Waterboarding as Performance Art
Lance on Nov 02 2007 at 8:05 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Lance's Page, Notes on the war
At least for many of its critics it is, it isn’t about policy as they know little about its actual use. It is handy for theater however. As pointed out earlier, this and other topics surrounding interrogation techniques has been a fundamentally unserious endeavor. Our Congress refuses to actually decide what is or is not legal, and when it is typically discussed rumors, unverified claims and the conflation of various techniques has ruled the day. Mostly because actually having a congressionally approved policy would not be to its critics advantage politically.
I think this little tidbit of information makes Michael’s little thought experiment quite relevant. Because, despite a debate that pretends there is a waterboarding factory churning out psychologically damaged peasants swept up in the the net of sweeps of idyllic villages along the Pakistani border, we now learn the practice hasn’t been used since 2003! Not only that, the total number of “victims” is a gargantuan, massive 3 people!
For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.
Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes…
The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.
A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.
That doesn’t mean anyone needs approve of the method, even in the rather extreme circumstance of Khalid Sheik Mohammmed, and I am looking forward to discussing this in more detail this weekend when we continue the discussion we have begun on this matter. What I wish to continue to stress, is that the extent of the use of “torture” has not been established as a widespread or officially sanctioned problem. Nor has what we mean by waterboarding been established, as it can be practiced in varying ways, some far less troublesome than others. The description in the report does not track with what was described by Michael Nance or other critics more extreme characterizations, but with this video instead.
Allah makes some good points:
If you’ve never seen it, watch the video of Brian Ross telling O’Reilly on the Factor last year how useful some of the information obtained after waterboarding Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was. There are two articles of religious faith among opponents of the practice: (1) it never works, (2) it exists on a slippery slope that leads inexorably to widespread abuse. If you believe Ross, the first point is already disproved and the second is hanging by a thread. Neither of which, incidentally, is an argument in favor of it: if the government were to randomly murder someone, the fact that it was “only” one person wouldn’t win them any sympathy. But it does go to show how much bad faith is involved in this debate.
The question is, is Ross credible? Today’s Blotter scoop says KSM was waterboarded for one and a half minutes; last year’s O’Reilly clip has Ross claiming it was two and a half. A minor detail but discrepancies should be noted.
Back to Michael’s question, which I will pick up in our waterboarding thread, is one to three minutes of KSM fearing he will drown ( and according to the report he lasted the longest) worth avoiding the deaths of thousands? If Michael’s thought experiment has any validity then the answer is clear. On the other hand, even if that were true there might be other reasons to forbid it, though the bolded point above certainly makes one of those reasons questionable. If this administration is so uniquely awful and they haven’t slid down the waterboarding slippery slope one must assume either they are not serious when claiming this administration is so awful, or the threat of such sliding is not very big.
That is assuming this report is true. However, if it isn’t true it certainly points out a problem for critics, we do not know enough to attack them for having used such tactics either intensively or extensively with the furious certainty many have. As an aside one reason for not giving us this information is they do not want terrorists to know how unlikely it is they will be subjected to such techniques. Paranoia about people giving up information is like sand in the gears of al Qaeda’s efforts.
Other interesting tidbits:
The CIA sources described the list of six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. The Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Longtime Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding (as demonstrated in the picture above): The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the waterboarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.
If the report is accurate we see how abuse of prisoners outside of policy is being conflated with policy. This is a small program used on around a dozen detainees. Of course some of these techniques may have been used elsewhere. I will say that waterboarding practiced as described here does not bother me as much as number 4 or 5. Especially 5. That discussion however, will have to wait.
Welcome Instapundit readers!
In addition to the posts on this topic below, visit with us a we discuss the irony of sock puppetry, catch The Puppet in a typical sloppy mischaracterization, look for Missing Memos, encourage you to watch for the Ultimate Resource, suggest you watch out for Israeli death strippers, suggest our congress lose their sweet tooth, discover the cars in the other lane are faster, work with unions to defend labor activists in Iran, and much more.
