Of all the objectionable things that emerged from the presidency of George W. Bush — and it’s a long list, in my opinion — nothing has troubled me more than the issue of torture.
I’m troubled by the fact that it happened at all, of course, that our military and civilian intelligence people drowned and abused and tormented prisoners until (in some cases) they literally lost their minds. But what really disturbs me about this whole thing is how few of my fellow Americans seem to care.
Even now, when it has become blindingly apparent that the torturers were not soldiers who lost control in the heat of battle but were actually acting on orders from the White House itself, when it’s been revealed that the White House had a cadre of lawyers — including, I’m sad to say, a number of guys with connections to my home state — writing memos and briefs to justify decisions the administration knew were legally questionable, even after all that, there are still people who would defend the Bush “interrogation” policies. The news media still can’t bring itself to use the word “torture” on any kind of regular basis, preferring instead Orwellian weasel words that were coined by the freaking Nazis. And many pundits are brazenly parsing whether certain techniques constitute actual torture or merely “harsh treatment.” (Here’s a clue: if we would call it torture when it’s done to one of our people, then it’s freakin’ torture, people!) Hell, some people are trying dodge the legal and moral questions altogether and debate only whether waterboarding actually works, as if efficacy is the only consideration when it comes to this stuff.
You know what, though? It doesn’t matter if it works, not in my book. Because it’s wrong. Because we’re supposed to be better people than those who would destroy us. We used to believe we were. But that appears to have changed in recent years.
I like to think — to hope — that this apparent shift is due merely to ignorance, that people simply don’t realize the techniques used in Abu Ghraib and CIA “black sites” were effectively ripped off from the Soviets and the communist Chinese. (I don’t know about you, but I find it immensely unsettling to think our people have done the same things we used to condemn the KGB for.) But honestly, I’m not so sure. In my more cynical moments, I find myself thinking, sadly, that a lot of people out there are perfectly okay with subjecting other people to horrendous inhumanities because they think torturing people somehow avenges 9/11, or because they’re racist, or maybe because they’d rather feel “safe” than accept the risk and effort of living up to our nation’s ideals. Well, maybe those people do feel safer knowing that we’re beating the hell out of people with Arabic-sounding names. Not me, though. Because I worry about what it does to us, to our very souls.
Kevin Drum said essentially the same thing last week, and his words have been echoing in my mind ever since:
I don’t care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don’t care about the difference between torture and “harsh treatment.” I don’t care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don’t care whether it “works.” I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.
The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement. But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously. In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn’t be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn’t be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.
On other things there’s no consensus yet. Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world. But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong. Full stop. It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians. But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide. Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great. Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.
The eye is in the midst of blinking, people. What will we see when the lid rises again?
From a Maureen Down op-ed in the NY Times:
‘As Mr. Obama said in his news conference, it is in moments of crisis that a country must cleave to its principles. Asserting that “waterboarding violates our ideals,” he said he had been struck by an article describing how Churchill would not torture prisoners even when “London was being bombed to smithereens.”
“And the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts and over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people,” he said. “It corrodes the character of a country.” ‘
At least we got rid of Bush. That’s a step in the right direction, I think.
I certainly understand your sentiments, Jason, and while I can’t say I necessarily disagree with you, I definitely don’t walk away from this with a black & white view of the issue.
First of all, no matter what your definition of torture, this idea that what we did is somehow analogous to what the Nazis, the Soviets, or the Communist Chinese did is simply inaccurate. The Nazis took civilian prisoners (men, women, and children) and burned them to death in gas ovens. The declassified DOJ memos point out repeatedly that waterboarding, as cruel as it may be, is designed to produce shock and panic in the prisoner, but causes no physical pain or injury. And just to be sure, we had doctors present to monitor the prisoner just to be sure. In contrast, John McCain had his arms broken by the Viet Cong so many times that today, he can’t lift them above his shoulders. Khalid Sheik Muhammed is as physically fit today as he was the day we captured him. Again – I’m not trying to justify waterboarding at all, but to suggest that we treated our prisoners the same way our enemies treated our troops is to tell half the story, at best.
Second, I must admit to being blown away by the DOJ’s declassified memo’s description of “The Second Wave.” This was not a theoretical exercise. KSM continually warned of a second attack, and future arrests and independent, corroborating evidence confirmed it. Are you truly willing to pick a building in Los Angeles and condemn everyone in it to death so as to avoid putting KSM through five days of tortuous panic? After he’s already admitted to putting more than 3,000 Americans through similar tortuous panic, followed by slow and tortuuos death? And shows no remorse for having done so? And knowing that when it was over, the lives of thousands more Americans would have been saved and he would have had no lasting (physical) effects?
If your answer is yes, then I can totally respect that. I can’t honestly tell you that my answer is no. As I said in my post on the topic, I’m honestly not sure how I’d answer that question.
