Posted by
Joe on Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:27:45 PM
I want to see a vigorous offensive in dealing with threats facing this country. I want victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to see the perpetrators of 9/11 be killed or brought to justice. I would describe myself as a conservative. I have been increasingly disturbed, however, but many on the right promoting coercive force and even torture as a legitimate policy for the United States Government to adopt. I do not believe people offering such views are evil. Their promotion of coercive force and torture is mostly about security and protecting the innocent. This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue. There are many conservatives who are absolutely opposed to torture (and not surprisingly, many of them are pro-life). http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1840 There is not much difference morally in waterboarding a detained al Qaeda member (like the Bush Administration did) and rendering terrorist suspects to Egypt or other "friendly" countries for torture by proxy (which is what the Clinton Administration did).
Those who promote these views make a valid point that we can bomb and kill the innocent by the thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) in war to achieve a legitimate military goal. If torturing a terror suspect, such as a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, can save thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, shouldn't we do what is necessary? Waterboarding may be bad, but it is not the same as putting someone on the rack. If it saves thousands of lives--is it morally reprehensible not to do it? Especially since true torture by U.S. forces is, thankfully, the exception not the rule. Regardless of what George Tenent said on Sixty Minutes, torture and wrongful deaths of detainees definitely happened. Here is Slate's interactive display on coercive force and torture post 9/11: http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/introduction.html You may not like its content, but the information in that story is correct and verifiable.
There has been an ongoing debate (if you can call it that) between Andrew Sullivan vs The Corner (although not all corner commentators are pro torture) and Dean Barnett on Hugh Hewitt's site over whether coercive force and torture is justified. The posts are numerous, but here are a few. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_25_05hm.html http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk1NDY4NDAxMjg2N2RlYzQzODRlYThlZjRlYzJkZmE= http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDQ2NTM4M2ZjZTRjZmNhOTIwMjEwZWI4OWRhNDk2Y2I= http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTY4Y2QzNTNmYjU5MjU5NDJiNWNiZmNkZTAwOTczMTE= http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e3e539ef-c20a-488a-b9cc-ee2441e04e7a
Alan Dershowitz made the argument that torture of Khaild Sheikh Mohammed could be justified shortly after his capture. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/ Charles Krauthammer has made similar arguments in the defense of torture. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp
I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's observation about the pieties expressed by the anti-torture side. This has led to the parties talking past one another. There is, however, common ground. John Derbyshire, who immediately after Abu Ghraib was exposed made light of it. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTMxNmI5ZmE2Y2Y3MWU5MTM2NjJlNzVmYmUxZWQxYTY= Yet Mr. Derbyshire later authored this article which is stridently anti-torture. http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111601.shtml Mr. Derbyshire makes the point about torture ineffectiveness and goes beyond to say it is not justified even in the "ticking bomb scenerio." There is of course a difference between coercion, sexual humilation, and torture (where those lines cross can be blurred) that confuses the debate.
Dean Barnett indirectly accused me of "cherry picking experts" by posting the interview Hugh Hewitt had with Colonel Stewart Herrington (Ret.). http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/c91d0039-056d-4c45-8ea7-44e4f22796fd Col. Herrington, who has conducted thousands of U.S. Army military interrogations from Vietnam to Iraq, is against coercive force being used to obtain information from suspects. Herrington makes the point that coercive techniques such as loud music and sleep deprivation, while not torture per se, are generally counter productive to getting good intelligence from a detained terrorist or suspect. I know I am no expert on this subject, but I can recognize that Col. Herrington is. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7 I have yet to see any of the pro coerive force crowd actually say Col. Herrington is wrong or find an interrogation expert to debate him.
So the subject of this blog is simple: Does coercive force and torture work? And should we do it? I admit that I am biased on the subject. I am against coercive force and torture being institutionalized and legalized. Denzel Washington makes the argument here in the fictional 1999 film, The Siege. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7auLWUWdk Strange to think that movie was made before 9/11 (and the towers of the WTC are in many of the shots). Still, the issues addressed in that film are just as current today.
I also admit that right after 9/11, I would have been calling out for torturing anyone associated with that attack (out of revenge and anger). I know I thought it at the time.
I recognize things might happen in the heat of battle that, while technically illegal, should be forgiven. I supported forgiving Lt. Col. West of his mock execution of an Iraqi insurgent. http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand.html?http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/ChainOfCommand_AllenWest.html
Soldiers and Marines risking their lives need to be held to a lesser, more forgiving standard on the battlefield. But I remain convinced that creating a legal system of torture and abuse of detained suspects, by the Department of Defense and by other agencies, such as the CIA, is un-American and definitely not in our best interests. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to discuss the issue with out name calling and pejoratives. The moral issues pro and con are important.
Does torture even work? Is the moral harm worth the benefit? Is there even a benefit to doing it? We all recognize that you can beat information out of suspects--the question is whether once you adopt such a poiicy you make your intelligence gathering operations more or less effective?
Some of the abuse that was unintended, such as Abu Ghraib, was still foreseeable with the policies being approved by the Bush Administration and Don Rumsfeld. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact I believe that the propaganda and political disaster of Abu Ghraib endangered the entire Iraqi mission and definitely costs hundreds of additional American causualties (in inflaming the Iraqi insurgency). Christopher Hitchens argues engaging in torture actually weakens your intelligence services: http://www.slate.com/id/2102373/ Like Derbyshire's comments above, history has shown that. I believe Hitchens is right, but I welcome your views on the subject.