In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

I think the big question here is what constitutes torture, and what are allowable methods of interrogation. It's easy to simplistically say "torture is evil" and appeal to everyone's familiarity with the sort of awful stuff that the bad guys do to prisoners in the movies. But what about methods such as sleep deprivation, which are designed to disorient subjects rather than cause pain and suffering?

It's hard to argue that being executed for murder, or killed in a war, aren't worse than some interrogation methods. So you really can't take an absolutist stance against such things unless you're also against capital punishment and you're a complete pacifist.

Joe's commenters actually make some entirely reasonable points. We can all agree to condemn any form of cruelty toward captured terrorists. But before we can forcefully and unanimously denounce "torture," we must define what we are talking about.

There might be legitimate questions as to whether or not a certain practice rises to the level of torture, but waterboarding clearly falls into the torture category because its cruelty is undeniable. Sleep deprivation could be acceptable perhaps over a short period with respect to disorientation but is clearly immoral as an ongoing practice.

I don't follow the logic of needing to be a pacifist in order to take the absolutist position. That logic would seem to dictate that only pacifists can opposed the death penalty under all circumstances.

The irony is that many of those disagreeing with Joe would probably list relativism as one of the great dangers of modern society and as a threat to Christianity. Instead, it seems to me that Joe's position is very consistent with the idea that truth isn't relative, even if knowing it is a lifelong struggle.

And what of the damage to the soul and psyche of those we ask to engage in the practice? What happens to them when they can no longer distinguish between obtaining information and engaging in sadism?

Eric:
We can all agree to condemn any form of cruelty toward captured terrorists.

Actually, Joe's commenters don't all agree with that. Some of them seem to positively revel in the idea that Romans 13 legitimizes cruelty to terrorists and other bad guys, and the crueler the better.

We have just learned that a huge nuclear device from N. Korea or Pakistan is inside a cargo container ship docked in New York City. It is on a time delay with almost certain detonation in a very short period of time. One person in the City knows exactly where the bomb is and he is in your custody. There are too many container ships to search and no time to really do so. So, with X millions of people at stake what is it that you moralists would actually do?

Anon, if it comes down to that, then we're certainly just screwed. Torture won't help (if time really is so pressing, the guy can either hold out, or give too many answers). And it is an incredibly moronic kind of case to try to build a policy around. Stop watching re-runs of 24, and take some time to get minimally educated about the realities at issue here.

Here's a further thought: suppose that the difference between a group of foreign nutjobs having sufficient support to be able to smuggle a nuke in, and their not having that degree of support, is the baseline attitude towards the US among the population they are operating among. (However small you think the likelihood of that is, it's surely larger than the likelihood that we be in the silly Hollywood-style situation you describe.) And, just as we know that torture doesn't work to get useful information, we also know that it does work to completely poison world opinion against us. So, with X millions of lives at stake, indeed, perhaps you should be a bit more willing to let practical concerns trump your morally corrupt desire for torture.

Philosophical note: the structure of the EEEKWHATABOUTLASTMINUTENUKESEEEK!!! argument is almost exactly the same as Pascal's Wager (i.e., in letting a very high negative outcome swamp out underlying very low probabilities), and is fallacious for one of the same ways that the Wager is (i.e., because there are other events that have their own very high negative outcomes).

Joel wrote:

I don't follow the logic of needing to be a pacifist in order to take the absolutist position.

The logic is this: if you believe it's morally wrong to apply any sort of physical or psychological duress to a captured terrorist to gain information to prevent attacks on civilian targets, how can it be acceptable to kill to defend your country from an invading army (considering that some of those you kill would inevitably die very painful deaths)?

Anon, the "24 scenario" is really tiring because by letting extreme examples govern our moral thinking, we can justify anything (or, as they say, "bad cases make bad law"). Besides, as most people familiar with interrogation have been saying throughout this whole debate, torture doesn't actually get you to the truth, it gets you to whatever the torturer wants to hear, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

In your scenario, Jack Bauer is probably going to do what he thinks he needs to do. Then he should resign for letting a nuke get into NY (aka "not doing his job")

Forty years ago, I was almost tossed out of class by a Marian priest at the University I attended. The question was: "Knowing what I know today, (and if you could go back in time) what would you do if you were to find baby Adolph Hitler asleep in his crib?"

Correct answer wouuld be "nothing" as Marianists are great believers in pre-destination.

My answer? I said I would snuff the little bastard in his crib and attempt to make my peace with God at a later date.

Eric,

There are many people who take an absolutist position against abortion but also support the death penalty. It would seem to me there are as many differences between killing in battle and torturing the captured as there are between abortion and capital punishment.

Further it is often not just principles or ideology that influence positions on torture. Instead opposition is often based mainly or additonally on practcal conclusions about whether torture works or whether it places our own captured forces in greater danger.