But I can see both sides. And I am damn glad I wasn’t in a position to have to make that call…
As ever, Brian, you leave lots for me to respond to.
First, let me stipulate that of course I would not want to sacrifice a building full of people in LA or anywhere else. However, I’m just not convinced, based on my own readings, that torture is the best way to prevent that. (I read today that the White House is going to declassify another report soon that will at last spell out just exactly how effective these techniques were; that should throw gas on this fire, eh?)
For the sake of argument, however, let’s grant that torture is effective. Is it still the right thing to do? Does the good of saving a lot of lives counteract the immorality of doing something that for much of the past century the civilized world has been trying to move away from? I suppose many would say yes, of course. It’s an argument for philosophers, I guess, but I’m extremely uncomfortable that we’re even having the argument.
The thing that really nags at me about all this, what I’ve tried to articulate in this and other posts, is that Americans have (at least during my lifetime) always been very quick to condemn other nations for “disappearing” people or subjecting them to treatments that could be called torture. I know that if the tables were turned, if one of our soldiers was being treated by a captor the way we treated KSM and others, there would be a huge outcry about the barbarism of his treatment, how the nation perpetrating it was a rogue and an outlaw state. And yet when we do it, we say it’s necessary, no permanent harm is done, etc.
I guess I’m shocked by the ease with which we could be made to abandon principles I grew up thinking were set in stone. 9/11 was horrific and spectacular, but it was one attack. And one attack is apparently all it took to scare us so much that all our high-minded talk about civilization and justice and the rule of law went right out the window, replaced by jingoism and blood thirst. It’s not that I want to risk another attack, or that I think bastards like KSM should be handled with kid gloves; I don’t. But I don’t want to think we’re stooping to the level of those who attacked us, either. Because I think that will have its consequences, too.
As to my references to various despotic regimes, I maintain they are appropriate. Mentioning Nazis is always waving a red flag, I know. Of course we’re not as bad as the Reich, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an unseemly parallel. The Nazis coined the term “enhanced interrogation,” which was frequently used by the Bush administration when discussing the abuses it authorized. From the blog I linked above: “It’s a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods… are indistinguishable from those described as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ by [President Bush].”
Meanwhile, the waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and various forms of intense humiliation that were used on detainees were in part adapted from the SERE training given to our own special forces, which I understand was designed decades ago to prepare Rangers and SEALs for what they were likely to face if they were captured by Soviets and/or Chinese. Again, if this stuff is considered so reprehensible when it’s done to us, how can we justify doing it to others?
Maybe I am guilty of seeing this in black-and-white terms, but I really don’t see any other way of viewing it. I find the idea of torturing another person utterly repugnant, and the idea that it was official policy — that Bush and Cheney had lawyers trying to find loopholes and rationalizations to let them get away with it — is infuriating.
the White House is going to declassify another report soon
I think this is great. At a minimum, we’ll have more information on which to form opinions. The politicos will spin it both ways, I’m sure, but those of us who read these documents (instead of relying on reports about them) will be able to decide for ourselves. I also wonder if the memo they’re declassifying is the one that the previosly declassified memo refers to when describing The Second Wave (“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM-once enhanced techniques were employed-led to the discovery of a KSM piot, the “Second Wave,” “to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into” a building in Los Angeles. Effectiveness Memo at 3″. Maybe “Effectiveness Memo” is the one discussed in your link?)
I’m extremely uncomfortable that we’re even having the argument.
Agree to disagree here, I guess. You seem to be laboring under the impression that we’ve always been a beacon of light & honor with regard to interrogation, and that George W. Bush took us off the high road for the first time. I can only point at Japanese Interment camps as evidence against this theory. Not to mention the things we don’t know about from before investigative reporting was as advanced as it is today…
I know that if the tables were turned, if one of our soldiers was being treated by a captor the way we treated KSM and others, there would be a huge outcry about the barbarism of his treatment, how the nation perpetrating it was a rogue and an outlaw state. And yet when we do it, we say it’s necessary, no permanent harm is done, etc.
Can’t it be both? Again, I’m not defending torture (I know it seems that I am, but I’m trying to make a nuanced point). The difference between us being barbaric and a rogue/outlaw state being barbaric is that we’ve said we’d resort to this behavior only when an imminent threat existed. What makes them rogue/outlaw states is not just the way they treat their prisoners, but also the fact that cause imminent threats (i.e., additional attacks on defenseless civilians).
all our high-minded talk about civilization and justice and the rule of law went right out the window
I don’t want to think we’re stooping to the level of those who attacked us, either
Well, again, high-minded talk and high-minded action are two different things. We’ve certainly mistreated captives in the past, although not to the extent that some of our enemies have. And this is not that much different (in my humble opinion).
As to my references to various despotic regimes, I maintain they are appropriate
Appropriate, yes – just incomplete. Yes, the Nazi’s tortured people under the term “enhanced interrogation.” But they also injured and murdered their captives and their captives were often civilians (including women and children). They made parents choose which of their children should be murdered. They made children dig graves for their parents. They made soap out of human body fat to conserve supplies for their war effort.