Previous posts on topic:
Clinton and Obama not fit to be Attorney General
17 Responses to “Waterboarding as Performance Art”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
It seems to me that by only allowing the CIA to do waterboarding, and only a few agents at that, you could limit the dangers of slippery slope quite easily. There is a physical limit to how many people you could waterboard with only 3 agents doing it. Keeping the facilities far away from the front-lines would also help, as it would reduce temptation to use it on the rank and file of detained people.
Pakistani border, we now learn the practice hasn’t been used since 2003! Not only that, the total number of “victims” is a gargantuan, massive 3 people!
What are the chances that the massive controversy over its use, driven by the political left, has contributed to those decisions? High, maybe?
So, the consequences of a massive effort to delegitimize the use of waterboarding are:
the curtailment of its use - allowing you and right-wingers to claim it was never a problem at all, thus conflating effect and cause
- the mocking of the people trying to legitimize it - thus paving the way for its re-introduction.
Possibly it has had some part in it, though I wouldn’t credit the left. However, since the outcry against torture started well after that, it is hardly a strong case.
Either way it hardly means I can’t point out that for all the cries of the administrations lies and hypocrisy their critics are hardly better. If you want to justify an unserious, exaggerated, hyperbolic, untruthful campaign based on the idea that it ultimately resulted in something worthwhile, go ahead. However, that certainly vitiates many arguments against the Bush administration and will mean I will gladly point out you can just stuff complaints about the exaggerations of Republicans and the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter should a Democrat end up in office.
I guess I’ll point out that hooking up a man’s genitals to electric shocks doesn’t even have to happen for it to be wrong. Us waterboarding even once is too often, just as us abusing people in any other context—such as a drug raid—is too much. We are not only better than that, it is vital we NOT sink to their level. We don’t have to to beat them.
What I find more important, and what is getting ignored, is how the culture of “security at all costs” has infected our mindset, such that we are willing to compromise our own values we hold dear—values we once went to war with the greatest empire on earth to protect—on the off-chance it might stave off another attack. From my perspective, that seems incredibly dangerous. I don’t think I need repeat Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about the tradeoffs of liberty and safety.
Granting all that you just said for arguments sake, none of that has anything to do with my point.
Of course we are not sinking anywhere near their level, even if you think waterboarding once is too much. As for the security culture bit, we violated our values (taking your presentation of them at face value) on a far larger scale when “we once went to war with the greatest empire on earth to protect, ” when we fought amongst ourselves in our own civil war, both times we went to Europe to defend our allies and defeat totalitarianism, etc. That doesn’t make it right, but it surely should make the hyperbolic discussion of these things a little more calm.
I will point out again, as I have many times, history may have provided a low bar, but this administration has jumped over it. This administration has limited our liberties far less than his predecessors during wartime and has fought a more humane war overall by a large margin. I have no problem with you saying that isn’t good enough, frankly it isn’t for me either, but I do have a problem with acting as if it isn’t true and that this administration has dragged us down to “their” or any other level. That is just political posturing, not a moral, ethical, or legal stand on principal.
The difference, of course, being (to open an old argument) those other presidents had the courtesy to ask Congress to declare war, instead of the weasely “AUMF” laws that have allowed much of the PSC misconduct we’ve so decried.
So, all that other stuff from the past is alright, and the misrepresentation of both the past and present is also alright because we used an AUMF instead of declaring war? Our values (assuming they are being violated now, and thus moreso then) are just a matter of congressionally sanctioned policy? I guess we have no problem then because our congress is about to go along.
I don’t think you mean that, but if you don’t then we have a non sequitur. I’ll assume that it is just a non sequitur.
Your assertions and implications, of course, are both historically and factually inaccurate.
I tend to agree, but as he said, an old argument. Why does it matter to this discussion though?
I should also address one aspect of this statement
One of the ways this happens is that it is an “ends justifies the means” argument. I admit to not being completely opposed to arguments that include that element. The problem is that it also applies to Bush. If a couple dozen major al Qaeda figures are subject to these coercive methods, including the three who were waterboarded, and it causes large amounts of damage to al Qaeda and their plans (and thus saves a great many lives) then Bush is certainly right to have used the methods under that ethic.
