I say 'Torture'; You Say 'Harsh Interrogation Techniques'.... (Updated)

Posted by Damozel | Via Dyre Portents, I found this interview with Jimmy Carter at CNN from a few days ago I otherwise probably wouldn't have read.  I am really in such denial about the issue, and about the reality of it, that I tend I think to gravitate away from writing about it more than I already have or---I admit it----thinking about it. 

The Carter interview was prompted by the October 4 New York Times article which revealed those clandestine memoranda from the DOJ supporting the use of "head-slapping, simulated drowning, and frigid temperatures."  .  "The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public."(CNN) The White House evidently wasn't bothered enough about this to bother to sidestep or tap-dance.   Not for the first time,  "Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people.""(CNN)  Why hasn't Laura, who is rightly exercised about the Burmese junta's treatment of the blameless monks, set him straight on this point?  Oh, that's right:  she's from Bush's Texas and in Bush's Texas there are different rules for good guys and bad guys.  I can't think of any other explanation.

But what about the rest of us?  Are we okay with this?

Or more pragmatically, has the American public really become desensitized to the use of techniques that are banned in other civilized nations through regularly seeing them used in the ludicrous comic book fiction of  '24' to get reliable information from enemy agents just in time to save the day?   

The note at Dyre Portents points out what those among the public who are advocates/enablers of 'harsh interrogation' are (still!) too confused by TV to realize:

Torture elicits false confessions and information from the innocent, it produces false information from the guilty/knowledgeable who have been properly trained or should either their loyalty or pain threshold be high. It does however provide actionable intelligence from those that lack loyalty and/or a [low] endurance for pain/discomfort. If I had the numbers to crunch I'd bet that the percentage of soldiers or terrorists that fall into that last group is really low.  (On Torture)

I don't believe for a moment that torture, or even 'harsh interrogation techniques' that aren't designed to inflict extreme physical pain, are the cutting edge as it were in what I'll call 'interrogation technology.'  Even when thumbscrews and the rack were all they had, they worked out eventually that they didn't yield really satisfactory or reliable results even if you don't mind being made into a monster.  Surely by now there are ways of inducing people to talk that wouldn't violate the standards of the Geneva Conventions?

We know that the military opposes the use of torture, not only for all the reasons set out above but because the knowledge that the U.S. engages in such techniques undermines any argument we would have that our own captured troops should be exempt from them. But of course those who advocate such techniques reverse the argument in any case, arguing that if even ONE such use against an enemy agent yields 'actionable intelligence' than the use is justified. 

But even if harsh interrogations worked all the time every time the way they do on '24', a large number of Americans (of which Jimmy Carter and I are two) think that torture is wrong not on  the pragmatic ground that it doesn't usually work or doesn't work often enough or reliably enough to overcome the fact that it violates international law, but because it's wrong. He and I would doubtless argue that all who call themselves Christians should be with us on this one, but of Bush calls himself a Christian and he's okay with it.    

Dyre Portents:

What we need to figure out is if the percentage of real information were getting from torture is worth the sacrifice of America's moral authority. I don't believe it is. We're supposed to be the good guys and it's high time we started acting like it. (On Torture)

UPDATED TO ADD:  Justin Gardner at Donklephant presents a quote from Iraq interrogator William Quinn, who explains why he didn't torture.  In his posting (Why We Shouldn't Torture), Gardner says:  "I haven’t heard anybody say it better, and I doubt I will."  Gardner quotes this excerpt from 25 year old former interrogator Quinn's piece, "Never Forget Our Enemies are Human Too."

It is true that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are wrong. The world cannot be perfected in the name of a political ideology or Islam or any other religion. Even if it can be, I am certain that perfection will not be achieved through violence. Nonetheless, a person’s involvement in an organization that practices terrorism does not put him or her beyond our comprehension. They are still people with similar wants and fears.  

Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, we’ve succeeded in killing a lot of people. We’ve invaded two countries, captured thousands of terrorists, and set up new, democratic-style governments in place of the dictatorships we ousted. It has been an incredibly therapeutic six years — at least it felt good at the beginning — but it hasn’t been effective at stopping or even slowing terrorism.

  The people who decide our counterterrorism strategy are far better informed than I, but I suspect that, when we are successful, it will be because we recognize our enemies as human and develop plans that recognize their humanity. We need to be tough, and we shouldn’t back down from a fight, but we also need to learn that empathy can be as powerful a weapon as missiles (Never forget that our enemies are human, too.)

