The question of the difference between aggressive interrogation and torture is not a cut-and-dried one. Mark Bowden, writing in The Atlantic three years ago, explored the murky world of interrogation and torture, and makes a strong case for using at least some very harsh interrogation techniques in at least some cases. What angers me about the way the Bush administration has handled the question is that it has dissembled greatly as a way to avoid having to confront the issue. Whenever I hear Bush say that "we don't torture," I think about how the Bush Justice Dept came up with a legal ruling that redefined torture to give our interrogators a massive semantic loophole.
I think an argument could be made that US interrogators ought to be allowed to do harsher interrogations. I'm not saying that the argument would be persuasive or moral, but it would at least be an argument. What the administration is doing is trying to avoid having to defend what many Americans would find indefensible. Take, for example, this short video clip of a recent Oval Office interview Matt Lauer conducted with the president. It is remarkable, really remarkable, to watch the president try to bully his way past Lauer's reasonable questions about the torture policy. The entirety of Bush's defense is:
1) we don't torture;
2) I can't talk details about what we do, because that would tip off the enemy;
3) I'm doing everything I can to protect your family, so what's your problem with that, huh? Huh?
This is transparently manipulative. It's telling people to put their conscience at ease, they have nothing to worry about, that asking questions is dangerous and possibly disloyal, and besides, why do they have a problem with the president doing anything he wants to do to protect their children? This is not an argument. This is a strategy to avoid an argument, or even a discussion. This is trust me. But you can't trust Bush on this, unless you happen to be on the pro-torture side, in part because when the Congress explicitly outlawed torture in interrogation, Bush, in signing the bill into law, issued a signing statement reserving the right to himself to do whatever he damn well pleases with enemy prisoners.
Maybe I've got my priorities backward, but what galls me most about this is not even that we've tortured, and reserve the right to ourselves to torture. No, what galls me the most is that Bush is so self-righteous about it, and is manipulating the legitimate fears that people have of terror attacks to disarm their moral sense, even as he poses as a guardian of morality. America already has a big problem with "ends justifies the means" morality. This is making it worse.
Don't ask, don't tell
Wednesday September 13, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Richard, you have a good point there. I just want to point out that as a practical matter, the international community has already explicitly defined torture, and the US is putting its citizens and soldiers at risk by refusing to acknowledge and hold to that definition.
I do agree, it's a complex issue not given to easy analysis.>
I'll be real brief this time, Franklin. (I've got to make a living.)
1) I agree that moral censure and conviction of a crime are not synonymous. But that is in one direction only -- there are lots of morally censurable acts that we do not punish under criminal law. I'll stand by my point that it is unjust to punish someone for something is not morally wrong. And it remains a cop-out for a society to morally justify and benefit from an act that they punish the actor for. But if your system is in place, it doesn't matter, because if the act is punishable (and if the actor won't know until the information proves out whether the act worked), this won't happen at all. And innocents will die.
2) I wasn't arguing objectivity of points of view. To me, POV is not relevant to the moral weighing of the interrogation and the terrorism. You brought it up, not me. While, as you say, it may be that "from their POV they make the same claims we make from our POV" -- I'm just saying they're wrong because their claims are objectively false. The terrorists are not gathering information to save and preserve life and freedom -- they are destroying life to make a point or to cause fear (see the Theo van Gogh and Mohammed cartoon cases for examples).
3) I'm not saying that the test of adopting the founding principle means forcibly revoking the franchise of most of those citizens -- all I am saying is that foreign actors who, by their actions, show that they reject the founding principles, and who have the will and the means to destroy our civilization because it does, are not necessarily entitled to the due process rights of those living in a society operating under that principle. That's all.
Nor will I agree that the "tough" treatment of KSM and the detainees is either immoral or illegal. In my view, it is neither. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.>
Pikkumatti,
I have no doubt they have the will, but every doubt that they have the means to bring us down. In the end, I can easily agree that your worries are valid, and that you feel justified in the actions we dispute based on those worries.
I just wish our leaders had the moral certitude to wage war in the open with those people, instead of letting themselves be dragged into the same midden heap the terrorists seem to think is their fortress and palace.
I heard on the radio today a premliminary report from Ted Koppel, who is in Iran for NPR. His comment on nuclear arms was illuminating: the imams and ayatollahs he's spoken with so far declare categorically that using a nuclear bomb is immoral, but seem to hedge a bit on whether building one is permissable. My suggested policy would seem to fit right in with that: if those same clerics could be sure that 1) the US agrees about the morality of use, and 2) the US will bring total destruction to those caught using, then just as a practical matter they might reasonably be persuaded to issue a fatwah: no using them, no building them for others to use.
Self-interest can be a powerful tool.
A real pleasure, as always, dear sir.>
First of all, I think torture should be defined. Are we chopping off fingers or playing loud music. Some critics think the latter is torture. So we make our enemies uncomfortable - I don't think I want to serve them breakfast in bed. Get real, these people want to destroy our very way of life and any means possible including chopping off heads. The media fuels this debate because they hate Bush-plain and simple. I don't agree with everything the President does but I certainly think he is trying to keep us safe. If that means some discomfort to our enemies then so be it. We can't have it both ways. I will never forget 9/11 and hopefully you won't either. This war on terror will last the rest of my lifetime and beyond so we better wise up and stop all the "mamby-pamby" stuff.>
Emphasis added.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.