The Light of Other Days
I began writing against torture in the very early weeks of this blog. I had some good company in the nascent, yet-to-be-named blogosphere. Also some bad company. In the former cohort was Eve Tushnet. Eve and I had dinner last month, and I asked her, “Do you remember, back when we were first writing against torture in 2001 and early 2002, how hypothetical it all seemed? Did you have any idea that things were already getting worse than even our jeremiads allowed they might?†Eve’s rueful responses were yes to the first and no to the second. In other words, we were good-hearted but naive. Make an anime about us. Pat us fondly on the head and roll your eyes when we’re not looking.
I’ve only had the chance to read the summaries, not the newly released memos, but they make a heap of the pile of prior evidence. Years after the fact, we have a comprehensive outline of the torture picture during the early years of the “Global War on Terror.†There’s lots of space for coloring and shading yet. Are those indistinct figures off in the corner, in what may be a be a briefing room, senior congressional leaders of both parties? Is that fellow on the phone the secretary of defense saying that while the document says “slap,†no one will raise a fuss if you hit instead? If we rough in the features of that tall silhouette with fingers in his ears, will it look like the Secretary of State? All interesting stuff! But we can already title the picture: “America’s Elites Go Out of Their Way to Legitimize Torture.â€
The thing is, while we have a clear record now, we already had major clues back in the day. We knew what happened to Maher Arar. We could have read between the lines of the Abdallah Higazy case. We had very early reports from former prisoners, whistle-blowers and third-party watchdogs. We could see the extra-legal infrastructure taking shape before our eyes: the construction projects on foreign soil; the no-admittance signs; the declarations of exemption from this or that convention. Someone who simply interpreted the news of 2002-3 in the worst light would have been able to draw as good a picture as we have now. Some people did exactly this, mostly people on the left, plus a few genuinely Christian conservatives and radical libertarians. What has most changed is that the people who shouted them down, and ridiculed them, now look like fools.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:37 am
We could see the extra-legal infrastructure taking shape before our eyes: the construction projects on foreign soil; the no-admittance signs; the declarations of exemption from this or that convention.
That’s the bigger problem. I don’t find the memos themselves the big A-ha that most do. Quite frankly, it’s hard for me to get upset over waterboarding Abu Zubayda and his other buddies. Their own personal trauma is the least of my worries.
Of course, on an intellectual level, I oppose it because the same process could be turned on American citizens, but the emotion’s just not there. Sorry.
As I pointed in a previous thread, Obama is shutting down the blacksites, which is far more important, IMO, than any of this foofarah, but it’s really not enough. As long as we involve ourselves in the affairs of barbarians*, we’re going to have to act like barbarians. That’s the final truth, and the only resolution is to extract ourselves from their problems.
*If the term “barbarians” is offensive to you, too bad. I don’t know a better word for people who countenance judicial murder for apostasy, adultery and other “sins”.
Comment by albatross —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:42 am
I think in general, anyone who bet on the previous administration being more decent, honest, or competent than they looked came out badly. And people who assumed the worst–took every screw up as evidence of deep incompetence, every questionable step as evidence of malice, etc.–turned out right. That’s not always going to be the case, it just was with the Bush administration. In the limited time we’ve had with the Obama administration, while it has sometimes disappointed me, I don’t think that strategy of assuming the worst will work as well.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:59 am
And that’s what bothers me most about this period in history. The worst interpretation of events is rarely correct. And it’s rarely a good idea to shut down debate and declare that some ideas are simply not worthy of examination. Those are paths to extremism of the worst sort. But every now and then the bad guys really are in charge, the ideas really are objectively wrong on every level, and the worst really is happening. And when you reach that point, well, then extremism does make sense in defense of liberty.
Of course, most of the people who quote Barry Goldwater are likely to be from the same party that administered these horrors, because they think extremism in defense of liberty only applies to marginal tax hikes.
Comment by Johnathan Pearce —
April 17, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Jim, I have a post on the issue here; for all our differences – at least early on – about how to protect the West against terror, I have consistently opposed the use of torture, often in ways that have prompted some of my fellow “hawks” to think I am going funny in the head.
Here is my latest: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/04/on_the_use_of_t.html
Regards.
Comment by Eric Martin —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
plus a few genuinely Christian conservatives
Really though.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
April 17, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
What about the news of 2004-2006 in the worst light? Isn’t that a big part of what’s yet to drop?
As one of those who interpreted 2002-2003 in the worst light, I anticipate:
* that we outright killed a good number of people who were in handcuffs at the time. Not by out-of-control or traumatized soldiers, but through the chain of command, because those people had knowledge e.g. about our torture practices that we didn’t want released;
* that we ran death squads, and taught Iraqis to kill, torture, and rape as a terror tactic;
* that there still remain to found another set of “breaking bones” torture authorizations — the people found dead in interrogation cells of blunt force trauma, and so on.
