After Bad-Apple Picking
Julian Sanchez had a really good report on the legislative arguments over torture and habeas corpus last week that I just got around to reading. Don’t delay any longer than I did. Excerpt:
All this is worth bearing in mind when reflecting on the Bush Administration’s claim that an amendment proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to ban “inhuman and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the US government,” which passed the Senate this month by an overwhelming margin, is somehow both a crippling hindrance to the War on Terror and wholly superfluous because, as Bush insists, “We do not torture.”
Here’s a handy rule of thumb: If you are beating detainees to death, there’s a fair chance that what you’re doing counts as torture.
And Julian joins the still-tiny GAPA Party (”Grow a Pair, America!”) toward the end:
Implicit in many of their arguments is the notion that there’s something contemptibly fainthearted about those who want to hew to the principles of basic decency fit for a nation that styles itself primus inter pares of the world’s liberal democracies, even if foreswearing the most brutal tactics means accepting some additional risks. The apex of resolute manliness, on the other hand, consists in begging the government to dilute traditional liberties at home and ape our enemies’ barbarism abroad, if only we might feel a bit safer.
Torture is pussy. Pass it on.
Comment by Michigan Frog —
November 23, 2005 @ 11:50 pm
Something that I seldom see mentioned in torture discussions is the extent to which some (possibly many) of its defenders simply believe that the tortured detainees deserve it. Not that they have important information to provide, but that they are evil terrorists for whom torture is appropriate and just.
It’s not the utilitarian aspect of torture that appeals to some people, but it’s punitive side. Forget the ”ticking bomb” scenario – it’s about vengeance and deterrance. Also, bear in mind that many political regimes torture not for interrogation, but to set an example, humiliate political opponents, and dehumanize the opposition.
I think that’s where a lot of the ”faintheartedness” criticism comes in. ”What, you want to coddle terrorists? Don’t you think a little waterboarding pales in comparison to the deeds they’ve committed or will commit, given the chance?”
All of which gives me the heebie-jeebies. It’s one thing if it were simply a matter of some people believing that relaxing one’s moral repugnance toward torture is necessary for the greater good, but I really do get the sense that to some, there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with torture if the bastard deserves it.
Comment by BruceR —
November 24, 2005 @ 12:46 am
All I want is for one pro-torture advocate to cite one indisputable piece of accurate, important (ie, life-saving, war-winning) intelligence derived through torture alone. Just one, in all of history. I’ve racked my brain and I can’t think of one.
Comment by T. J. Madison —
November 24, 2005 @ 3:58 am
I seem to recall ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky describing an incident where the Mossad foiled a plot by the PLO to shoot down an airliner carrying Golda Meir as it was on approach to Rome. IIRC, part of this action involved torture-murderering some of the PLO guys with missile launchers in order to find the rest in time.
(BTW, I’m not a pro-torture advocate.)
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 24, 2005 @ 9:41 am
I think the Frog has got it.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
November 24, 2005 @ 11:24 am
Michigan Frog has it exactly right. Given that Rove was pursuing an electoral strategy of supressing swing-voter turnout and energizing the base last year, Abu Ghraib was positive PR for Bush.
For all their other faults, the Kerry campaign recognized that taking an explicit, principled stand against torture was a political loser in 2004. However, as much as people dislike being reminded of their mistakes, the Democrats will never return to power unless they demonstrate a willingness to be unpopularly right. The torture issue was (and remains) the best venue for Doing the Right Thing.
Comment by matthew hogan —
November 24, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
The attitude of most pro-torture sentiment is nearly identical to the one that Zarqawi appeals to in his orange-jumpsuit/beheading videos: the sadism that the murderous funny-looking scum are finally getting what they deserve.
Utlitarian considerations are secondary if at all.