (as has been pointed out above) as he is one of the people who confuses democracy and freedom, perhaps he goes along with all this right to health care, education, housing……… (whatever) as well.
President Bush may have spent a lot of his time at Yale drunk – but he was not drunk all the time, so he will have absorbed a lot of the crap the elite teach in such places.
Still the election of Venezuela to the Security Council may finally convince the Bush Administration that only bad things can come from the U.N.
As for we love and respect Islam (or whatever), a senior politician (or military person or administrator) has to say things like that. There are still Muslims who are not in the death-to-the-West camp (and are indeed fighting other Muslims) so if one is in a senior position (which I am not – I am not in any position) one has to say nice things to them.
Mr Pearce said that, although he was against Bush bashers, it was perfectly reasonble to ask for things to be clearly defined and the great enemy of liberty was vagueness.
Actually that is (on this question) President Bush’s position – he wants the vague language of the Geneva Convention defined in law, so that Americans can know what they can and CAN NOT do.
It is Senator McCain (and company) who want everything left vague, or rather (in practice) for these things to be defined by leftist “international institutions”.
Too many inside the beltway, academia and the press have created an imaginary world for themselves where the people we hire to protect us are more to be feared than Al Qaeda. Anyone with such paranoid thinking should not be allowed to occupy a position of power.
Wow! Now that’s fascism. Libertarians believe that citizens should fear the wielders of power in a state as much as if not more than those outside the state, solely for the fact that state agents can more easily threaten you. In the US, I’m more likely to run into TSA, FBI, and local police than al Qaeda. I want state agents restrained.
I find it odd that the Bush administration saw no need to define Common Article 3 until after Hamdan. Existing US law makes it possible to try any US national for any violation of common Article 3 (see 18 USC 2441). The proposed legislation — both Warner’s and Bush’s versions — eliminate that provision and do not define the provisions of common Article 3 in more detail. If they do, post the link. The proposed legislation only defines “grave breaches.”
Most detainees are not found “on the battlefield” unless by battlefield you mean anywhere in the world. Moreover, the complaint about the detention process is that the very fact of the detainees status as al Qaeda or other terrorist group loyalists is often in question. Evidence of terrorist affiliation for person X can be some guy in Lahore who is paid $100 a month for information saying “X said he’s an al Qaeda sleeper.”
All of the arguments in favor of coercive interrogation — the infliction of mental or physical pain that is not “severe,” in which case it would be torture (and US law [18 USC 2340(2)] makes threats of imminent death [e.g. water-boarding] severe mental pain, therefore torture) — make it justifiable in any other context. If inflicting pain against suspected terrorists to get them to talk is efficient and effective, then inflicting pain to get Rep. Bob Ney to talk about corruption is efficient and effective. If the tool — coercion — works in one state inquiry, it should be used in others, too. The only reason to object is to say: “There’s something morally dubious about coercion that makes we won’t to restrict its use.”
“then inflicting pain to get Rep. Bob Ney to talk about corruption is efficient and effective”
If it will save lives, then I’m in favour.
Are you prepared to inflict the pain involved in dozens of people being horribly mutilated in terrorist attacks, or the pain of losing relatives and partners, in order to preserve the rights of people like Bob? Because allowing terrorism to proceed unhindered is torture…
Torture is evil, but given only the choice between two evils is it not moral to choose the lesser of them?
Nick,
I think this is the case. Information acquired under torture is very unreliable. I and everyone I know would say anything at all we thought the interrogator wanted to hear just to make it stop. Truth would have nothing to do with it. Like Scheherezade, one would keep weaving tales to buy time. The documentation of these interrogations I’ve seen, and the inept buffoons conducting it, tell me this has little or nothing to do with finding truth but is about sadism, power tripping, and ‘because we can’.
It may be very unpopular, even here, and I’m not sure of it’s legality under either Geneva or domestically, but if we are serious about getting information, the most physical thing we have to do is immobilize them to put the IV in. They don’t even need to remember the interrogations anymore than it is necessary to remember a root canal. And I suspect there are many ‘truth serums’ that would cause no pain, no harm, and no residual effect, but would yield far more complete and reliable data. We can get our information and not get into a race to the bottom of the ethical heap against people who have such a head start. It has the added advantage of being relatively harmless to the many innocent or even friendly suspects caught in our nets.