Besides, if Pat Robertson can endorse Rudy, there has to be logic that allows one to both support just war and oppose torture. :-)

It isn't my scenario and dancing around the question only shows us dance steps. As Emeril says, "I don't know where you get your xyz but where I come from it don't come seasoned". Anent
a 10/26 interview with John Bolton carried in edited transcript in the Human Events Magazine of ll/5, "If you can take a nuclear device and put it in a boxcar and bring it into one of our harbors, we"re at risk...". Go ahead and attack a fellow who knows more about this than do you but then read the many page interview first, and then respond after being informed to the question instead of ducking out like the writer's strike where we won't know what Jack did.
It is not an unreasonable scenario. What is unreasonable is unreasonable.

A nuke coming into the country isn't the far-fetched part.

However: a scenario in which the only way (despite the proven greater reliability of other methods) that we can stop the bomb is by torturing (even though torture doesn't work) the one guy we know (_somehow_ know, but in a way that _somehow_ doesn't give us any better leads as to where the bomb us)... yeah, that's far-fetched to the point of moronitude.

Like I said, a nuke coming into the country isn't the far-fetched part. It's indeed a scary possibility, one whose likelihood we need to lessen by adopting intelligence policies that actually work, and which don't increase the drive & numbers of those who would either do us ill, or who would knowingly allow others to do so.

You do not, in fact, have the first damn clue about what you're talking about.

Phil,

I agree with your position on torture, but for different reasons. I don't want to have to estimate the probability of events as a rationale for law.

I would argue the "Golden rule" approach of the Geneva conventions. In a future conflict, any hope of OUR operatives NOT being tortured is being traded away for very little in return.

I think the big question here is what constitutes torture, and what are allowable methods of interrogation.

Article III of the 1949 Geneva Convention is very clear on the matter. It prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Military personnel who indulge in any of the above can be prosecuted by court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It could also lead to prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Torture is bad business not just on moral grounds. I have said it here before - the information gained this way can be very unreliable, and counterproductive. The best military interrogators use psychology, not waterboards: “We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” according to WWII vet Henry Kolm. And torture will corrupt our military - its sanctioned use would have a lasting negative effect on any civilized, professional military.

America was once attacked by a paranoid country which had adopted the policy of preventive war. During the war, American prisoners were subjected to the waterboard and when the war ended, we rightly put the torturers up for war crimes.

How the times have changed . . .

Joel,

There are many people who take an absolutist position against abortion but also support the death penalty. It would seem to me there are as many differences between killing in battle and torturing the captured as there are between abortion and capital punishment.

First, let me be clear that I don't endorse torture. What I'm talking about are methods designed to disorient subjects and wear down their resistance.

I am one of those who opposes abortion but supports capital punishment. My reason for that is that unborn children are innocent of any wrongdoing, while those who should be subject to the death penalty have committed the most heinous crimes imaginable. Still, I admit that my position is less absolute than that of pro-lifers who also oppose capital punishment.

Now, it's possible to rationalize support for just war while opposing the application of any sort of duress to captured terrorists. But when you look at the details--you're willing to subject an enemy soldier (quite possibly a conscript who had no choice in attacking your military forces) to horrific death or mutilation through conventional warfare, but you're unwilling to subject a captured terrorist (who volunteered for a mission of killing as many civilians as possible) to any discomfort--I think such a person's moral perspective is wildly out of whack.

Instead opposition is often based mainly or additonally on practcal conclusions

Absolutely. As I've told people before, when it comes to interrogating terrorists, I support whatever methods are the most effective without being cruel.

And as for interrogating soldiers, they should be treated with the utmost care and respect. Any civilized nation will recognize that we treat their captured military personnel well, and will reciprocate. Rogue nations and terrorist groups will torture our soldiers no matter what we do with terrorists.

Eric,

I'm not sure there is proof that how we treat suspected terrorists has no effect on our own soldiers held by foreign governments as opposed to by terrorists.

Your answer "without being cruel" doesn't tell me much unless I also know whether or not you agree with Dick Cheney that waterboarding isn't torture (and thus isn't cruel).

VP Cheney may not think waterboarding is torture, but 4 retired JAGs beg to differ. Here is their letter to Pat Leahy after the issue came up during hearings on Mukasey's nomination for AG:

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under  United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

Joel,

I'm not sure there is proof that how we treat suspected terrorists has no effect on our own soldiers held by foreign governments as opposed to by terrorists.

I'll say this: I'm pretty sure we did some nasty things to captured spies during the Cold War, and that both our enemies and allies either knew about it or could reasonably infer it (probably because they were doing it, too). I haven't heard anyone worrying about how that would affect captured US soldiers. I think the main difference between now and then is that spies weren't perceived as a direct threat by the American public, but terrorists are, so they get more media attention.

