TheAgitator.com
Torture, Ct’d.
Friday, March 7th, 2003Jim Henley thinks it’s patently unAmerican.
Let’s throw out another hypothetical:
We capture an al-Qaeda commander. We have intelligence saying a suitcase nuke has entered the country. We know he knows where it’s going and when it will be detonated. We sit him in a room and question him for days. But we don’t use force or coercion. He says nothing. We lose Buffalo.
I say if our government knew he knew we were going to lose Buffalo, and our government didn’t take every single step at its disposal to extract that information from him — to protect the live of perhaps a million Americans — then our government failed us. And I’d be pretty pissed off.
Even libertarians recognize that some freedoms need to be sacrificed in wartime. We realize that government will always ask us to sacrifice more than is necessary, and we guard against that, but we do realize that some sacrifice is necessary. We are at war, right now. I have loads of respect for Jim, but he seems to think September 11 was merely one tragic anomaly — or at least we should assume that’s what it was, and if it should happen again, well, then we get serious. I hope he’s right on the anomaly bit. But I’d rather not take the chance.
If I remember right, Jim also had little quarrel with our killing an al-Qaeda operative in Yemen some months back — we blew up his car with a drone plane. So what, I’m wondering, is the difference between torturing an al-Qaeda operative without due process and killing one? What’s the difference between a soldier putting a gun to an enemy combatant’s head on the battlefield and demanding to know where the rest of his unit is hiding — and maybe he shoots off a finger if the guy doesn’t talk — and the feds putting a gun to an al-Qeada operative’s head in a sealed room at the Pentagon, and demanding to know where the rest of his cell is — and maybe they pry off a few fingernails if he doesn’t talk?
Seems to me that the only difference between killing enemies without a trial and torturing them without a trial is the added benefit that, with torture, we might be able to extract information that would lead to other operatives, or that might thwart future attacks.
It also seems to me that of all the civil liberties we’ve been asked to give up in the war on terror, allowing our government to do nasty things to dirtbag terrorists captured in other countries — in hopes of staving off future attacks and saving American lives — is the least important of them.
First, no, we’re not at war. The perpetual mantra of “we’re at war” is a propaganda device the Bush junta uses to keep people scared. The 9/11 attacks were a grave crime, indeed a crime against humanity, and ought to be treated as such. They were not, and ought not be treated as, an act of war. The “War on Terror” is as phony as the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Drugs”– and like those “wars” it is nothing but an excuse for power-grabs, mass theft, and the militarization of everyday life.
Second, this libertarian for one does *not* recognize that freedoms need to be sacrificed in wartime (even the real kind). The premise that sacrificing liberties actually makes us safer is false– it only replaces one threat with another.
Third, *how do you know* with such certainty that the people the government is torturing are in fact “dirtbag terrorists”? The say-so of government officials? Why do you trust them on this, when all evidence indicates that they lie every time they get a chance? Until some independent discovery process has been applied, those “dirtbag terrorists” remain human beings who *must be presumed innocent*– and to torture human beings presumed innocent is reprehensible, period.
Yes, there are scenarios you can spin out in which torture could save many lives. Yes, there is a nonzero probability that one of those scenarios might come to pass. Nevertheless they remain speculation. Against that speculation is the hard, horrible, overwhelming reality of state abuse of power.
Nick,
9/11 was not just a “crime” as you put it. It was an act of war. And yes we are at war. If you havent noticed, Terrorist groups such as Hammas, and al-qaeda among others are at war with us. They have even said so. They want the destruction of the US. So are we supposed to just sit back and do nothing to stop them or to win against them simply because you think they are only criminals? They may not be a “Nation” in the classical sense, but that does not mean that we should treat them as simple criminals. You probably would have said the same thing about 12/7/41 as others in that day did. “It was a crime, Were not at war, quit picking on Japan…” etc.
In which case, Chris, you have voided the Bill of Rights.
Let’s check the status:
We are now *at* the point where even American citizens (like you and me) can be picked up and jailed indefinitely. We either don’t get a trial, or we get a secret military tribunal, using secret evidence. And with Patriot II, we might simply be stripped of our citizenship, and then taken to Guantanamo.
Of course, this only applies until such time as the US government decides to bind itself again.
I think it’s best to keep torture illegal. To make a legal exception just opens the door for a torture “doctrine” to be expanded.
It will most likely still happen. But it will either be beyond our control which makes any argument about right/wrong and legalities fairly moot. Or, it’ll be done in those cases where the intelligence agencies feel that torture is worth the risk or reprisal.
Barry
Yet you are still sitting at your computer speaking against the war. (you obviously are against it) Has anyone drug you from your home in the middle of the night? Have you even been aproached by any law enforcement of any kind? No.
You are safe. If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
But some how I get the suspision that if your wife or your children were killed in bomb that went off at an airport terminal, you would be the first to cry bloody murder.
You dont live with that fear and will not think twice about traveling this summer. Why? Because there are agencies hunting out cells and their supporters to insure you do feel like you living in the West Bank.
