TORTURE MAIL II: And, I hope, the last one.

More from Radley Balko.

Jim Henley notes that it’s illegal.

Martin Kimel. No permalinks (lame); scroll to 3/11.

Lynn Gazis-Sax says she has a post up but I can’t see it–maybe you can.

Mark L. Shanks: I certainly recognize your (and many other’s) thoughtful concerns about torture. And even the less thoughtful ones, like “because we are America, DAMN IT!…”

(…a personal favorite…)

That being said, I think that it may be better to recognize that this a morally grey area….

Socratic question: Is the abuse of human dignity of both the torture victim and the torturer worth the life of an innocent third-party who would die if information is not obtained by torture? Who decides? The torturer? The tortured? The third-party? Or is the attitude of ascribing natural rights an idea purely part of the western tradition unrelated to other’s views of the world.

I would suggest that since the age of enlightenment, western nation-states have tried to codify acceptable behavior among combatants, so as to largely exclude from hostilities civilian populations largely uninvolved in the conflict itself. Certainly one could argue how effective this has been, citing unrestricted submarine warfare, indiscriminate bombing, and fighting in urban centers that happened in both of the World Wars of the last century. However, certainly the Geneva conventions have been observed more than perfunctorily. Chemical weapons use has been the aberration, not the norm, and the deliberate targeting of civilian populations has not been a widespread practice of western armies. Torture clearly flies in the face of these rules, breaking the bounds of acceptable behavior towards miliary prisoners and non-combatants.

However, such niceties are not necessarily part of any Middle Eastern traditions….and certainly do not fit within the cosmologies of present terrorists of either Marxist or Islamic-fundamentalist stripes. Here we have a rejection of the rules of war, and any willingness of their enemies to limit themselves to “morally pure” methods will be gratefully accepted as an advantage by the terrorists. While I am all in favor of limiting the effect of war on third-parties, I believe that those who are unwilling to operate outside common moral strictures are equally not in a position to expect them from those they chose to attack. While we should honor the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war…..illegal combatants (ie: terrorists and those who practice genocide), who reject these strictures, should be guarded ONLY by a decision as to what acts are so fundimentally inhumane that they demean the torturer or some innocent.

Further, I would ask, what is torture? Certainly gross physical abuse such as breaking bones, burning, severe electric shock, and drowning probably qualifies. Witholding needed food, water, & air usually is. But is preventing sleep? Or human companionship? Is sensory deprivation torture? Unrelenting noise, light, heat, or cold that does not cause physical harm? What about removal of clothes? Forcing one to soil oneself? Restriction of movement? If pain is inflicted without lasting physical harm, does that make it better or worse? Are the use of sensory-altering chemicals torture? What about deprival of dignity without physical injury? (…for example, keeping Islamic fundimentalists naked and guarded by women who ridicule their manhood…) What about forcing a prisoner to demean themsleves to survive? (…say, only offering that same prisoner ham & cheese sandwiches for food.)

On a personal basis, I am not very comfortable with physical abuse that leaves permanent effects…..but am much more sanguine about methods that are primarily mentally or psychologically invasive. Using chemicals; sleep, sensory & social deprivation; and mild physical punishment on illegal combatants would not cause me to lose sleep at night or respect in my government…especially if it prevented terrorist attacks or further genocide.

The possibly-anonymous person from yesterday: The so-called “Jesuit Relations” tell of the Hurons’ response to the description of Hell as a place of eternal torment: so inured were they to the idea of torture as a necessary and even a desirable test of manhood that they did not merely scoff at Hell, they were bewildered by

the idea of threatening people into good behaviour. A real warrior could not even consider giving in to such threats.

It is just possible that some of the enemies before us now — men toughened by prior danger and hardship and inspired, in some cases, by religious fervour — might react to threats of torture, or even the reality of torture, in the same way.

Rob: I’m late in this discussion of torture. My first reaction is that the subject is not worthy of consideration: it’s clearly always wrong. I don’t dispute that one can probably appeal to some supposed “moral authorities” and find in their words a justification for torture. One may say that torture is justified, if, if , or if. Another may say no, it’s never justified. Yet another may allow that torture is justified for another set of ifs. In the end, how do I decide which of these authorities to follow? I must listen to my own heart and choose: with which of these authorities does my own heart resonate? In truth, then, I did not need the authorities at all–I needed only the moral sensibility that God gave me to guide my free will. My heart says no to torture.

Susan Taylor: I read semi-regularly and comment…oh, never before this. But I would like to voice my opinion on the discussion of torture–not on torture itself, per se, but on how one can discuss the subject.

First, I believe it is disingenuous to discuss whether one should or should not be allowed to use torture at all. This discussion quickly degenerates into the “for limited torture” side building elaborate scenarios to convince those who are “against torture at all costs”. From this point, discussion is not only non-productive but nauseating. I am a parent and I don’t need any help imagining bad things happening to innocents.

Similarly, I believe it is equally unreasonable to have a discussion of how to limit torture. Your case by case discussion of what you presented as “attempted stopping-points on the slippery slope” proves that. Once

you start discussing specific scenarios the discussion again degenerates.

I think productive dialogue between the two sides in this matter is only possible by first agreeing that torture is a tool that could theoretically be used. Those arguing against any use of torture then need to present the case that the cost of using that tool is always higher than the cost of not using it. Those arguing for any use of torture need to present the case that there is a point where the cost of using it is worth the potential gain. Then perhaps we can avoid grim scenarios and start focusing on how one evaluates the underlying moral weight of the decision.

My approach may sound trivial but I’ve applied to discussions of abortion for a number of years. If someone is trying to debate the issue of abortions with “what if the child is a product of incest” or “only in cases of rape” or “here’s a picture of an aborted fetus” I’ve found that the discussion will go nowhere. If someone says “I believe that God created life at the moment of conception and that intentionally taking that life endangers the soul of the person who takes it” I may not agree but we may have something to discuss.

Sandra Meisel: The obvious book for the torture debate is (unsurprisingly) TORTURE by Edward Peters, a historian whose other famous book is INQUISITIONS.