In short, remember all the things that the Right accused Saddam of. With their habits of projection, it’s better clear that they directed our armed forces to do all those things. Rape rooms, giant shredders to dispose of bodies, everything.
And the people who are surprised are fools and cowards, the morally corrupt like Derek above. We already did all of those things! We did them in Central America, back when the Right first came to power. The people who didn’t want to “read 2002-2003 in the worst way” already were refusing to read events of decades ago.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Well, Rich, if my refusal to weep and wail over the fate of some of the scum who helped plan the death thousands makes me “morally corrupt,” I can live with that.
This doesn’t mean I support the policy or ever have. I opposed the Bush’s security state flat out from the beginning because of the threat it could pose to us. In fact, I’ve opposed the foreign interventions you’ve mentioned precisely because they do lead the abuses you descry. It’s part and parcel of counter-insurgency, and it happens under both left and right wing administrations, from McKinley to Wilson to Coolidge to Truman to Eisenhower to Johnson to Nixon to Reagan to Clinton and Bush. If Obama keeps pushing into South Asia and tries to save Darfur it will happen there, too.
If you aren’t willing to deal with that then you’re just engaging in so much empty posturing.
Comment by lunchstealer —
April 17, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
My problem with the ‘no sympathy for al Zarqawi et al’ argument is that it assumes that all the people being tortured are in fact the monsters we think they are. It assumes that we aren’t making mistakes, and picking up the wrong brown guy.
And of course, just as with economics, there’s a really valid trickle-down theory of punishment and blame. We let the standards slip on the worst-of-the-worst, and that gets out. So the guys running the local prisons start thinking that sort of thing is appropriate for the guys they’re guarding too. And lo and behold, we’ve got a nightmare like the Abu Graihb scandal. The biggest black eye for American values in my news-conscious lifetime is a direct result of deciding that the rules on torture should get all bendy.
Comment by Brian —
April 17, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
“*If the term “barbarians†is offensive to you, too bad. I don’t know a better word for people who countenance judicial murder for apostasy, adultery and other “sinsâ€. ”
What about “people” who plan the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of policy, to support their buddies’ corporations and economic goals, or who are looking to prop up local thugs, nutcases, or “dear leaders” that support said other goals
I despise Islamic fundamentalism, but come on. They are mere amateurs compared to the millions slaughtered by the civillized West -including the United States. I am amazed that anyone can even make this argument with a straight face. Barbarians. LOL
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
What about “people†who plan the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of policy, to support their buddies’ corporations and economic goals, or who are looking to prop up local thugs, nutcases, or “dear leaders†that support said other goalsL
They’re certainly monsters. But mind you, they’re monsters by their own civilization’s terms. That’s not the case with Islamic punishments, which are seen by the general populace as necessary and even good.
But even beyond that, the problem is that the recent wars were launched under rubric of spreading democracy and civilization. Obama still wants to push this idea onwards in Afghanistan. Well, either he’s going to adopt the tactics that repel you, subscribing to the rough and barbaric standards of local tribes, or were going to continue losing troops in a hopeless cause.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
My problem with the ‘no sympathy for al Zarqawi et al’ argument is that it assumes that all the people being tortured are in fact the monsters we think they are. It assumes that we aren’t making mistakes, and picking up the wrong brown guy.
Picking up the wrong guy (and many of them are quite pale, BTW) isn’t discussed or authorized by the memos in question, AFAIK.
Your policy concern, though, is valid and I agree. There’s too much of a risk of hurting innocents or having the policy spread to keep it.
BUT, again, this will always be with us as long as we insist on sticking our noses in the affairs of others. If we try to run other countries, then we will have to adopt their standards as a matter of necessity.
Comment by Tomas —
April 17, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
The logical extention of the above statement must then be that the US had a policy of importing Korea slaves for sexual services to Japan during the occupation there.
I was not aware of this historical fact and leave it to someone else to break godwins law on this subject.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Well, actually, Tomas, in Japan we did have to acquiesce to the local culture in that we let Hirohito off the hook for his involvement in the war and kept him on as emperor, and this was after we blasted whole cities with firebombs and atom bombs.
Comment by Mona —
April 17, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Jim wrote:
See my post above, pardner. Let’s call it illegal, not “extra-legal.” The latter seems to be the softer, kinder term of preference for those who defend ther perps.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 17, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
Brian,
Actually, having thought some more about the issue, I think you have a point. I still maintain that we are dealing with pre-modern, barbaric cultures, but there is something off-kilter with us.