And what is the best thanks you can muster up? Strong criticism and fucking conspiracy theories.
I feel a quote coming on:
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”
-Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men
The whole “ticking bomb” scenario is an exercise in extreme utilitarianism.
Well, OK. What’s the disutility of America becoming repressive? If we give up on the notion of human rights in extreme cases, then we are on a slope, possibly slippery, above giving up on human rights in toto. And thus, possibly, repression and a generation or two of military rule, full socialism, and all the associated bads. How many will die in American gulags? How many will be tortured for drug selling?
How likely is that scenario? Not very. But then neither is the ticking bomb scenario. Both have, potentially, very large costs in lives. They are nearly impossible to decide between, at least using utilitarianism.
Of course, that illustrates one of the problems with utilitarianism: utility is not observable, even in the present. In the future even less so. On the other hand, rights are an easy thing to see and enforce. Torture is reasonably clear.
Me, I’ll take rights, thank you very much. All animals maximize utility. Rights sets us apart from the animals.
Our laws only apply when within our borders. For instance, if an American goes to a country where buying and using pot is legal, then he has every right to do just that. So, if we kill a terrorist while interogating him in another country, then we’ve only broken the law if that country has specific provisions for that.
It’s also very unlikely that any American had his hands in on the actual torture. We let our friends handle that for us.
Aside from that, I just don’t give a damn. I’d pay the $50 for pay per view if they tortured these guys on television. I’d give my life-savings if they let me actually apply the juice myself for a few minutes.
These people will kill us and torture us (remember Daniel Pearl?) at will and have no sense of guilt about it. Turn about is fair play. They want to fight without rules? Great. Let’s give them exactly what they’re asking for.
I think that it wouldn’t be a good idea to carve out a special legal exception to the prohibition on torture for all the reasons the people here have noted. However, this does not mean that no-one can engage in torture. If a police officer or some other interrogator thinks that a “ticking bomb” situation really exists, he can illegally use torture and face the consequences afterward. If he managed to get the information, I don’t think that it would be politically feasible to give him more than a symbolic punishment. This ensures that torture isn’t used except in the most extreme cases since it forces the people involved to put their own careers on the line – something they’re not likely to do unless they really believe thousands of lives are at stake.
Phil, That is so sensible it ends the debate for me. It’s a capitalists view of state torture.
As I blogged:
Radley is comparing three different things. The jihadist we blew up in his SUV was an active combatant, not a prisoner. Since this guy may have been planning his next attack via cell phone when we nailed him, we have every right to use lethal force. Even lawful combatants can be killed whenever thereâ??s no practical means to accept their surrender.
Radley may have omitted a key word in his second case: Thereâ??s a world of difference between a soldier putting his weapon to a lawful enemy combatantâ??s headâ??clearly a war crimeâ??and putting it to an unlawful enemy combatantâ??s head. But even in the second instance, unlawful combatants are to be subjected to a tribunal rather than simply being executed in the field. I can see circumstances, however, where that would not be practical. (As an aside, wouldnâ??t the only way to shoot someoneâ??s finger off with a weapon to his head be if he picked his nose?)
As to the guy in the Pentagon, if weâ??ve condemned him to death at a tribunal, we can always offer to commute the sentence as a way of getting him to talk. On the question of physical torture, I wouldnâ??t hesitate to do so if the stakes were high enough (as I wrote previously). But to answer Radleyâ??s underlying question about the difference between death and torture, death is what you wish for when youâ??re being tortured. That is why we must have a higher standard for torturing people than merely killing them.
Scanner, and the reply to Jack Nicholson’s should have been, ‘sir, when you find that the laws of the US too restrictive for you, laws which are the only thing making your rank anthing other than jewelry pinned to your clothes, then it’s time for you to retire’.
In case you didn’t see the movie, the whole theme of the movie was that force was to be used under the law, to protect the weak, not to oppress them.
Back in the real world, the clear and obvious main obstacle to protecting us is not the government’s being restrained by Evul Libruls/Libertarians, but government competancy, honesty and accountability to laws and rules.
Right now, Bush plans on war with Iraq. Because of ties with Al Quaida/Anthrax/Nukes/Tried to Kill my Father/Gassed his own people (with my subordinates’ eager help/Insert currnt BS here.
Saudi Arabia – uh, don’t look there. Saudi funding for terrorists – don’t look there. Pakistani islamicists in a nuclear-armed country – don’t look there. Homeland Security? – use it as an excuse to f*ck over government employees and send pork to cronies.
If my non-existant wife and children were to actually exist, and be killed by a terrorist attack, the odds are way more likely that it was due to government corruption and cronyism, not due to Patriotic G-Men being restrained from using torture.
You are invited to take a look at the sites dedicated to online poker online poker http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html texas holdem texas holdem http://www.poker-4all.com/texas-holdem.html http://www.poker-4all.com/texas-holdem.html … Thanks!!!
You can also take a look at the pages on review … Thanks!!!