This may not be as ‘fun’ to the sickos that seem to draw interrogation detail, but what is the purpose of these ‘interrogations’? Revenge on someone who may or may not have done something? Or information from someone who may or may not know something?
We also need to make a choice. What matters more, the information, or a conviction? The rules should be very different depending on whether information gained will ever lead to prosecution of the suspect.
Often throughout this debacle, I think back to the leather strap that my parents used to enforce discipline. And the obligatory line – “This is going to hurt me a lot more than it will you.” Riiight. Well, in this case it does hurt us more than them. On every level. Flawed information. Damaged reputation. And I feel a little more sick every time a new case comes up and I see some of our (where did they find these people?) creeps pulling the wings off of human flies.
The problem is that “truth serums” (the only one I know of being sodium pentathol mind) can have devastating long term implications on the recipient.
If the propellor-heads at the CIA have come up with something better then I think we can pretty much conclude problem solved. Except that it would probably involve a doctor and try selling the idea to a medical ethics board…
I was fascinated when I found out how pentathol works. It basically confuses the brain’s long term planning wrt rewards and costs. Normally most people won’t betray their country for a chocolate bar. But if you’re on pentathol the immediate gratification of that sweet sweet candy jsut seems more important at the time. It turns you into Homer Simpson.
[Given the boom in silly consumer credit and people being mugged for 50p etc. I can’t help but sometimes wonder if a lot of this stuff escaped from a cold-war lab some time…]
My understanding is that the most effective methods of interrogation use subtleties and an awful lot of cross-referencing of statements – both the intorogees own and also with those of fellow suspects. Though sometimes there is a role for the more “brutal” psychological methods.
I’ve experienced that. But I thought the initials were THC? 🙂
What do you mean by “long term implications”? I’ve had ~18 general anesthesias and I can tell you some of the things they gave me certainly loosened the tongue. It would seem a combination of confusion causing and inhibition delimiting drugs with careful cross referencing of content would be more effective and less likely to yield noise.
Does the general idea of drug based interogations offend you (or anybody else reading)?
Okay, that is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Spot on, and what an image! Thanks for the smile.
Whadya know? I went looking and it was very likely sodium pentothal that I was receiving in anesthesia. ‘Splains alot. Makes those ‘long term implications’ you mention seem even more important. Any particulars?
As has been pointed out above, if the United States were to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention (and nothing else) enemies found out of uniform (especially if they were not on the battlefield – i.e. “behind the lines”) could be shot as spies.
Although it might offend some Americans I would have made the same point about the I.R.A. – people who demanded to be allowed to wear military (rather than prison) uniforms in prison, but refused to wear them in the field.
I hope the compromise worked out between President Bush and the opposing Senate Republicans works out O.K. – but only time will tell.
Midwesterner.
I’m not a psychiatrist but I seem to recall that (in non technical terms) you lose your mind. But that’s only in real high doses. Alas, I think that’s the sort of dose you need to get information that someone ordinarily wouldn’t want to divulge. And bear in mind we’re talking about interrogating trained spies and fanatics who are guarding secrets that are very important.
Midwesterner-There was a recent report that contradicts what you said. CIA used a torture technique called waterboarding on captured Islamists leaders. They cracked and yielded valuable, accurate information.
All this handwringing would be moot if torture was useless. But we all know, should know, must admit, in our heart of hearts, that it works, even though not with 100% success.
But more or less, it works. Thus the moral dilemma.
Looks like the Islamist butt boy McCain and his merry band have been inundated with mail from angry families of the military. Apparently Mssr McCain’s claim of moral superiority (for having been a brutalized) POW of the North Vietnamese has worn thin. Of course the hapless USA media will damn the torpedoes to protect his worthless arse. Net is it looks like Bush will get what he needs to protect our inquisitors and their important work. I hope to God so.
Meanwhile McCain saws a leg out from under the wobbly stool of his 2008 ambitions and makes GW, for all his wartds and blemishes look, er … well … presidential.