Of course a more complex accounting would look at the damage this controversy has caused (whether justified or not) in deciding its effects. However, that was theoretical and not known at the time. On the other hand, glasnost’s ends justifies the means has caused enormous damage as well, all to end a practice which is no longer used, and affected three men who deserve no pity. Ending the practice of waterboarding, though it has already been ended, may be a worthy goal. However, the methods and arguments used fail under an ends justifies the means standards. Thus, I must conclude that the campaign was unjustified as carried out. A more reasonable and civil campaign, based upon facts rather than innuendo, falsehoods and fevered imagination would likely have been just as effective and far less damaging. The ethical damage to our political discourse could have been far less as well.
Thus, back to the point of the post. Ending waterboarding wasn’t the issue, finding wedge issues to divide the body politic was the goal, even if unconscious, or believed to be a side benefit in many people’s minds. That is nothing unusual, just regrettable and perfectly legitimate for Glenn to point out without he, or I, being labeled as supporting torture. Criticizing Ann Coulter doesn’t mean I support Islamism, nor does criticizing the exaggerations and hyperbole around waterboarding, and Bush in general, mean I support either.
Lance, my point is that ends do not justify means, on either side. It was wrong to misrepresent the situation (if that is what people did intentionally), just as it was wrong to waterboard. Torture may theoretically have saved lives (though in the case of KSM he clearly made untrue “confessions” under duress, which calls into question everything else he said… a big danger of such techniques), but that doesn’t make it right. You may decide it is worth the cost, or that it is worthwhile to torture on the off chance you can’t extract intelligence of similar quality through ethical means; but to represent that as prima facie evidence of its moral superiority is assuming too much.
I know it’s not exactly a popular position to take in our fear-crippled society, but I would much rather have greater risk than violate what we stand for—and that includes due process and proper treatment of those we consider unworthy of pity. It is not men like KSM I pity when these things happen; it is us.
Michael, my point is that if we are to sacrifice our values and our principles in a war, then the administration could at least do us the favor of acting like we are in a war in situations other than when its ability to act beyond the traditional understanding of the law is under scrutiny. Telling us to go shopping and that we won’t have to sacrifice a thing because we have a military to do that for us is… well, it’s significantly different than when previous administrations broke the law and violate the constitution out of concern for our very existence. Al Qaeda, and any form of terrorism for that matter, is in zero danger of destroying us as a nation—we are simply too big, too spread out, and too resilient for any small band to do so.
If, on the other hand, the threat is as vast and unknowable (borrowing the pathetic “if you only knew what was in the President’s daily briefing” line) as they say it is, then they do not behave as if it is, at least when dealing with domestic audiences. Therefore, it looks like a power grab, and not a desperate move to save the nation. Hence, my skepticism.
I guess I’m not sure how you expect the administration to act. Promoting victory gardens? The fact of the matter is that this is a very different kind of war than any we’ve ever been embroiled in before. And the world is a drastically different place. Sacrificing just for the sake of sacrifice doesn’t make any logical sense.
Claiming that we are “sacrificing our values and our priniciples” relies on the premise that there is some intrinsic moral system in how we do approach, and always have approached our enemies. Frankly, I just don’t find that to be true. Indeed, in past wars the enemy was demonized almost beyond recognition, in all mediums: news, movies, TV and radio programs, war posters. There is nothing even close to that sort of portrayal in our society today.
And as for using torture, I remain somewhat agnostic. I really don’t get how dealing with al Qaeda et al., those who would butcher us if given half a chance, outside the laws designed to regulate our civil society is in any way undermining the moral value of our society. They certainly don’t show the same consideration, and in truth none of our enemies have. What do we gain from treating enemy combatants with the respect reserved for people who are a part of our civilian world?
None of that is meant to excuse violations of law. If we as a society, through our elected representatives, have decided that we will accord our enemies a certain level of due process, etc., then that’s the law. It should be followed or changed. But none of that really addresses the moral argument: i.e. why we shouldn’t torture our enemies.