Granted, past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior, so we can't predict with certainty the effects of our current choices.

As for whether waterboarding is torture, I tend to think that it is, but I'm not entirely convinced. Demonstrations like this one make it seem acutely unpleasant, yet relatively benign. Assuming that any information obtained this way would be reliable, I can't rule out the possibility that it may be appropriate under extreme circumstances. But I'd definitely say it would have to be the absolute last resort.

Eric

Whatever you think about waterboarding is irrelevant. It is torture. Period. See the letter above from 4 retired JAGs attesting to this fact.

There may have been some very suspect interrogation of prisoners during the Cold War, but they were not done by our military, nor were they sanctioned by our military. It is illegal under the under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If it did happen at all, and I suspect it likely did, these "interrogations" would have been done by officers of the CIA (or foreign surrogates), and at their own peril -- they could expect to be hung out to dry if it ever came to light.

JohnS,

Sorry, but your appeal to authority isn't very convincing. I respect the retired JAG officers' interpretation of the UCMJ relating to waterboarding, but I've been discussing the morality--not the legality--of interrogation techniques. And I fail to see how a title gives a person superior moral reasoning.

but I've been discussing the morality--not the legality--of interrogation techniques.

Not quite true. You said this earlier.

As for whether waterboarding is torture, I tend to think that it is, but I'm not entirely convinced.

You may not be convinced. But those 4 retired JAGs are. Appeals to authority may not be your cup of tea, but Congressional hearings, for instance, appeal to authority all the time. But nevermind. Do a quick read of Article III of the 1949 Geneva Convention yourself. It is quite clear: It prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Our military personnel may not even participate in "humiliating and degrading treatment" of prisoners, let alone something as extreme as waterboarding. Those in uniform who do can be prosecuted by the military, and can also be charged with war crimes. We ask an awfully lot of our soldiers already, I don't think it's too much to ask that we keep them away from this uncivilized, immoral, corrupting activity.

Ah, the good old ad hominem when facts fail to support a prejudice. Torture does work often enough. If we postulate, say, New York City as the site for the nuclear blast we will accomplish nothing with the Philo position other than millions of dead people. That is a rather acute position of painting one's self into a corner but, then, Philo apparently does not reside in NYC. Done any active duty?

*sigh* Seems I have to explain this to anonytrolls all the time. Look, the following is what ad hominem looks like: "You are stupid. Therefore, your argument is stupid." And yes, that would be a fallacy, but that was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making is the (non-fallacious, though also non-deductive): "Your argument is stupid. Therefore, you are, in this regard, being stupid."

That you do not understand this boringly basic distinction is further evidence for the conclusion in question....

And, one more time, since you seem to have missed it twice already: your preferred policy creates a much greater risk of millions of deaths than mine does.

Can anyone name a war we've been in that our soldiers were not tortured by the enemy?
Our military is bound by the Geneva Convention and let's not kid ourselves, waterboarding is a cruel practice and definately torture. Our military should not do it. If you talk to young men who served in Iraq, many are proud of their service and we should want our soldiers to be proud of their service. Torture as a policy is dehumanizing to our soldiers.

John wrote:

but I've been discussing the morality--not the legality--of interrogation techniques.

Not quite true. You said this earlier.

As for whether waterboarding is torture, I tend to think that it is, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Yes, and when I wrote that, I was still talking about whether waterboarding was torture in the sense that it's a morally wrong way to treat captured terrorists.

And no matter how many adjectives you use to describe this or that practice, the line between acceptable practices and that which is "humiliating and degrading treatment" is far from clear-cut. I remember stories about a Texas sheriff who forced inmates in his county jail to wear pink underwear. Would that qualify as "humiliating and degrading treatment" if the military did that at Gitmo? Would it be torture?

The sheriff in Phoenix, Arizona has a number of practices currently in use that include pink underwear.

I don't think that this link has come across on this thread yet: an argument that waterboarding is uncontroversially & absolutely torture, written by someone who is very well-situated to know, namely, Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School.

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

(h/t crooked timber)

Thanks for the link to that article, philosopher.

There's one detail missing from it that Mr Nance discussed on Wed nite's News Hour. That is, that the Nuremberg Defense will not apply to members of the Army or CIA who are given order to torture prisoners. "Defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes.

Under the Nuremberg principles, "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Yoo and Addington may have come up with a clever device which they think allows the Commander in Chief to order our troops to break the law, but those who follow them will still be subject to prosecution. Former presidential counsel John Dean isn't so sure that the president who orders torture isn't a war criminal himself. He recently urged Congress to demand a special prosecutor to begin such an inquiry in exchange for the confirmation of nominee Judge Michael Mukasey.

No impersonating other ITA users, people. We can see your IP address.