The Last Casualty
I actually am trying to switch gears here a little bit, but this essay by a soldier, “What We’ve Lost,” on Andrew Sullivan’s page is worth a read. We’ve had enough discussions here about the rights and wrongs of this war, and America’s evils vs. the evils of others. Frankly, almost all of those discussions miss the point.
The thing that drives me crazy about the way things have unfolded in the last six years is that we have sacrificed the one thing that really made us a country to be proud of: decency.
And in doing so, we’ve lost the war. Not just the War on Terror, but the war.
Everyone here knows that I spend plenty of time discussing the sins of our nation over the last two hundred years, so by no means do I think we were guilt-free before 9/11. But I also know that I’m not alone in detecting an extremely disturbing shift in our national psyche. Somehow, we got so scared, or felt so betrayed, that we have become willing to do anything to make us feel safe again. And in the process, we have completely destroyed our reputation for decency.
It only took three years to undo a legacy that has been with us for almost a century of international intervention.
Let the comments stating that at least we’re better than “Islamofascists who behead their prisoners” begin.
We’ve set such high standards for ourselves.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I get the distinct feeling that almost everyone is missing the presidents point in what he is attempting to do. Let me try to lay it out as best I can.
1) The Bush has said that the Law (Including Geneva Convention) does not define what torture means.
2) Because the definition of Torture appears to be changing radically, the President is asking for legal clarification on EXACTLY what that means.
3) The reason for this is so that future interrogations will be barred from any activities spelled out in the law, and restricted to a set standard of activities that do not constitute torture by legal standards.
4) If the President of the United States does not receive such legal clarification, ALL interrogations of enemy combatants will cease and any valuable intelligence that could be obtained will only be obtained by prisoner’s volunteering information willfully.
This is a very simple concept. If you say, “No Torture” that sounds pleasant, but without an agreed upon definition, it becomes a moving target and you can prosecute whoever you like… not exactly a good position to be in.
During World War II, there was a more generally understood idea of what torture meant, and what it didn’t mean. Today, it’s all relevant. Torture today, can mean simply asking a tough question. Torture could mean, not having AC 24/7. Today, Torture can mean, not being fed organically grown foods. Torture can mean not getting a manicure after lunch. I hope you get my point. Somewhere, the definition of torture ceased to mean something, and began to be used in daily vernacular to mean anything even slightly discomforting.
As for images that appear to be of people being tortured with hoods over their heads at Abu Ghraib, lets not forget that justice was served. The prison has been successfully run with dignity for years after the events that made the news. Unfortunately now that operation of the prison has been recently turned back over to the Iraqi government, the prisoners are once again complaining of torture (At the hands of Iraqis) and pining for Americans to run the prison again. As unfortunate as that is, I think it definitely says something for American decency.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Also, to further the discussion, here is an article that talks about what is reported to be happening at the Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_deadly_kindness_opedcolumnists_richard_miniter.htm
That doesn\’t sound like torture to me.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I guess it depends on what your definition of what ‘is’ is, right?
How would you define torture?
September 19th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I think what we have here is, failure to communicate. I was explaining President Bush’s take on things but if you would like to turn this personal, thats fine but I want to get some things straight before we agree to the arena.
First I want to make clear that moral equivalence is a dangerous, slippery slope that has been used to justify evil, and can be shown through a logical exercise called Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the impossible) to be false. Example taken from Wikipedia:
A — All beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B — If that’s the case, then C is correct in his belief, even though C believes something that is considered to be wrong by most people, such as that the Earth is flat.
A — True.
B — Then some beliefs can be denied.
Since the subject of torture falls under the domain of ethics, we must recognize the different circles of ethical reasoning and herein lies the seed of our discussion. What has more value? Indisputable universal truths, the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, my view of good is just and valid as someone else’s, or I am the sole judge of what is good or bad to me. Of course ALL those concepts are irrelevant to law which is by necessity outside the realm of ethics (but is influenced by it).
The modern definition of torture by the American Heritage dictionary is defined as: [The] infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment, and coercion and excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Obviously this definition is somewhat meaningless since just about anything can be dubbed as torture if someone feels some sense of agony. The defining words however, I believe to be “excruciating” and “Severe”. This understanding seems to negate the example given to be any agony such as waiting in suspense.
