Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan disses Newsweek for defending Bush/Cheney et al. re: torture at Abu Ghraib. I haven't read the Newsweek article, and I'm not really addressing the issue of whether Bush/Cheney orders were followed to the letter or followed in spirit / grossly taken out of proportion by subordinates, although that issue is certainly interesting.
Also interesting is the question of whether torture has rooted out or created more terrorists, but that's an empirical question, and at this point, totally speculative.
But, somewhat in the vein of I-Agree-With-Roberts, I'd just like to briefly discuss the torture issue itself. I think I've posted before that I think Bush Haters make him out to be a vile, evil human being who sadistically wanted to torture people and break laws just for the helluvit. Or there are the Bush Haters who value the Rule of Law - like, um, most of my classmates - who gasp at the very thought of compromising that Rule of Law. The sanctity of the Constitution / Geneva Conventions - egad!
I don't mean to make fun of them, but ... the issue isn't so black and white. Sure, when you're confronted with brutal photos at Abu Ghraib, and stories about what's done to people subject to extraordinary rendition, it's hard to come out and say, Yes, this is justified; this protects our country.
Because you don't know whether this really protects our country. At all. Like the question of how many terrorists the torture may or may not generate, it's an empirical question - and anyone's guess.
And maybe that's an argument for eschewing torture all together. Especially given that many of these detainees are tortured with absolutely zero due process. The risk of error is enormous. But how do you weight the costs and benefits? We don't know whether the intelligence we extract from torturing really saves lives. We don't really know the costs in terms of terrorists created. Maybe torture - the compromise of law - itself is a cost, and should tip in the balance of not having it.
But what would you give to sleep sound at night? To make sure your children are safe in bed?
It's a different situation. But... take the Israel-Gaza situation. There are huge costs. Civilian lives lost. The cost of war, in the face of some international disapproval. Does it really protect Israel, or create more angry militants on the Gaza border (and on the Lebanon border, for that matter, from Hezbollah)? But Israel justifies it, because Hamas fires rockets into their neighborhoods, with the potential of killing people. Self-defense, says Israel.
Is torture, rendition just America's self-defense? Maybe no Peace At Night argument can justify the violation of international law and norms. But... technically, the Justice Department carved themselves out a nice little exception in terms of unlawful enemy combatants. Yes, to avoid the law.
Should law be obeyed in all circumstances? Formalism vs. functionalism. Isn't the formalist answer in this case completely operating outside of reality in a post-9/11 world? I'm curious to see what Obama will do when he gets into office, when he is at once confronted by his own aversion to torture and to Bush's policy (and how they've harmed America's moral standing) and by his awesome responsibility for the SAFETY OF AN ENTIRE NATION.
Last question, out of curiosity. For staunch anti-torturers, what is their position on whether the U.S. should transfer prisoners to countries that do engage in torture?
[XY Comment]: In general, when people take absolute stances I hesitate and take pause. Obviously the world is complicated, and that makes taking absolute 100% stances difficult. It is easier to say that we should never torture anyone than to deal with the difficult issue of when it could possibly be justified. Because it's such a difficult issue, it does lead me to think that taking an absolute stance may be beneficial because we would need absolute confidence in the people in charge to make the right decisions in the gray areas. Even if we don't have absolute confidence, could there be hypotheticals where it is definitively needed? I hesitate to say no.
No comments:
Post a Comment