This is an archive page of the Blogger News Network. All stories posted on BNN are copyrighted by their author. All site elements on BNN are copyright 2005, Robert Hayes.
My Opinion: The Nuances Of Torture
by Whym Rhymer
Originally posted to BNN 3/14/2005
It seems like not a day will pass without someone bemoaning, rightly or wrongly, depending on your perspective, the abuses heaped upon our captive terrorist suspects while in U.S. Custody.
IMO (in my opinion), it's time for a little perspective . . . MY perspective.
A “safe” general definition of torture would be:
'the application of unwanted mental or physical persuasion.'
I was about to add the phrase 'for some specific purpose' to that definition but even that would be too specific by discounting mindless torture by some demented individual for no specific purpose.
Q: Is torture ever appropriate?
IMO: Yes!
Here's a hypothetical case:
A kidnap victim, a child, is alive, but bound, gagged and left alone. The kidnapper is apprehended and confesses to the kidnapping but refuses to tell the authorities where the victim is located; assuming that he still has a chance for freedom if he keeps this information to himself. If the victim is not found, he or she will die, slowly, perhaps painfully. (Granted, that's a Hollywood scenario but you get the idea!)
If the kidnap victim was, perhaps, my daughter or son and if I was given the opportunity, I would have no compunction about physically and mentally destroying that kidnapper, slowly and deliberately, exercising any extreme method that came to mind, until he told me what I needed to know.
If, on the other hand, I was a police officer with just limited personal knowledge of the victim, I would tend to be less enthusiastic about it (less emotional) but would feel it was my duty to save this victim's life; even if it meant I had to turn the kidnapper into a bleeding, drooling, weeping vegetable lying on the cold cement floor of the interrogation room.
Brutal? Yes! Justified? I truly believe it is!
The only difference between these two torturers (no sense mincing words, one who applies 'unwanted mental or physical persuasion' is a torturer) is emotional attachment. In both cases, the motive for the torture is to find the innocent victim before he or she dies a cruel and unjust death. One torturer, however is operating on an emotional level to save a life while the other is attempting to do his sworn duty by preventing a death.
Q: Does the father in this case have a greater moral justification for his actions than the police officer?
IMO: NO!
The policeman is trying to save a life out of his sense of duty. The father is trying to save a life because that individual life is important to him. In either case, saving an innocent life at the expense of the health and well-being of the person jeopardizing that life is, I feel, a very morally defensible position. (NOTE: For the moment I'm ignoring the legality of either person's actions -- I'll give my thoughts on that a little later.)
Thesis (so far): It is morally defensible to torture an individual in order to obtain information that will save an innocent life.
Unfortunately, applying this thesis to the situation in Iraq or Cuba is not very straightforward.
It is probably safe to assume that some of the terrorist suspects being held in U.S. custody have information (terrorist's plans, identities, methods, locations, etc.) that will save innocent lives. It is just as safe to assume that some of these terrorist suspects know nothing and may, in fact, be innocent civilians.
At this point, therefore, I seem to have turned my nice neat thesis into a guessing game and have added a new element. In the original hypothetical, we “knew” that the person being tortured was the perpetrator of a specific crime and we knew that he had information that would save a specific life. Now, in this war-time scenario, we are at a point where we are unsure who knows what and cannot even state unequivocally that person A, B or C is in danger.
Q: Does this war-time situation have any moral equivalence to the kidnapper scenario?
IMO: Yes!
Motive! In both cases the motive is to save innocent life at the physical and/or emotional expense of someone who is, or it can honestly be assumed, may be endangering those lives.
Whoops! Did I say “can honestly be assumed”? That, of course, adds a new parameter, the human factor.
Our U.S. servicemen and women (much like the general population) are, unarguably I believe, a mixture of honorable, moral people; dishonorable, immoral people; and many who can be led in either direction by the forces of the moment. Being an American does not, unfortunately, give you a bullet-proof capacity to make good judgements and does not automatically make you an honorable or even a good person. That said, you will have to assume that while there is, no doubt, torture taking place in our U.S. run prison camps, some of it is (by my standards at least) justified and morally defensible while some of it is not. Which brings me, very briefly, to the legal aspect of torture.
Not much to say! Simply stated, in most places and situations torture is illegal! Laws (civilian and military), however, are not applied consistently nor are they, by their very nature meant to be fair. Laws are created to prevent certain actions. The application of these laws, through judges and/or juries, tends (perhaps fortunately) to stray from the “letter of the law” and mitigate that “letter” with social and moral considerations specific to the person(s) making the judgement. And, of course, each case is considered on its own merit and circumstances. Cases involving allegations of torture then, when brought before civilian or military courts will receive the same random treatment, depending on the venue, and will result in judgements that, in some measure, reflect the temperament and personal beliefs of the judge(s). Like it or not, that's the way the legal system works.
IMO: In summary, here's what I believe concerning the alleged and actual torture of terrorist suspects:
1. First, and perhaps most importantly, I do not believe that non-citizens have any rights under the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, have a diminished legal standing in U.S. courts.
2. Torture exists! Sometimes our U.S. military applies this technique (torture as a technique to extract information from a suspect) correctly and sometimes they apply it unfairly.
Key point: Determining the good guys from the bad guys is not an exact science.
3a. Our soldiers are engaged in a war; whether it is a legal or illegal war is of no consequence to the soldier. They are engaged in fighting an enemy who has demonstrated that it has no respect for human life, but only respect the Koran -- as it is being interpreted for them by their religious leaders.
3b. Our soldiers are obligated to do whatever they must, within their rules of engagement, to complete their mission.
3c.In a war civilians will die and combatants (theirs and ours) will possibly be captured, imprisoned and tortured.
4. Due to 1, 2 and 3 above, I do not believe the military is under any legal obligation to punish their soldiers for torturing captured terrorist suspects. When the military punishes their soldiers it is to maintain discipline and respect for authority and to uphold their code of honor and traditions. Flagrant violations should, of course, be punished but, outside of those extremes, all benefit of any doubt should be given to the soldier.
One final note: Since the object of the entire exercise (i.e., torture) is to obtain information from people who are unwilling to give it, it seems to me that torture, in the 21st century, is a bit primitive. I find it nearly impossible to believe that there is not a drug available that would allow an interrogator to extract information from a suspect with no brutality or permanent damage. I've heard all my life about “truth serum” -- is that just a fiction? Is that any more invasive or any worse than mental or physical abuse?
Whym Rhymer blogs at Whymrhymer 101.
Archive Page