What is the world coming to when a liberal democracy has to debate whether or not to torture people?
This op-ed in the New York Times yesterday by former soldier Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says it all:
The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.
UPDATE: Clive Davis has been pondering the same today. Clive doesn’t agree that torture is always morally reprehensible:
I can’t say I’ve been following every twist and turn of the interrogation debate. The reason being that it seems obvious, to me anyway, that there are going to be extremely rare occasions when things such as waterboarding, repulsive though they are, will be morally justified. And, yes, on reflection, I’d say waterboarding - one of those laddish euphemisms we like to throw around - does qualify as a form of torture. (As does the use of intensely loud music. I know other people wouldn’t agree on that.) Do I feel confident that people can be trusted to use techniques like that in the right circumstances a hundred per cent of the time? No. Which is what troubles me most of all.
I’m still not convinced. I can’t escape the fact that there are some things people just should not do. There are lines that should never be crossed because once you cross them you can never go back. By torturing prisoners America is sending a message across the world that it is okay in the 21st century to torture your enemies (albeit in more humane ways than our forefathers). From that moment on how can America chastise any other country for doing the same? And how long before the US tortures someone who is innocent?
No Tags
The assumption seems to be that if we create (or impose) democratic practices and institutions on a non-Western country, then democratic values will surely emerge. I think that that’s putting the cart before the horse.
One should work on the culture first (God knows how you do that), and only then will democratic institutions be able to function as they are meant to. If one establishes a version of a western consitution, parliament, executive offices, etc., in a country where democratic practices and norms are not deeply rooted in the culture, or not enforced for a very long time (as in Germany after WW2), the new governmental institutions will quickly become farces or will be reshaped to conform to traditional local practices. Look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example.
And look at Iraq. Although many people in Iraq like the idea of representative government, it’s not going to be easy. A country that is divided among ethnic and religious groups (Sunni, Shia, Kurds and Turkmen) that have nothing in common, a country that is so artificial it almost requires a tyrant to keep it together, and that has known nothing but Baathist or traditional authoritarianisn…will not take to democracy so easily.
Democracy without democratic traditions and a well-developed civil society, independent judiciary, free press, and respect for the law? Good luck.
As for torture,I agree with Paul, but there is also a practical reason not to use it. I’ve heard that torture often yields false or misleading information since the prisoner will say anything to stop the pain. How will torturers know the difference?
Regarding the moral aspect: The question of torture is another example of how terrorists create difficult morality-vs-security choices that now bedevil democratic societies. Here are two common dilemmas:
* Conventional armies occupying a hostile territory (British in N. Ireland, Israel in the West Bank, US in Iraq) are forced to choose between being sitting ducks for terrorist attacks or going after terrorists hiding among civilian populations, thereby generating civilian casualties.
* Democratic countries must often choose between improving internal security at the expense of some civil rights or maintaining a strong stand on civil rights at the expense of security. For example, choices must be made regarding surveillance and profiling.
I guess the question of torture falls in the second category. Arguments for the use of torture often rely on one extreme scenario: when someone has information about where a bomb is set to explode in the next hour or day or so, and lots of lives are at stake. Perhaps the answer is not to torture, but to improve one’s intelligence capabilities to the extent that resort to torture becomes unnecessary.
Terrorists challenge democracies but they don’t discredit them or show them to be false. Democratic systems rely on sort of an honor system–or social contract if you want to use that term–between the citizenry and the ruling class. Each side has responsibilities that require self-restraint. And self-restraint is sustained presumably because both parties know they will gain a government that’s accountable to the people and a people who can be trusted to obey the laws and respect the rights of their fellow citizens.
Such a system offers gains to everyone, but it can easily be undermined by those who chose to abuse the rules. Terrorists don’t succeed in showing that democracy is a sham. (What do they have to offer that’s better?) They just show that they don’t understand the democracy’s strengths. Democratic societies grow better, innovate better, are more just (on the whole), and allow each citizen more opportunities for self-fulfillment. Democracy builds better societies, even if those societies are vulnerable.
Paul, have you never seen 24? If what I’ve seen on there is anything to go by, torture is nothing. 10 minutes after they are done savaging you, you are right as rain again.
Never mind 24, see the dental mauling given to Dustin Hoffman by Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man…. I think that even though we have greater technology at our disposal nowadays, across the board standards in the effectiveness of torture have slipped
The debate is not just over whether or not to torture, but where is that line? When does interrogation become torture? Some here would have us give them tea and cakes and expect them to be so overwhelmed by our hospitality they give up their jihad and tell us everything. Some standards would have us refrain from loud voices, slamming one’s palm on the table for emphasis and the like.
The other side believes that anything that doesn’t do any lasting physical or psychological harm is fair game.
YMMV.
I would say waterboarding crosses the line, wouldn’t you?
As for tea and cakes, I have yet to see anyone suggest that as an interrogation method, although I fear it may be quite effective if used properly on homesick Brits.