Krauthammer really goes over the top here:
Actually, I should give him credit - more credit than Condoleeza Rice, who is still lamely trying to insist that the US did not torture when she was part of the Executive Branch. At least Krauthammer is engaging the naked principle openly, even if the position he is taking is utterly fucking reprehensible.
The thing that bothers me is the unilateral nature of this argument. If the Nazis had captured US commandos in late may 1944, it would, under this standard, have been permissible for them to torture them to find out when & where the allied invasion would come. If an American airman bailed out over the Soviet Union in 1955, the Russians could have tortured him to find out about the Americans' first-strike intentions. Our enemies today could make use of this argument, explicitly laid out by leading American politicians, to torture Americans, if they felt threatened by the United States.
I don't see any argument for our ability to torture that can survive the reciprocity element. Why can we torture for the ticking time bomb, but Iran cannot? Because we're the "good guys?" (Never mind the fact that our routine use of torture brings that status into question.)
Glenn Greenwald points out the old left-winger himself, Ronald Reagan, signed and championed the Convention Against Torture, which reads:
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. [...] The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack.So, torture is impermissible, except when we think it's a good idea. Meaning it might be necessary, or it's more convenient that other methods. Conveniently, this definition seems explicitly defined post-facto to justify exactly what the Bush administration actually did. Score one for intellectual honesty!
Actually, I should give him credit - more credit than Condoleeza Rice, who is still lamely trying to insist that the US did not torture when she was part of the Executive Branch. At least Krauthammer is engaging the naked principle openly, even if the position he is taking is utterly fucking reprehensible.
The thing that bothers me is the unilateral nature of this argument. If the Nazis had captured US commandos in late may 1944, it would, under this standard, have been permissible for them to torture them to find out when & where the allied invasion would come. If an American airman bailed out over the Soviet Union in 1955, the Russians could have tortured him to find out about the Americans' first-strike intentions. Our enemies today could make use of this argument, explicitly laid out by leading American politicians, to torture Americans, if they felt threatened by the United States.
I don't see any argument for our ability to torture that can survive the reciprocity element. Why can we torture for the ticking time bomb, but Iran cannot? Because we're the "good guys?" (Never mind the fact that our routine use of torture brings that status into question.)
Glenn Greenwald points out the old left-winger himself, Ronald Reagan, signed and championed the Convention Against Torture, which reads:
I suppose Krauthammer is content to ignore this little international treaty, or maybe he thinks we should withdraw from it.No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
5 comments:
So this leads me to ask, if Eamon was being held by someone, and the someone's compatriot were tied to a chair in your kitchen, to what lengths would you not go?
My problem is that there are no lengths to which I would not go. I can freely admit that this is true, and that this is true makes me uncomfortable. But it's a reality. I can't escape the fact that I know that I would unregretfully torture someone under some scenarios.
I'd like to discuss this further, but first I'd like you to take a position about this scenario, because it's an important basis for the discussion. I'd implore you not to answer and then launch into how Krauthammer's scenario is not the same thing. Not yet, anyway.
I think it helps to have this conversation in discrete chunks. To that end, I will make a second reply addressing another of your points.
I don't see any argument for our ability to torture that can survive the reciprocity element. Why can we torture for the ticking time bomb, but Iran cannot? Because we're the "good guys?"Unequivocally yes. Whole-heartedly yes. Absolutely, can-I-get-an-amen yes.
Are you seriously advocating that we be fair? I mean, you brought up WWII and an airman being captured and tortured to get information about an allied attack. So let me say two things:
1) I am glad we nuked Japan.
2) I think it would have been bad to have been nuked.
My position right now is that if Kate were being held captive I would not what the villans compatriot tortured. If she were murdered I would not want her killer killed.
If faced with the wretched hell that would be the fact of child being in herself tortured, I would hope that I would not surrender my own humanity as a part of the tragedy.
I began with "My position now" because we all recognize that we don't know what we would want in the situation. But surely the inquiry is not about what our emotions would drive us to do.
Did you ever watch the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers? If not you should. Awesome. I rewatched it recently, and a scene in the final episode comes to mind. The war was over, the paratroopers were engaged in occupation and drinking Goering's liquor. One drunk private new to the unit shot three german prisoners, two Brits and one well respected and loved American sergeant. The guys from the squad get their sergeant to the doctor and then they go find the shooter. The scene cuts to the barracks where the shooter is tied to a chair while the paratroopers are systematically beating the crap out of him. In comes the Lieutenant. He is a vicious killer, reputed to have machine-gunned POWs and having shot one of his own men for being drunk on duty. He walks up and puts the muzzle of his .45 in the dude's mouth. He trembles, then pulls it out, pistol-whips him, and turns and walks away. "take him to the MPs," he says.
This fascinating hypothetical was explicitly addressed in an episode of the West Wing a few years ago. The President's daughter was kidnapped by terrorists. He realized that his emotional investment in the situation made him incapable of rationally directing the nation's military response, so he temporarily resigned (25th amendment) and let the Speaker of the House (who was a member of the opposing party) manage the crisis. Great episode.
in general:
1. I think letting passions and emotions drive this sort of policy is not a good thing. Policy should be set in advance of the crisis, in accordance with one's principles and values.
2. You never know how you'll react until you're there. I hope that my moral compass would keep me from being driven by emotions to do things which I would reject in a dispassionate moment.
So, to answer your question, I hope that if I were in your hypothetical case, I'd call the cops and let them do their job. Give me a gun, turn off the cameras and put me in a state of bloodlust and I honestly don't know what would happen. But from a rational standpoint, yes, I have some limits.
Re: nukes.
We're wandering a little afield here, as far as the morality thing goes.
"Should civilians be targets of military actions?" is a separate moral quandary from "Should we torture prisoners?" There is a common underlying question of "Are there limits on what we should do to win wars?" And the answer to that is clearly "yes." The rest comes down to tactics. Should we use nukes? What about napalm? What about fragmentation grenades? Poison gas?
I would argue that in the specific context of WWII, the strategic bombing (both conventional and nuclear) of civilian centers was justifiable. Appalling, in retrospect, and perhaps not as useful as it was thought at the time, but justifiable.
Many of the rules of war are not solely derived from moral principles, but from pragmatic/tactical ones. Poison gas seems one -- it's a nasty way to die, and tricky to control. So there's an explicit agreement on both sides -- you don't use it on me, I won't use it on you. Some of the prohibitions on torture and other Geneva Conventions also derive from this sort of calculus -- you treat my POWs well, and I'll treat yours well. And on the same note, you firebomb London, then I'll firebomb Dresden.
But what when there's no mutuality to the agreement? The Japs were famous for their brutal treatment of POWs. So are we then free from our obligation to humanely treat theirs? We know they tortured the guys from the Doolittle Tokyo raid to extract "confessions." So on that basis, if we wanted to, would we be free to torture their guys for some useful end?
I say no. I say that this is the burden that comes along with being the good guys. We have principles -- and principles are meaningless if you don't stick with them when this things are difficult. Some things are wrong, even if you can get away with it, even if it is useful. The price of being a civilized country is that there are some tactics that are off limits in all circumstances. That is what distinguishes us from the barbarians, right?
If you are positing that there should be no restrictions at all in warfare, that does strike me as a disturbing mindset.
Post a Comment