I absolutely disagree. It is exactly because our society is so spread out and diverse that terrorists can bring it down. A goodly portion of people will opt for safety at all costs, which in their eyes means giving the terrorists what they want. Look at what happened in Spain for example. They hope that we will be left alone if we just leave the terrorists to their grisly affairs in the Middle East and South Asia. Others of us know that such appeasement will only make things worse (not to mention the moral dilemma raised in allowing such merchants of menace to continue their subjugation of innocent peoples apace). That seam is what terrorists like al Qaeda attack, hoping that a fracture will occur, allowing them to proceed with out any further interference from the one power it knows can stop them. Meanwhile, just look around at how divisive our society has become. Do you really think that we can continue in this vein and not fall apart? If so, then you are much more optomistic than me.
Skepticism is good, but yours is based on premises that don’t withstand factual analysis. Of course it looks like a power grab, therefore, because that’s the underlying motivation you’ve attributed to the Bush Administration.
Moreover, you seem to be accusing the Bush Administration of fear mongering in one instance, and of sugar-coating in the next. So which is it? Is the administration trying to convince us that our country is in mortal danger from terrorists, or is it telling us that it’s got everything under control and we should just go about our business?
My major point here, Josh, is that you are laboring under the impression that because Congress executed an AUMF instead of a Declaration of War that there is some fundamental difference in how this war is being fought. Thta’ just not correct, as we’ve been through before. Legally speaking, there is no difference. What differences there are in how this particular war is being fought and those in the past are attributable to (a) fighting a non-state enemy, and (b) the US being the sole superpower in the world. The partiular wording of a Congressional Act doesn’t figure in the mix one whit.
How about like we are in a war? Or how about like we are in a complex ideational struggle for the future of the international system? Or maybe in any consistent manner (to answer a latter point: I am deeply frustrated with how Bush can’t make up his mind—we are in a war when it suits his rhetoric or his power grabs, or we don’t need to sacrifice beyond buying plane tickets and going to the mall when it suits his domestic agenda. The man needed to make up his mind many years ago).
Again, you seem to be excusing that, as if it were okay, and saying the comparatively minor representation of all Muslims as terrorists (like on 24) is fine because it’s not as brazen. I don’t buy that. We are still better than that.
From a moral standpoint, either we believe in our laws and values, which includes our treatment of enemy combattants (I thought they weren’t combattants, according to Bush?), or we don’t whenever it is convenient. Choose.
That’s a false analogy: we are significantly different than Spain (we have no active separatist or domestic terror movements, and we are not handcuffed by the EU), and I’d really like to know how al-Qaeda could destroy us. They barely touched us on September 11 (the stock market closed voluntarily, and the Pentagon never ceased operations); while we freaked out, it is not even close to comparable to the threat of nuclear annhialation from the Soviets.
This again does not make sense. You’re assuming diplomacy and military action are exclusive or somehow incompatible; similarly, to describe “let them bring down their horrendous, corrupt governments” as “appeasement” is beyond disingenuous.
Now, do you think our society has become divisive (which, if we’re going to be making historical analogies, does not even remotely approach the 60s—either the 1960’s or the 1860’s—and therefore is not as dire as people like to pretend it is) because of terrorism, or the stupefyingly idiotic responses to terrorism? The most divisive political subject at the moment is Iraq—is that the fault of the terrorists for not drying neatly enough, or of the Bush administration for running it like a five year-old?
Since you’re obviously aware of how people work, you should know that perception matters more than intent.
No, that’s not what I was saying at all. I was lifting that up as one way this war is different than our other wars, as you say. But I was not doing so to excuse their shady behavior, but to highlight it. I see it as a symptom of a larger way in which the government is choosing to execute it—that is to say, with almost criminal incompetence.
I am not sure you are saying I did that, but if so, I most definitely did not. I said if we buy the end justifies the mean argument then it was certainly justified. I wasn’t addressing you, I was addressing my own point.
