Why Use Torture Only on Terrorists?
That is the question Matthew Yglesias poses, now that advocates for torture are promoting its use for routine intelligence-gathering as opposed to the original rationale that torture should be limited to the mythical “ticking time bomb” scenario (emphasis is mine):
Predictably enough, I disagree [with the 58% of Americans who approve of torture]. But agree or disagree, what I really wanted to draw attention to was how different this discussion is from the debater’s gambit arguments we’re used to having about ticking time bombs and city-destroying nuclear weapons. The fact that Abdulmuttalab was on that plane, alone, with a not-very-impressive explosive stuffed down his pants is about the best proof you can think of that al-Qaeda doesn’t have a massive nuclear weapon hidden somewhere beneath Manhattan that they’re about to set off. The guy may or may not have some information that would be useful to intelligence officials, but he clearly doesn’t have specific information about imminent attacks. The idea being endorsed here is really just routinized use of torture as an investigatory technique.
At any rate, I would be interested to know how far the public—or how torture-loving conservative elites—would be willing to go on this. In a lot of ways terrorism cases strike me as unusually unpromising venues for torture. Something more banal like trying to get a low-level drug dealer to spill the beans on his supplier could really work. My view is that routinized deployment of brutality by government officials isn’t going to produce any systematic gains, so it doesn’t make sense to uncork this kind of treatment on Abdulmuttalab or Generic Drug Dealer X. But for torture enthusiasts is there anything special about terrorism suspects?
Of course, there is. They are stand-ins for the 9/11 hijackers who permanently removed our sense of ourselves as a nation that acted on the world but could not be acted on by the world. Those 9/11 hijackers reversed the natural global order: They acted on us but denied us the chance to act on them for what they had done. They snatched our revenge and shattered it by choosing to die in the act of killing. Every person with a Middle Eastern name since that time whom we suspected of having committed acts of terrorism, or of associating with terrorists, or with having knowledge of terrorist activities — whether or not they actually had the slightest connection to terrorists or terrorism — became that stolen opportunity for revenge.That’s why we don’t torture drug dealers or serial killers or bank robbers. We may be horrified at their deeds, but we do not desire revenge.
8 Responses to “Why Use Torture Only on Terrorists?”
advocates for torture are promoting its use for routine intelligence-gathering
Do you or Yglesias have any substantive proof of this statement, which lies at the heart of your rationale?
The Christmas bomber would have murdered at least 300 innocent civilians if his detonator had not failed. In what world is the mass murder of 300 civilians “routine”?
Further, there are indications that additional attempts will be made by the same group. Maybe the bomber in custody could provide information on his trainers that could lead to a breaking up of the effort. Maybe he knows where he was trained. Maybe he knows others who were recruited as bombers. Maybe he knows who the network players are in Europe. Maybe he knows nothing at all. Nobody knows the answer. Why not try to find out? And why not use every reasonable tool at our disposal?
Saving 300+ lives a pop makes this an endeavor with potentially high humanitarian payoff. In return, we have a terrorist made temporarily uncomfortable but there is no long term harm done to him.
Here's a thought experiment. Would you allow yourself to be water boarded if there were, say, a one in ten chance of saving the lives of 300 otherwise healthy patients with cancer? I think a lot of people would say, “go ahead, do me, I want to try to save the lives”, sacrificing their temporary well being for others. This would be seen as a highly moral act. But when it comes to a terrorist, suddenly it becomes immoral? Better to sacrifice the lives of hundreds than temporarily coerce a mass murderer? How dare we make the decision for him? A mass murderer has a “right” to remain silent rather than save the lives of hundreds of innocents? Who gave him that right?
I do not concede the moral high ground. I see a rationalization of people who want to pat themselves on the back for being “too good” to do what it takes to save the lives of others. (I'm speaking in general, not trying to attack you personally.) I respect that you may view the matter differently but stereotyping the 58% as some kind of mindless savages is more a comforting stereotype than a reflection of reality. 300 lives saved/plane is more than worth the sacrifice for us.
