How Does Bush Define Torture?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, The War On Terrorism, WarEspecially when he says stuff like this:
“There’s an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law. We do not torture.”
Obviously he has a much different definition then me.
What’s your definition?
This entry was posted on Monday, November 7th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:56 am
In one of his books (I forget which) Primo Levi quotes a fellow-victim of Auschwitz, a Frenchman by the name of (I think) Jean Amery, who said ‘one who has been tortured stays tortured’. Both Amery and Levi seem to have committed suicide.
Perhaps we could use this insight to derive a hypothesis: torture is what you don’t recover from. Going further, perhaps we could add that torture is something that permanently degrades the torturer also. By that linked pair of standards, sleep deprivation doesn’t count, but humiliation and/or degradation (even if not involving violence) do.
That said, it is entirely a bad idea for people in the administration to even speculate on these matters, as it tends to send bad signals to people lower down the chain of command.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:47 am
The torture issue is a tough ethical dilemma. It suprises me that McCain wants to treat captured terrorists the same as american citizens arrested for armed robbery.
Imagine you got a terrorist who just planted a bomb near a school somewhere, about to go off in 24 hours. Everytime you ask a question, he responds “Allah aKbar”. If torture is the only possibility left to extract the information, Then torture is the only morally acceptable thing to do in that situation.
The problem comes when the dillemma is watered down, like if you got 10 guys in a room, one guy might be a terrorist, do you torture them all? its tough to decide what to do.
We need these guidelines to set a standard for coercive interrogations but we cant limit our options if the scenario I mentioned first were to occur.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
There’s also this to consider: Even if torture, or certain forms of it, were expressly permitted by this or any future administration, how effective an interrogation tool would it really be, especially if the terrorists come to expect that it will be used against them if captured? When facing the prospect of live capture, won’t the additional prospect of being forced to provide information under torture make them more likely to fight to the death, commit suicide or force our soldiers to kill them, thereby rendering them useless as a source of information? Or, perhaps worse still, to tell their interrogators plausible lies to save themselves from being tortured, thus leading our forces on a series of wild-goose chases (thereby making them unavailable for more productive assignments, which, it goes without saying, helps our enemies)?
November 8th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Those are good points as well. I guess the best solution is to “do what you gotta do” but don’t tell anyone about it. Secret bases in eastern europe seem like a good idea but they are not secret anymore. Even if McCain’s bill passes, someone should find a loophole somewhere, if theis type of interrogation is still necessary.
November 8th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Trust me, this person would be tortured and the court of public opinion would be exonerate the people who tortured him.
However, that case is the exception, and yet that’s the one everybody always uses as if it were something that happens ALL the time. But that’s not what happens and our interrogation needs to be created for the overwhelming majority of cases because the extremely tiny minority will take care of itself.