Simplistic. First of all, many people might feel differently. I see no obvious reason some one should prefer the deaths of thousands over violating your standards, which you represent as our values. They may share them, but it is not obvious that they should. You can claim that a thousand deaths is not worth one KSM undergoing a minute and a half of intense fear, but please do not claim this is some straightforward, easy choice, which is the only way to justify much of what I see out there. You can say you fear for us, but it is awfully arrogant to say that fear compares to legitimate fears of thousands of dead. So far your fears have shown little evidence of coming true, while theirs have been shown to be all too real. I think that calls into question who is crippled with fear, those willing to do it, or those making that claim.
Moral empathy has to work both ways. I assert we can have little for KSM, but we can have it for both those who fear the institutionalization of a policy, that while arguably is not torture as practiced by the administration, is potentially a grave evil. We can also have it for those faced (remember when it was done, just after a horrific act that was going to be repeated if these men were not stopped) the choice of what to do, and those who wanted them to do something about it. From that moral empathy comes the chance to persuade. From those who blithely dismiss either concern comes only division, and moral confusion, which is what we have now. We are not faced with a great evil done by us, but how to avoid possible evils in the future, by both the likes of KSM and the possible brutalization of our own moral sensibilities.
That moral brutalization can affect us if we allow such a policy to expand, but also from the moral corruption of elites who breezily leave men and women at the mercy of those who would cause us great harm. More terrifyingly, if lectured to as if their real and well founded fears are a point of moral error of an obvious nature, and a source of sneering contempt, we face the erosion of any sympathy with such moral concerns at all. In fact, I would argue that has already happened, and upon the next occurrence of a similar tragedy moral distinctions are likely to fall completely by the wayside. They will be seen, and rightly so, as not having emanated from a well thought out attention to morality, but as a tool to make those real concerns they face seem base for mere political and self indulgent preening. A way to feel morally superior, which is an intoxicating and corrupting drug.
Finally, none of what you have said alters or even addresses the post at all. Nor do you address my objections to our initial exchange with you and glasnost. If you, like I, wish to actually avoid going down the road to inhumane behavior being institutionalized, then we had better get our act together. This is not a simple, morally clear issue, and if we keep pretending it is we will set ourselves up for a more brutal future. We should start by recognizing the tremendous progress we have seen for a more humane way of fighting this war. From there we can work to improve that climate even more.
Telling those who have (or have endorsed those who have) despite your feeling otherwise, attempted to traverse the morally problematic terrain they have been faced with, and generally more successfully than anyone previously, that they are monsters will only convince them of your unreasonableness. You call it a power grab, but how does the ability to waterboard KSM give them power over us? It doesn’t. You ignore the obvious answer, and only you can answer why, but I have no doubt what the motives of many are for doing so. That answer is they were trying to stop KSM and his allies.
If we are going to tie their hands, and I am in favor of many ties, they will not be persuaded by your name calling and assertions of conspiracy. They will be persuaded when the American people say that they feel the tradeoffs are worth it. When the American people say they feel that when the next attack occurs and a known figure was not forced to provide information that they find the tradeoff worth it. That takes discussion amongst people of good will. It means being very explicit about what we will allow and not allow. It means convincing most Americans that KSM’s 2 minutes of fear outweigh the possibility of hundreds and possibly thousands of American dead. I suspect most critics are not willing to do that, thus they exaggerate, mislead and otherwise obscure that very necessary discussion because they fear what the answer might be. Not because of moral qualms, but because it destroys their political tool. Therefore even Obama will not commit to saying he would not waterboard, or otherwise do what was felt necessary under those circumstances, yet all the while posturing about the lawlessness he admits he might avail himself of as well.
