Torture by any other name
WASHINGTON — Several years ago, I asked a veteran journalist for advice.
“I’m trying to figure out if I have an ethical conflict,” I began.
“If you have to ask, you do,” he said.
Simple as that. In posing a question, we often reveal the answer.
Apply the same construct to torture. If we have to ask, it probably is.
Yet, as we’ve learned with the recent release of Justice Department memos related to interrogation techniques, Bush administration lawyers tortured the English language trying to justify the unjustifiable.
“Enhanced interrogation” wasn’t really torture, they decided, as long as the pain administered didn’t result in “death, organ failure, or serious impairment of bodily functions.” By that definition, waterboarding—the simulated drowning technique favored by Inquisitors ferreting out heretics—wasn’t torture. People might feel like they were going to die, but they weren’t really, and so…
In other now-familiar mutations, those held in custody weren’t really prisoners, but “detainees” or “alien combatants,” and therefore not entitled to humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions.
Granted, it is easy now to sit back and judge these definitions and memos as morally repugnant. It is less easy to place ourselves in the mindset that dominated the nation immediately after 9/11 and that guided the Bush administration in trying to prevent future attacks.
But we are also reminded that those who objected most strenuously to relaxed definitions of torture and the scrapping of due process even for “alien combatants” were among those most familiar with war and interrogation, including Sen. John McCain and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. While lawyers sought loopholes, our most admired warriors argued for protection of the laws of war.
Few have put it more clearly than South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is also an Air Force colonel and senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School and has served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a 2006 Newsweek interview, Graham said: “Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it (then) we’re not a rule-of-law nation.”
It comes down to that. We’re either a rule-of-law nation—or we’re not. We can’t invent definitions of torture for one type of person that wouldn’t be acceptable for another, no matter how much we may despise or distrust him. As Graham put it: “I don’t love the terrorists, I just love what Americans stand for.”
Meanwhile, how trustworthy are the confessions of the tortured? Not very, according to those who know.
Most important, we can hardly present ourselves as arbiters and protectors of human rights when we selectively abuse those in our custody, no matter how compelling our cause. When we parse definitions of “mental pain” and “suffering,” we begin to slip down the slope of moral ambiguity where deceit finds company among the dead.
The lawyers who wrote these now-public opinions clearly were looking for ways out of a moral quandary—how to square the means with the end. And doubtless many Americans agree that protecting the United States against terrorist attacks justified nearly any method.
Almost daily I receive a recycled 2002 quote by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who argued in a “60 Minutes” interview that most people would justify torture under certain circumstances:
“Is there anybody who wouldn’t use torture to save the life of his child? And if you would, isn’t it a bit selfish to say, ‘It’s OK to save my child’s life, but it’s not OK to save the life of 1,000 strangers?’ That’s the way people will think about it.”
In his book “Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age,” Dershowitz proposes that since torture is a given under those certain circumstances, then “torture warrants” should be issued by a judge.
He is right that most of us would do whatever necessary to save our child, possibly even torture a kidnapper. Likewise, if we stumbled upon someone trying to harm a loved one, we would kill the attacker if necessary to stop him.
But those are both darkly impassioned environments. It is by the cool light of day that we devise our laws. And it is by that same light that we judge our actions.
When we ask if something is torture, the answer is another question: What kind of people should we be?
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com.
Apr 30, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/...
People died is a direct result of torture. Wrong information was acquired, our enemies became greater enemies and people were tortured.
Torture resulted in very little positive and quite a bit negative...including deaths.
To say no one died because of torture is ignorant.
What good information? The LA attack that was foiled months before the torture took place. That is what Hannity tried to sell - LYING.
Come on, do some research. If torturing worked so well nobody would be against it.
Apr 30, 2009 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
lakekennedy thanks for being honest, it would be a contradiction and I see your point. But I still stand that abortion is wrong and is murder and I might add legal.Legal killing is just the way you explain it and soothe your conscience. Just because the torture wasn't legal it is wrong? If it was legal would it be ok? How else would you say we should get the information that we got from them? And it was very helpful in the war on terror as people will see when all the evidence is out. There was no killing during the torture and good information was extracted.