There are things in Quinn's article I am inclined to question or on which he and I differ.  I haven't found the past six years 'incredibly therapeutic' or even 'therapeutic' at all; the deaths of those who have died in Iraq and elsewhere don't make me feel any better about those who died in  9-11; I've got my fingers crossed for the 'new, democratic-style governments;' and I can only hope that Quinn turns out to be wrong about the effect on terrorism.  Also I am not  as sure as he is that the people who decide counterterrorism strategy are all that well informed, as opposed to operating based on premises and models that reality might refute.  But I applaud him for recognizing the value to interroragtion technology (see above) of empathy.  I wonder what many interrogators skillful at building that bridge might be able to accomplish  that Jack Bauer could not.  [update ends]

In the wake of Abu Ghraib, John McCain, the only Republican 'frontrunner' with a responsible view of torture, has spoken out against the use of conduct in violation of the Geneva Conventions:

John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam....led the fight for the interrogation restrictions. McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines, adding that he mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . . . that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies."In his closing speech, McCain said terrorists "hold in contempt" international conventions "such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture."

"I know that," he said. "But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith."...(WaPo 2005)

"If it saves even one innocent life...."   No. According to me and Jimmy Carter and John McCain (and, incidentally, Jesus Christ), you can't justify a wrong action by its consequences or justify the means by the end.  Harming your enemies to bend them to your will is wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong.   (I get what satisfaction I can out of---for once---being in a position to take the view that has no nuances or qualifications and exceptions or lines to draw.)

In the end, of course,  McCain and Bush agreed on a torture ban that left some quite sizable loopholes for the White House and for those who mistreated detainees(CNN 2005).  But mark this:  "Bush said the ban "is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."(CNN 2005) And watch him say it here.   So was he lying then or now? 

Neither.  He wasn't lying at all, any of those times.  He just defines 'torture' differently from Jimmy Carter and me.  As with Clinton's definition of 'have sex with that woman,' so with Bush's definition of 'this government does not torture.' Carter:  "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." (CNN)

And of course none of this debate is fresh or new, any more than the outrage expressed in the blogosphere is fresh or new.  It's just the Abu Ghraib issue all over again, except it seems that most members of the public can't really muster up any indignation or outrage.  I found myself completely unsurprised by The New York Times' big revelation.

But Jimmy Carter---a Democratic presidential candidate I didn't vote for, if you want to know--- still has plenty of outrage on hand and I am glad he's there to take a stand.

Carter:

Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights...We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused(CNN).

Did any of us seriously believe that the Bush Administration was going to change its ways based on anything McCain or Colin Powell or anyone else said to it?   Nope---they made their priorities quite clear. 

Carter's comments probably come across to a lot of people as kind of tiresome, kind of old hat, kind of the same stuff we've been hearing for the last two or three years, blah blah Geneva Conventions blah blah torture blah blah blee blee human rights.  I mean, is anyone besides a few bloggers even listening at this juncture?  Does anyone really think we can do anything to stop it or change, besides wait for Bush to go away?

I  don't mean to sound cynical.  Put it down to a stifled, drowsy, unimpassioned grief.  I feel the same way as Carter.  And what gets me down isn't that Bush differs from me, but that so many people seem to agree.  Am I wrong or are they?  Is there a right answer? 
 

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS:

 "Aggressive Interrogation Techniques" Part 2  (ATTN:  Republican Candidates).

 "Aggressive Interrogation Techniques" versus The American Way.

 More Secret & Illegal Maneuvering re: the Administration's Use of Torture

Tales of Repression in Burma; First Lady Laura Bush Takes a Stand

Jon Stewart:  Blackwater

General Says Rumsfeld Misled Congress re: Abu Ghraib

Colin Powell Calls for Closing of Guantanamo

Senate Takes Swipe at Secret CIA Prisons, Seeks to Learn What Bush Knew Before Invading Iraq

Boeing Faces Suit over CIA's Secret Abductions

LINKED

1. Carter says U.S. Tortures Prisoners (CNN)
2. Never Forget Our Enemies Are Human too (Detroit Free Press)
3. Senate Supports Interrogation Limits (WaPo 2005)
4. McCain, Bush agree on torture ban (CNN 2005)

BN-POLITICS
Tales of Repression in Burma; First Lady Laura Bush Takes a Stand

Comments

[No Nonsense girl]

Bush needs to be impeached.

[Damozel]

Many have said so. It just depends on whether you think Cheney is better or worse!

[No Nonsense girl]

He's just as worse I think. That's why I hope for a democrat president, may it be Obama or Clinton. A democrat president is IMP the solution to stop part of this madness.