Of course, any info could not be used against him personally, i.e. at a trial. He poses little threat because he's in custody. And water boarding would be used as a last resort if he refuses to cooperate. Imperfect but better than doing nothing at all and feeling good about it.
Speaking of torture, we find another irrational post from DaMav.
I agree with Yglesias that neither Abdulmattalab nor drug dealers should be waterboarded, but that's about all I agree with. This is really just a typical hit piece from ThinkProgress.
Yglesias extrapolates a poll saying that people would support waterboarding an AQ member that tried to blow up 300 people and concludes “Americans love torture” and by the same reasoning should torture people who commit minor crimes. Kathy extrapolates further that we are all just really disappointed we didn't get to torture the 9/11 bombers. Never mind that nothing in the poll supports either one of these positions.
While I don't agree with DaMav that Abdulmattab should be waterboarded, I do agree this is an attempt to portray the 58% as mindless savages.
One man's irrational is another man's thinking. Surely it's not between water boarding (no) and coddling (no) a suspect like this. If we can send a man to the moon, it would seem we can come up with a system for handling a suspect who many reasoning people consider to be: a) a non citizen, b) a person trying to kill citizens of another country, other than his own, c) is a member of a group that has declared war on us, and which we have likewise declared war on.
I know the powers that be can come up with a much better system, than I can, but nature arbors a vacuum, so here goes. Secure the suspect (firmly), tape everything he says but no physical pressure above normal procedures, bring him to a secure facility with TV and audio and question him with a live feed to the justice department, and a duplicate feed to some international justice organization. Keep him secure and on live TV 24/7. If he meets a,b and c, above, transfer him to a military facility for enemy combatant processing. If he does not, process him as a civilian criminal. (Oh, and also no fast food, as that is not healthy.)
Speaking of torture…
“One brief post from DaMav packs the power of a hundred water boardings says TMV commenter!”
Thanks, I can use this on my resume
Geography controls. Law rules.
Since he acted in American air space, the law requires that the Nigerian be given a civilian trial with no torture. Otherwise we throw out habeas corpus protections for all Americans, a right more valuable than any number of American casualties.
If he were captured overseas as a guerilla, he could be tortured and given a military trial.
But fool Bush gave the terrorists special LEGAL status as “enemy combatants” so they are protected by the Geneva Convention which forbids torture.
Other than the location of the tent where he was trained, what does this psychopath really know?
“Other than the location of the tent where he was trained, what does this psychopath really know?”
Exactly the point I have made repeatedly. I think you have to be a special kind of idiot to believe suicide bombers or other cannon fodder are given critical information to be extracted from them. But those like DaMav (sorry bro) appear to have read too much Tom Clancy and watched too much Jack Bauer. They seriously underestimate the enemy, a common error of the poorly informed.
As for the polling data, I think I understand that a bit better. Who, when hurt or afraid, has not entertained violent fantasies against those who have harmed them? I myself can watch or read fiction (yeah, like Jack Bauer) and cheer him on in the “ticking time bomb” scenarios so graphically depicted. “Yeah, break another finger! He'll spill the beans. Threaten his kids.”
But the truth is, I want America to be better than that. Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition, by Nazi war criminals we prosecuted, by Japanese war criminals and those of China, Korea and Vietnam. This barbaric practice has been used on our troops, our diplomats, and now thanks to Bush and Cheney, by our own troops. That and death threats, defecation and urination on naked teenaged prisoners and all sorts of other twisted and frankly perverted things that BAD people do, not us. It's shameful and wrong and those who argue otherwise are morally bankrupt. They can go straight to Hell and probably will soon enough.
Obviously there are closed minded people who have convinced themselves that letting people die by the hundreds is a sign of morality and not moral cowardice. Standing by and admiring your clean fingernails while those around you are being murdered just doesn't strike me as an attractive option.
It's refreshing that near landslide numbers Americans appear to agree with that general perspective, but I have no interest in damning anyone to hell for disagreeing.