TheAgitator.com
Torture, Ct’d.
Saturday, March 8th, 2003Some of you asked for more details on specific times when torture has worked. Here, from this article, are two:
In 1995 al-Qaeda planned to hijack 11 airliners flying out of the Philippines, with a total of 4,000 people aboard, and to crash them into the Pacific.The Philippine intelligence agencies, suspecting a plot, arrested and tortured a man they thought was one of the terrorists. They broke most of his ribs, burned his genitals with cigarettes and poured water into his mouth until he couldn’t breathe. After 67 days, he came up with the information which enabled the Filipinos, together with the Americans - who were provided with the fruits of the interrogation - to frustrate the plot.
“In a sense, we already use torture anyway,” one CIA officer told me. “When we arrest a foreign national who we think has important information, we hand him over to a foreign government such as the Egyptians. Its police will arrest the suspect’s wife and children, put them at the other end of the same cell, and then produce a couple of pit bulls and say: ‘Talk, or we let these dogs go at your wife and child.’ That usually works.”
It seems to have worked, for instance, on Mahmud Abouhalima, an al-Qaeda member involved in the first plot to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. Abouhalima unwisely fled to Egypt, where he was arrested. So was his mother. He was interrogated by the Egyptians and persuaded to name those involved in the plot. The CIA received a transcript.
Benefiting from others’ use of torture is morally different from doing it yourself - but not that different. All the same, the idea that torture could become a part of America’s justice system is profoundly shocking. Is it really possible to imagine FBI headquarters echoing with the screams of people having their teeth drilled without anaesthetic?
One senior FBI officer told me: “If I knew that the man in front of me had the critical information that would enable the US to prevent a catastrophic attack from taking place on its soil, I would torture him, and take the consequences. Wouldn’t you?”
“You can duck the question,” the FBI officer continued, “But we can’t. Our ability to protect you depends on how we answer it. We can’t rely on other countries’ doing it, because the one man who knows the secrets may be a US citizen who we pick up right here in the US.”
He pointed to the example of Zaccaria Moussaoui (a non-American), who was arrested in connection with the 9/11 attacks because the instructors at the flight school he had been attending said he had been asking some very odd questions. “Suppose we had got a warrant to look inside Moussaoui’s computer, and we’d found the evidence that he was plotting a terrible terrorist massacre. That is exactly the kind of situation we could be faced with in the future. What should we do?
“Moussaoui’s attitude to anyone who has interrogated him so far has been: ‘Screw you. I know my rights. There’s nothing you can do to me.’ That’s how they all are. If we had tortured Moussaoui before 9/11, we could have prevented that catastrophe. We have to face the truth: torture may be the only way to prevent the next one.”
The details of the Philippines plot are a bit different than I remembered them. Still, as the article says, benefiting from torture you allowed to go on isn’t all that morally different from doing it yourself — and extraditing someone to a country where you know they’ll be tortured is pretty much indistinguishable.
And the Moussaoui case bring up another interesting hypothetical, one with very real implications: What if torturing Moussaoui could have prevented 9/11? Yes, I realize, it’s entirely possilbe that even if we had tortured him, he may not have handed over the correct information, or what information he did hand over may have been lost in FB bureacracy, as most every other 9/11 tip did.
But to say that “we’re America, and we just don’t do it, dammit” I think betrays the fact that we lost 3,000 lives that day. Is a moral aversion to torture really so much a part of America that we’re willing to hand over thousands and thousands of lives to uphold it? This is a different kind of enemy. As the FBI official said in the article, in many cases, torture may be the only way to collect information from it Are torture opponents willing to name themselves or their families as one of the thousands who die to uphold a no-torture principle?
I’ll die for freedom. I’ll die defending freedom. But I won’t die for the rights of people who want to kill me to not be tortured. It is a moral compromise. But for me, it’s a pretty easy one.
For more, check out Eugene Volokh’s characteristically thoughtful take, and take a look at this piece in the Atlantic Monthly from Bruce Hoffman, about how the French successfully employed torture to learn of Algerian terrorist attacks.
You say it is a moral compromise. I disagree. Explain to me why torture is immoral.
And, though I am repeating myself, someone, anyone, explain to me why it is okay to kill an enemy, but not torture him. I don’t want to hear the fighting chance/the enemy is also armed arguement either. Do you think anyone knows when they are about to be obliterated by a cruise missile? Do they have a chance?
Radley, if we go to war, wouldn’t that presumably give the Iraqi people freedom? If you would die for freedom, why are you anti-war?
“Radley, if we go to war, wouldn’t that presumably give the Iraqi people freedom? If you would die for freedom, why are you anti-war?”
I’d die for *my* freedom, and maybe for the freedom of those close to me. But I won’t die for yours. Or for an Iraqi’s. Or a North Koreans’.
Are you arguing, then, that we invade and topple every regime in the world that’s oppressing people right now?
I know of a few sick people in prison for growing the marijuana that makes them feel better who might have a suggestion as to where you might start.