Desperate is your word, not theirs. Waterboarding KSM was something they felt was necessary to stop the many plans he was involved with. Saving the nation is not what they were claiming to do, but protecting us. Before you answer this though, I suggest re-reading the discussion so far again and reflect upon what it is really about. If you want to argue the merits of defining torture to exclude all the techniques described in it, you first need to avoid the issues it addresses. Milton Friedman was devastating as a debater because he assumed the good will of his opponents. That worked much better than those who just called anyone who disagreed a communist who wanted to enslave us. Telling someone that the reason they are wrong is that they want to do awful things just leads to a hardening of positions, because usually it isn’t true.
No, he is saying stop acting as if this administration has done something awful and unique. By your own standards we are doing better than ever. By the way, 24 does not represent all muslims as terrorists. Not only that, most of the terrorists in it are not muslim.
You have made a claim on history. If your claim is absolute, and you admit this is the best we have ever done on the values front, but you still despise Bush and this administration then at least you are being correct or honest. I never hear anything remotely like that. It is always that this administration has dragged us down and is violating our values, and are some new and unique threat. So start from that premise and acknowledge the truth of what we have been saying on this or we don’t buy it. These are new values and standards you wish to hold us to, which is fine, but let us be honest about that. It doesn’t do much for hatin on Bush, but it might actually lead to progress towards your goals.
Lance, I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of my complaint, then. My point about the silliness of comparing our conduct now to our conduct historically is that we HAVE moved on. Yes, we are indeed better in many ways, and I would actually like us to be proud of that and wish to maintain and improve on it.
Moreover, if the war we are fighting is as fundamentally different as Michael asserts (an assertion I share), then we should not rely on the old Soviet techniques to fight it—to include torture (or, as you now write it off, “KSM’s 2 minutes of fear,” in stark contrast to before, when you seemed to agree waterboarding’s systematic use was, in fact, torture and morally abhorrent). A new war would demand a new technique for fighting it, rather than borrowing the old failed tools of coercion from the broken autocracies of the East.
The issue I take isn’t whether 3 instances of waterboarding were legal or even very effective (KSM gave both good and bad information—some helpful, some, like his confessions relating to Daniel Pearl, clearly the result of duress and not conscience), it is whether it was appropriate in the first place to gain information in such a way. I do not share the Jack Bauer philosophy that it is okay to brutalize some people for the sake of others. Mock that however you wish, claim it is as unrealistic as you wish, but I cannot abide such a casual utilitarian argument for national security—it is far too easy for that line to move.
Far from the simplistic calculation you suggest, there is a tremendous amount of thought behind it: I believe in us. I believe in us enough that I don’t think we need resort to such brutality to achieve our means; moreover, I take it as a point of pride that we shouldn’t feel we must resort to such brutality to do so. The experience of many interrogators, from many countries, who testify to the unreliability of information gained under torture—not that it is all false, but that the subject will say literally anything to make it stop regardless of its truth—tells me that it shouldn’t seem necessary. Believe it or not, there is still something to be gained by taking a long step back from the arguments over methods and be able to say with a straight face: we are still better than them. Right now, given how much we’ve abused our own freedom and liberty and sunshine rhetoric, we cannot, even if we can say things are far better than they were. Well, the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents are a far kinder enemy than the Imperial Japanese—yet we don’t pat them on the back for being so.
Also, I think if we’re going to place this into a broader semiotic analysis of American political discourse, then let’s do that all the way, from the Instazombies unfairly disparaging Hollywood for not making sufficiently hoo-rah propaganda (as in: for portraying war as a horrible and inhumane thing, which brutalizes and damages its participants, even when they’re on the right side), to the way more liberal who have been told for years by their leaders that we are better than the Islamists react in (most probably naive) horror at the use of torture and extraordinary renditions and say, “is this really my country?”
The issue is so much larger, and the view opposite yours so much more complex, than you’re giving credit here. Which is a bit unfair: let us not, either of us, mistake brevity for over-simplification. If “they” felt it necessary to torture a man in the hopes of saving thousands, then that’s great for them. That I cannot make that decision does not make me any less moral a person, or any less thinking. I shall avoid the obvious slippery slope argument that almost inevitably arises when people make utilitarian arguments over saving an arbitrary number of people with one exception: is waterboarding acceptable to save the life of a single soldier in Iraq? How about to save a humvee from an IED? There are soldiers who say hell yes absolutely the man is scum.