Because we cannot simply say that all views are equal in regards to what is torture (moral equivalence, that all definitions of torture are equally immoral), we must recognize that there exists a hierarchy of value to the modern concept of torture. For instance, I think we would both agree that maiming and mutilation is not on the same level as sleep deprivation and intense questioning. What we are getting to here is, is there any form of the modern definition of torture which is acceptable to our personal definition of ethics in regards to dealing with terrorists?
If we say that no level of discomfort no matter how mundane is acceptable, then we must accept that it becomes impossible to do anything in-regards to captured illegal combatants. If we hold this to be true, then we must also accept the responsibility that our decision will lead to future loss of innocent life at the hands of terrorism as can be shown from a history of interrogation of terror suspects that have given information that led to the prevention of attempted attacks on innocent life.
I’m not sure how your value system would rate the lives saved vs, the possible discomfort of some willful conspirators to the murder of thousands of innocents. However, I DO NOT agree with any use of torture (defined with the words Excruciating and Severe). My point (And the President’s) is we must be careful that our definitions do not become watered down, to allow the justification of evil or likewise the appeasement of evil.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Good Lord, talk about slippery slopes.
First of all, I wasn’t getting personal at all. My point was that everybody knows what torture is. This definition has been satisfactory for all nations for the last 50 years. Here’s a workable definition: Torture is anything you wouldn’t want your captors to do to you while in custody (presuming a state of custody).
Anyone in captivity deserves to be treated with dignity, not deprived of basic needs, including sleep, and well-cared for. Anything less than that is an insult to the taxpayers who pay for the custody.
The argument that not being able to deprive people of sleep, make them think they are drowning, or question them “intensely” (I love the choice of words) has a direct correlation with the number of terrorist attacks is fear-mongering and nothing more.
The President is not trying to define torture - he is trying to narrow the definition of torture, and he’s trying to do so retroactively so that he is not held accountable for war crimes.
Finally, you are presuming that everyone in custody is already a terrorist. We know that is not the case. There are new instances of innocent people who were kidnapped coming out in the news all the time. Every person captured has the right to be charged and tried in an open court of law.
Anything less than that makes us a nation of thugs.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?ex=1316318400&en=78a6b6bd9bec4120&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Your common response to this is that the people responsible should / will be brought to justice. But the President himself is the one who authorized these types of secret kidnappings and prisons. And he doesn’t want those captured to have a fair and speedy trial. He wants them locked away and “interrogated.” And that’s a crime. A war crime.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Well, at least we’re better than the Islamofascists who behead their prisoners.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Very funny.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Ray, You have such a wide view of what Torture means. It would appear to me that you also believe all prisoners in ANY prison system can be said to be tortured, and none can be interrogated for fear of crimes under your definition.
Ray you said: \”The argument that not being able to deprive people of sleep, make them think they are drowning, or question them “intensely” (I love the choice of words) has a direct correlation with the number of terrorist attacks is fear-mongering and nothing more.\”
You put words in my mouth I didn\’t say. Perhaps a better way to word it would be to say there is a direct correlation with the number of terrorist attacks PREVENTED. There is a big difference compared to what you said.
The number of terrorist attacks attempted is in the hands of the terrorists themselves, we can work to prevent them from happening and do what we can to convince those who resort to such tactics to stop. Unfortunately, never before in history have we attempted to tie our own hands behind our backs to such a degree in fighting the information side of a war. I believe it is a fantasy to think that any country in history that still exists today, has done more to protect the dignity and spend more resources on the care and prevention of discomfort of detainees than our country has in this one war alone.
Remember, by having such a loose definition of torture, you can now say that anytime anyone wants you to do anything you don\’t like that you are a torture victim. Victimhood has power in our society after-all and it would seem to have a certain appeal. If you can twist definitions to suit your political viewpoint, you can make anyone you want into a criminal, but will your conscience be totally clear? I\’m not sure mine would.