I think it’s disagreeable to start playing “Gotcha,” but it seems a pretty peculiar kind of libertarian who endorses torture. Whatever happened to Ben Franklin’s little maxim about giving up liberty for safety. I’m deadly serious when I saw I’d rather live in a country with the occasional risk of being crushed/burned to death in skyscrapers than one in which torture is sanctioned. This seems like a complete no-brainer to me, but apparently not. How long do you think it would be, Radley, before it was drug dealers and pedophiles who were getting tortured? Do you really want to head down that road?
My feeling is, if there is ever a “clock ticking” position, where there’s a very real possibility that torturing a suspect will avert many deaths, the individuals involved should make the moral choice themselves of whether to take the chance. And, no matter how it turns out, they should burn for it afterwards. If the outcome is really that important, they should feel the price worth paying personally. But to sanction it, make it bureaucratic and procedural…that’s repugnant.
Evan,
“And, no matter how it turns out, they should burn for it afterwards”
I’m against legalizing torture but if someone where to save American lives even if by using torture, I’d have a problem with punishing them.
Part of the reality here, is that the people we’re dealing with aren’t Western in thought or practice. Call me racist if you wish, but it’s true. Very few people who have been born and raised in the Western culture (European, US, Australian, etc) are willing to strap a bomb to their waist and walk into a crowded store or bus. These folks in the middle east are still living in the 12th century. If they captured one of us it wouldn’t take them a moment to use torture since they view this as SOP. Look at the Egyptian response to prisoners.
Does that make it right? No. However, does that make us stupid if we don’t use every method possible? Yes. Also, don’t forget, we’re not talking about putting them on a rack, or cutting off their fingers, one at a time. Psychological torture can be very effective, and hopefully, we’ve figured out how to do it right.
If someone were to come up with a system that wouldn’t scream “POTENTIAL ABUSE!” (pardon the pun), then I might, *might* start thinking about it…
I personally have no problem with torturing these people as they would torture us if they had the chance, that is of course if they don’t kill us first while we are peacefully eating breakfast.
The Egyptian example is the best anyway, don’t torture the captured, torture his family. Treat people the way they deserve to be treated. If terrorists are trying to kill our civilians then we should treat their families the same way. I don’t bring a dog into my house and expect him to eat with a fork and knife, I treat him like the dog he is.
I think the Israelis are being nice by only blowing up the homes of homicide bombers. I have a suspicion that there would be a lot fewer of these killers if they knew that when they blew themselves up they were signing the death warrants on their wife and children. It is the terrorist who kills his family, not the people who actually carry out the death sentence.
Peter—I think that the German’s tried that appoach in WWII–to the extend of killing whole villages. The result was to produce a group of people who had nothing to lose, and therefore became even more fanatical.
Radley, some of your positions don’t make sense to me. You are morally opposed to this war for the main reason that Iraq hasn’t attacked us yet..you don’t want pre-emption. But, you advocate torture to pre-empt a terrorist attack. That doesn’t seem to add up.
For the record:
While I do feel sorry for anyone arrested for medical marijuana use, they did break the law. That is hardly comparable to the opression that the Iraqis suffer.
And, yes, I would advocate overthrowing pretty much any non-democratic regime…if the populace is opressed.
And, torture away. But, these men are enemy soldiers. It should be left to the military…not law enforcement.
And, your freedom statement is why I don’t claim to be a libertarian. I would die to protect your freedom…or an Iraqi’s…or a North Koreans.
I agree with Evan and Leaper. If it didn’t have a chance of being abused it may be ok, although I still think you can’t get away from the moral issue either, depending upon your beliefs.
It’s amazing that we claim to be a religious country. As far as Christianity goes, I know Jesus said, Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemies as your neighbor. let’s see…. he also said, FORGIVE and FORGET. I know this seems hard to do, but for people who claim to live by the christian doctrine, it’s the only possible way to live. As for muslims, I don’t know, I’ve never read the Koran. Jews, well that’s another story, they still live eye for and eye. SO what does all this mean….depending upon your own personal beliefs torture may be moral or immoral. Personally, I put my faith in God, in doing so I relinquish all worries of getting blown up by terrorists, or harrassed by the gov’t because I like to smoke pot. I realize through my beliefs that a higher being, for me that’s God, is in the drivers seat and controls what happens not I, I’m but a servant. Now for people who are not religious, your moral equivalent to mine will differ, however, for those people. I would say to pay attention to the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the miranda warnings. The city of Oxnard,CA is challengeing the constitutionality of the warnings, stating that crime scene interrogations do not violate the 5th and 14th amendments as long as the information is not used in court. It is like Evan said how long will it be before thieves, drug dealers, johns and hookers, start being “coerced/tortured” into giving the names of associates or a clients(bigger or smaller fish).
BTW,the White House and the solicitor general are behind Oxnard’s stance.(due to the war on terrorism).