Apr 30, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Excellent point.
Whoanellie you do contradict yourself...if you are against abortion...in order to be consistent, you'd have to be against torture.
+
I wonder, am I likewise inconsistent? I'm pro choice (but against abortion), but am against torture...I do see the difference between the two. I just wonder what the parallels are if they do indeed exist.
Apr 30, 2009 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
who
I am against abortion but pro-choice.
I believe the abortion issue is much more complicated than the torture issue.
The entire issues of life, pain, etc...can be debated regarding abortion but it cannot be debated regarding prisoners.
I understand your point but I think you are reaching with an apples and oranges comparison. Although if you believe life begins at conception and abortion is wrong I would assume you are against the death penalty and torture. If not, you are inconsistant.
Apr 30, 2009 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
and yet some think the toture & mutilation of babies in the womb is ok because it's legal and it's choice??!!! they are defensless and have no say, is that humane or is that torture of an innocent?? I would say it was murder but then you can explain it away to sooth your conscience. Our President would agree with you on it, but yet to save our country he would do nothing!
Apr 30, 2009 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Two wrongs don't make a right.
What is right is right.
I would not condone torture - the US should not torture.
It is like not negotiating with terrorists in a hostage situation. People may die but the US is willing to take that chance because of its convictions.
I don't believe torture works and I don't believe that is how the US should treat people. Why do we have a system of laws if when it is convienent we are going to ignore them? If we do that, how are we different than the common criminal?
Apr 29, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why think, how would you handle an interrogation if the lives of people depended on the answer? What is more important, their lives or your personal set of values? What would you do if you didn't get an answer? What if people died because you FAILED to get an answer? Do you think people really care if you sacrificed your life because you stuck to your standards while others died because of it? Must we leave our selves defensless in the world of intelligence because we might be thought of as a cruel and mean nation? Maybe we should change the word torture to "man-made information gathering process" that way it will be less offensive to sensitive eyes and ears. Again, I ask you to read the various comments made in other blogs on what to do with the individual(s) who abuse a child by hitting, throwing around or burning with a cigarette. A good portion of the comments that come in are to torture the individual(s). Does this meet your standards?
Apr 29, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
who
Listen to Hannity much?
We (the US) should set the standard for how any human person is treated. We should not condone torture because the enemy murders.
Torture doesn't work and is more likely to strengthen the resolve of our enemies than give us vival information. If I die because we didn't torture then that is my sacrifice. I would rather die knowing I live in a country that respects all humans...regardless of how evil they may be, than live in a country that believes...eye for an eye.
Those who are religious, I would enjoy your thoughts on this.
Apr 28, 2009 at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sadly, General Petreus, commanding officer in theater sees all harsh and even unjust treatment as being self-defeating. It seems that the blow hard arm chair Generals don't know what they are talking about as usual.
Apr 27, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with davvic & mpalm, we have a right to defend ourselves and unfortunatly sometimes it's to extract information from enemies with some not quite pc means. And now that our commander in theif is back from his apologetic tour everyone is going to think we are stupid when it comes to war! I've said it before, our president needs to man up and quit giving away our country! Can you socialism!??
Apr 27, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
I dont see anything wrong with waterboarding...its funny how the public is freaking out over this, yet dont even flinch when an American is beheaded...
Apr 27, 2009 at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
"It is by the cool light of day that we devise our laws. And it is by that same light that we judge our actions." Unfortunately, torture is not applied during the 'cool light of day' but in the "darkly impassioned environment" of war. I have no doubt that the terrorists are now under the hopefully misguided belief that Obama doesn't have the stones to stand up to them and it's only a matter of time before we suffer another attack from them.
Apr 27, 2009 at 2:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think the golden rule should apply to what is or is not torture. How would we expect others to treat our citizens suspected of wrong doing? I am not saying to free suspected terrorist, but let's hold our head high and not stoop to their level.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.