Again, I’m not defending torture, and I’m certainly not defending the Nazi’s. I’m just saying that if all the Nazi’s did was scare the bejeezus out of our troops, well….then they wouldn’t have been the Nazi’s we think of today.
And (to my main point): where was the imminent threat?
that Bush and Cheney had lawyers trying to find loopholes and rationalizations to let them get away with it — is infuriating
Again, I understand your frustration here, but having worked with enough lawyers in my day, I understand that this is what lawyers do. They don’t recommend policy or set direction. They simply tell you what is legal and what is not legal. After that, you decide for yourself. If Bush/Cheney manipulated the law to allow for torture that was illegal otherwise, then they should be held to account, not their lawyers.
It’s late, so hopefully this will be somewhat coherent as well as brief…
You seem to be laboring under the impression that we’ve always been a beacon of light & honor with regard to interrogation
Not at all. I’m not so naive as to think that that torture has never happened in our previous conflicts. What’s different this time is that, as far as I know, it’s never before been sanctioned, defended, and encouraged by the White House. It’s always been at least condemned after the fact. And we’ve certainly never had a former vice president going on TV telling us we’d better keep on torturing or we’re compromising our safety, which is essentially what Cheney has been up to lately.
Also, while we may not have actually been a beacon of light and honor, that’s certainly how we’ve imagined ourselves as a culture, and it’s how we’ve positioned ourselves to the rest of the world as we’ve lectured other countries about their human rights records. I find the hypocrisy stunningly distasteful and fear that it could be a real detriment to our diplomatic efforts, as well as possibly increasing the risk for our soldiers who may be captured. (I’m also, admittedly, intellectually curious about how quickly our self-image could do a 180 like that…)
What makes them rogue/outlaw states is not just the way they treat their prisoners, but also the fact that cause imminent threats
I see the point you’re making, but you know what they say about two wrongs. I’d prefer to see us striving to avoid barbarism and brutality as much as possible, to find other, more civilized ways to get results. An admittedly naive view, perhaps. Blame it on all the Star Trek reruns I saw as a kid.
[The Nazis] also injured and murdered their captives and their captives were often civilians (including women and children), etc.
Exactly why I find it so offensive that we have appropriated their euphemisms…
If Bush/Cheney manipulated the law to allow for torture that was illegal otherwise, then they should be held to account, not their lawyers.
That’s fine by me. I’ve never said I was in favor of going after the lawyers, only that it bothers me the White House had lawyers looking for ways to justify a policy they obviously had reason to believe could be illegal, or at least wrong. Of course, the men who were on top of this decision will never face any actual penalties, assuming any actual crimes were committed (I’m still not entirely clear on that, technically speaking; but then, you can do something immoral without breaking the law). But I would at like to at least see those responsible end up being publicly scorned and their policies and opinions formally repudiated. Cheney, in particular, deserves to go down as one history’s great villains, right alongside Torquemada, IMO.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/Treasury-CEO-TalkingPoints.pdf
How we imagine ourselves being vs. how we actually are is more of a discussion of the media than it is about politicians. I’d submit that the media is just as responsible for the rose-colored view of past conflicts as it is for the crap-colored view of this one. But then again, I’d likely be in the minority.
As to the lawyers, I guess I’m suggesting that they were “just doing their jobs” (cue the ominous music). If your lawyer tells you that you can torture a prisoner and not go to jail, you can still decide not to torture him.
As to Dick Cheney, what he’s doing now turns my stomach as well. It will be interesting to see if time softens his negatives (cf. Carter, Reagan, Clinton) or hardens them (cf. Nixon). I suspect the former, to be honest.
Also (and again, not to justify what he’s doing right now), realize that we’re one terrorist attack away from him being a genius. And the Taliban is getting awfully close to Islamabad and their nukes…
I’d submit that the media is just as responsible … But then again, I’d likely be in the minority.
Perhaps in the minority, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong. I think the media and our relationship to it is a circular thing. The media reflects how we see ourselves, even as it helps to shape it. In 1961, the media gave us the noble Americans of The Guns of Navarone because that’s how we saw ourselves, and the movie in turn reinforced that image. Today, it gives us 24.
If your lawyer tells you that you can torture a prisoner and not go to jail, you can still decide not to torture him.
My point exactly. The ends do not justify the means, and we can choose more civilized methods.
we’re one terrorist attack away from him being a genius
I guess that depends on whether you believe that torturing or not torturing actually has anything to do with whether the bad guys succeed. I don’t. I trust good old investigative work far more than the Spanish Inquisition, especially after yet more evidence that torture isn’t as effective as Cheney would have us believe, and the very real possibility that the torture wasn’t about early warnings so much as getting the answers Cheney wanted to hear…