Chris, I find your statement about medical marijuana users troubling. So do you condone the federal gov’t going into a state where the issue has been approved by voters, and raiding sick peoples houses because it’s the federal law???No offense, but that’s crap. You know there are laws still on the books in my city that say it’s a crime to spit on the sidewalk, but I haven’t seen this ever enforced, although back in the day it was. laws come and go, marijuana prohibition is a dinosaur that should be extinct. And that won’t happen without some civil disobedience.
Jim,
With something like torture, if you don’t punish it, you’re in effect sanctioning it. No matter the circumstances, a torturer is morally contaminated. If torture in a very specific circumstance will save lives, someone still has to make a sacrifice. Torture should be a falling-on-your-sword act; anything less and I don’t think we have a right to call this a free society anymore.
Evan,
I disagree. We should punish torturers if it’s used in any case except where an attack is stopped. Sorry, I just can’t see expending any resource on punishing a guy/girl who broke info that saved Americans. “Thanks Agent Smith for the defense of your country, now if you’d just step into this jail cell for a few years…” If you do that just once then you’ll get agents who will not risk their asses to get info.
I say keep it illegal to prevent the slippery slope. But, when torture is used and information is gained that saves lives then file 13 the case and drive on to the next issue.
One does not have to condone, legalize, accept or be remiss about torture in order for it to happen in a beneficial manner for the citizens of the US.
Americans are protected against cruel and unusual punishment, it does not give that right to non-US citizens.
As I read posts about taking some high groung regarding the issue, I can’t help but think some people should watch some video from 9/11.
Those who stand on moral high ground will make an easier target.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/70259.htm
We wouldn’t want to torture anyone to avoid this scenario, would we?
Radley, the stories you quote suffer from a “what is seen and what is not seen” problem. The CIA folks are happy to tell you about the few cases where they sent somebody to be tortured and it got them useful, maybe lifesaving, information. But how happy would they be to tell us about cases where they sent people to be tortured and got nothing useful at all out of it? Worse yet, how happy would they be to tell us about cases where they sent some terrorist suspect off to be tortured, and it later turned out he was not actually guilty of terrorism?
Because we have no way of thoroughly investigating these agencies, we’ll never know how many failure cases there are, how many people they’ve tortured to no result, how many *innocent* people they’ve tortured to no result. But given the general government MO of trumpeting the few successes of any program no matter how many failures there are, I’m inclined to suspect the number is quite high.
Michael,
Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally against the marijuana laws. Your body, do what you want. Like it or not, a law exists and should be respected. Changing the law is possible and we should all try to do that. I just think that if you are going to perform civil disobedience, you should expect to pay the price.
I respect anyone that defies the government and uses medical marijuana, but I don’t feel bad that they are in jail. The law is on the books, right or wrong. They knew it was against the law and chose to make a statement by breaking that law.
Frank,
In so much as the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, it prohibits such practices by the government, regardless of the nationality of the individual. Foreign nationals under trial or conviction in U.S. custody should constitutionaly expect the same treatment in this regard as U.S. citizens.
If you believe that such practices are in-bounds for non-citizens, there is nothing legally prohibiting the same practices against U.S. citizens.
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
“As far as Christianity goes, I know Jesus said, Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemies as your neighbor. let’s see…. he also said, FORGIVE and FORGET.. . . Jews, well that’s another story, they still live eye for and eye.”
You don’t know anything about either Christianity or Judaism.
Jesus also said “I bring not peace but a sword.” And where do you think Jesus got “love your neighbor as yourself” in the first place? Or “care for the widow and orphan”? Or “care for the stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt?” I could go on, but just read the WHOLE section of Exodus with the “eye for eye” passage in it, where you will find many of the humane compassionate laws the Jews were given, and which Jesus quoted.
Just FYI, “eye for eye” was an advance over the prevailing legal systems at that time, which had different laws for upper class and poor people. It never meant literally to put out someone’s eye to pay for another eye (as explicated in the Talmud), because that interpretation violated other Torah laws. It meant that everyone in a society would be subject to the same punishment for the same crime. In those times, imprisonment was a rare punishment - Jews didn’t chop off limbs, so most crimes warranted either death or a fine, and if you couldn’t pay the fine, you could sell yourself as in indentured servant, and there were many laws mandating humane treatment for slaves. Like I said, read Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Torture?
Torture? Is it okay? Even in the most extreme cases? Not in my opinion, unless the person authorizing the torture
IIRC:
1) The FBI could have gotten a warrant for Moussaoui’s computer, but didn’t even try, for some strange reason (and the special court which authorizes such warrants has a turn-down rate near zero).
2) The FBI supervisor who made that decision was given a bonus recently, for ‘outstanding performance’, or some such reason.
3) This had absolutely nothing to do with any rumored ’stay away from the Saudis’ policy, or close ties between the Bush family/administration and Saudi Arabia. According to official sources, of course. Don’t listen to what dissident reporters say.
Perhaps the problem isn’t the lack of torture, but something else.
Torture?
Torture? Is it okay? Even in the most extreme cases? Not in my opinion, unless the person authorizing the torture is psychic and has, you know, determined that the person being tortured is, in fact, definitely and absolutely a terrorist…