But that isn’t how our legal system operates. Our constitution says (or implies, if you’re going to be cranky about it) that we are better than torturing for the common good, even if the consequences might be dire. THAT is what makes us special, not our perceptions of safety and expectations of our leaders to wave their magic hands and “do something” (a desire that almost always results in disastrous policy). That people respond irrationally to fear is almost immaterial to this discussion—people freak out about handguns but not swimming pools, even though swimming pools are far more dangerous—it is whether what we do defines us, and what we want that definition to be. Politicians, being whores to the majority and not to morality, are not a good barometer of propriety.
Let us start here:
my view? What is my view? You may have a guess about it, but I haven’t given my view.
I never said it did. You are the one saying and implying that the values argument is one way, when the ethical considerations apply to not using waterboarding as well.
Also, I obviously need to repeat it again, I am not making the utilitarian argument here, though it certainly needs to be considered. I am pointing out that we as a people will be making that calculus and it isn’t one to be sneered at or dismissed with a one sided look at “values.” Many people do not dismiss the ethical impact of not being willing to waterboard KSM and his compatriots, and they have a point. You are starting to make a serious point, or points, and I am not unsympathetic. However, your discussion here is showing that the moral posturing, misleading claims about what people believe, etc., as opposed to moral investigation, which is what this post is about, need not be the way we go. That decision deserves to be criticized. That doesn’t mean we will all agree, but maybe we can get away from the Bush and those who question the line of argument are all torture advocates, are monsters and the you are all a bunch of pantywaists mode of discussion. I doubt it, but at least at this site maybe we could.
No, you misunderstand me. You are making an historical claim when you say we are somehow moving in some dark direction, or that it is so much worse (need I find quotes of yours to that effect) and that this administration deserves some special opprobrium. I agree, we have moved on, and the proof is in how humane and measured we have been relative to the past. Maybe this administration hasn’t moved far enough in your estimation, which I will agree with, but it has moved on.
That more nuanced argument is not what is being made though, instead we see particular acts which arguably have not been done in the past (say waterboarding) as issues used to ignore the tremendous triumph these wars have been for a more humane face for war in general. The same goes for the civil libertarian arguments. Once you do that though, you are where Glenn Reynolds is, arguing against the techniques the administration has used, arguing against many of the limitations on our civil liberties while criticizing those who act on rumor, innuendo, misrepresentation and other sins to act as if we have descended into some dark place, or that others wouldn’t (though certainly in different ways) be at least as bad. His reward? Being accused of supporting things he doesn’t, guilty of wanting things he does not desire and not caring about things he does.
Who is writing it off? That is what it was (assuming the report is true.) That is in fact the argument used to define it as torture, that that level of fear is defacto torture. The best analogy I have seen is to compare it to a mock execution. If you are uncomfortable with that characterization because in your mind it minimizes the act, then your problem is with the the appropriateness of your concern, not my characterization.
Actually I have said I have considered waterboarding torture. I’ll describe my thoughts on this in more detail later, but is all waterboarding torture? Even if not should we not use it it anyway? If we do use it, what are the institutional controls needed? Much more needs to be discussed.
I have not mocked it. I have criticized those who hold to it for using their abhorrence to justify the types of misleading and hyperbolic claims they have used and who dismiss other morally competing claims. I respect that argument a great deal. I challenge you to find me mocking that. The bold part of your argument though is quite compelling, and is part of my argument on the practice as well. Nor do I believe the things Bauer does in the show track morally with waterboarding.
It is simplistic because it ignored competing ethical complaints. I make no claim the argument in and of itself is simplistic.
Yes we can, our conduct is not in the same ballpark.
That just isn’t true, and I have no love for the Imperial Japanese. Well, check that, the Taliban maybe, and elements of the insurgency okay. The most vicious elements, including hardcore Baathists and al Qaeda are not.
I will not spend time on this, but that misunderstands the dissatisfaction, at least from Glenn.