I’m really not bothered by any of this memo affair and I was wondering why. I never liked the torture idea and opposed it after 9/11, when douches like Alan Derschowitz were pushing it along with the usual neocon jerk-offs. Now I just don’t feel any outrage or “I told you so” schadenfreude.
The thing is, these incidents really are rather minor compared to other atrocities that happened under Bush. The one that sticks out is a “collateral damage” incident from the Iraq War. I mentioned this in another blog, so I’ll repost it here:
We were still trying to get Saddam Hussein as our troops were still stuck somewhere in the south, in Nasirah, I think. Well, we got a tip that Hussein was in a restaurant in the Mansour district [?], and we tasked a B-1B to flatten the place. He wasn’t there, but fourteen people were, and they died. Even if Hussein had been in the restaurant, someone in effect said, “Well it’s worth a dozen or so civilian deaths. Let’s do it.” And fourteen people were snuffed out. Just like that.
No one has ever really brought that up or even remembers it. I only remembered it today. That sort of callousness is truly beyond barbaric. So you’re right, and I have to apologize to you and the others.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 17, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Derek, your latest post ties in very well with a response I was mulling to your first couple. The general idea was, Abu Zubaida may “deserve to be tortured” without any of us deserving to torture him. You can state the principle even more awkwardly than I just did, e.g. Abu Zubaida may not merit humane treatment, but that doesn’t mean you or I have earned the license to mistreat him. The relative deserts can be conceptually independent, and indeed I suspect they are.
The restaurant example may show a reason why that is. It was an evil; a sin if you prefer. It happened because “we” (there’s a sense of the pronoun which includes you and I and another that doesn’t) decided that Saddam’s failings constituted our prerogative to hold the power of life or death not only over him, but over anyone that got between us. God didn’t hand us our executioner’s cloak; we donned that ourselves. I submit that is an inherently hubristic act, and evil is almost guaranteed to flow from it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:19 am
That’s a good point, Jim. I think you’ve hit it. I’m not so bothered by Zubaydah because there is something of a sense of justice about his fate, but that shouldn’t excuse his torturers.
It’s still a bit hard for me to grok the argument. I’m too much of a materialist, so I’m more comfortable with the utilitarian response, but it is a good distinction to keep in mind.
Thanks. Seriously.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:30 am
It’s like opposition to the death penalty: “Oh, poor Ted Bundy, he didn’t deserve that” has nothing to do with it.
Comment by hf —
April 18, 2009 @ 4:05 am
Sure, but they’re still fools with lavish government pensions and senior statesman status, fools with their own national network TV shows, fools with talk radio shows that dictate policy to congressmen, fools that aren’t and probably never will have to admit they were wrong.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 18, 2009 @ 7:00 am
After I typed that I realized I was probably just restating Christ’s injunction about who gets to stone the adultress.
Comment by Nell —
April 18, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Someone who simply interpreted the news of 2002-3 in the worst light would have been able to draw as good a picture as we have now. Some people did exactly this, mostly people on the left, plus a few genuinely Christian conservatives and radical libertarians. What has most changed is that the people who shouted them down, and ridiculed them, now look like fools.
This worst-light lefty is only going to hold a grudge about the ones who still want to shout us down, or who try to pretend that they weren’t denying / excusing / calling for torture at the time.
It takes a certain amount of exposure to information about U.S. torture and to people who have been tortured at the behest of the U.S. government — exposure I would at many points in the past have been glad to have erased from my consciousness — to believe the worst when evidence is skimpy.
Genuine libertarians and genuine, honorable conservatives who spoke up early helped me hold onto hope, sanity, and a shred of patriotism in a very dark time. For that, I’m more grateful to Jim and to Alberto Mora than I can express.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
April 20, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
“Quite frankly, it’s hard for me to get upset over waterboarding Abu Zubayda and his other buddies. Their own personal trauma is the least of my worries.
“Of course, on an intellectual level, I oppose it because the same process could be turned on American citizens, but the emotion’s just not there. Sorry.”
As well you should be, Derek — you have shown yourself to be one with the ‘barbarians’.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
April 20, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
‘Well, Rich, if my refusal to weep and wail over the fate of some of the scum who helped plan the death thousands makes me “morally corrupt,†I can live with that.’
I see your point — in hell, everyone rejoices if only someone else suffers more than they do.
And yes, Derek, your view DOES make you morally corrupt, so I guess you’ll have no choice but to “live with it”.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
April 20, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
“It’s still a bit hard for me to grok the argument. I’m too much of a materialist…”
Good job! You’ve now fully explained your moral corruption just after illustrating it.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 20, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Gen, are you violating the Gary Farber Rule tonight?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
April 21, 2009 @ 10:08 am
Jim, I can only say in my defense.