As for the Canadian incident you cited the link for, has it occurred to you that the New York Times is spinning the story for you? The report specifically states it was a blunder by the Canadian intelligence that caused Canadian law enforcement to turn the guy over to the US as a potentially dangerous terror suspect. The US, having not found any evidence of wrong doing, returned the guy to his home country as international law requires. It would seem more likely that bureaucracy was to blame not intent to cause this guy to become tortured. The fact the Canadian intelligence screwed up is their fault not America\’s. International law superseded in what America was to do with him having no evidence to hold him further. The blame for the fact the guy was tortured falls solely on Syria, unless you believe Bush is now the king of Syria and rules it with an iron fist by command of the Jews and big oil.
*wink, nudge*
September 19th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Right, it’s Canada’s fault that we whisked him away to Syria and tortured him.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Ray, didn’t you read the article? Unless I missed something, it said we returned him to his home country. It didn’t say Americans tortured him at all. Where do you get this idea? I believe that the article clearly implies that Syria tortured him.
Back to the discussion of torture, by your definition, you seem to be equating that the torture you put your mother through during the pains of growing up with war crimes. How about your teachers forcing you to take a test you didn’t want to take, is that on the same level as crimes against humanity? I’m sorry but your argument seems a little weak to me.
I believe that the original meaning of torture was “To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.” This explains why the term was used aptly to describe the act of causing someone’s limbs to bend the wrong way. This is exactly why the word has such a negative connotation today. Would the act of torturing the definition of the word torture be considered a war crime Ray?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Come on. We sent him to Syria. Syria, as you put it, tortured him. We brought him back to Canada after we — sorry, Syria — was done. But in your mind, that’s not the same things as us doing it? I know you’re smarter than that. It’s outsourcing, man. And we do it all the time. The government tried to cover up this practice because they knew it was wrong.
Once again, regarding the definition of torture, you’re taking what I said out of context. I specifically said “Torture is anything you wouldn’t want your captors to do to you while in custody (presuming a state of custody).”
Twice I said that we were talking about behavior of a captor towards a captive. How in the world can you go from that statement to statements like this:
“Remember, by having such a loose definition of torture, you can now say that anytime anyone wants you to do anything you don\’t like that you are a torture victim. Victimhood has power in our society after-all and it would seem to have a certain appeal. If you can twist definitions to suit your political viewpoint, you can make anyone you want into a criminal, but will your conscience be totally clear? I\’m not sure mine would.”
and this:
“Back to the discussion of torture, by your definition, you seem to be equating that the torture you put your mother through during the pains of growing up with war crimes. How about your teachers forcing you to take a test you didn’t want to take, is that on the same level as crimes against humanity? I’m sorry but your argument seems a little weak to me.”
That’s not even weak. That’s just ridiculous.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Ray, please tell me where in the article it says he was returned to Canada by the United States? The article specifically states \”He was freed in October 2003, after Syrian officials concluded that he had no connection to terrorism and returned him to Canada.\”
You say: “Torture is anything you wouldn’t want your captors to do to you while in custody (presuming a state of custody).”
If you are presuming a state of custody, wouldn\’t a teacher or parent be considered a custodian of their students or children? How about prison systems the world over, do you know any that do not practice interrogation? Is that considered torture to you? What about the BMV? I feel like I am held captive there for longer than I like, and made to answer questions I\’d rather not have to answer.
That is pretty ridiculous, but thats exactly my point, your definition is useless in law. I was simply using a variation of Reductio ad absurdum to make that point. Remember, if you are not specific in your definition anyone can be bitten by that mistake, especially people you don\’t intend. Thus the double edged sword metaphor.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Ok, I see your point. Torture isn’t so bad after all. It’s all a matter of perspective.
I’m sure the dude from Canada understands. Why we sent him to Syria where we knew he would be tortured (and interrogated at whose request?) doesn’t really matter because he’s back home now.
The system really does work. And I feel safer knowing that people being tortured in secret prisons might make my suburban neighborhood a little safer from scary people.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:13 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm
Glad we went in there. We’ve clearly done a lot of good.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:20 am
Ray, you fail to understand that its the definition of torture as it pertains to prosecuting war crimes that we are disputing here.
If you still want to believe that U.S. interrogation techniques are torture by YOUR definition \”..anything you wouldn\’t want your captors to do to you while in custody..\”, pay attention. Brian Ross from ABC has reported recently that ALL CIA interrogators must submit to the exact same techniques that they use on detainees during training. I believe that shows clearly by your definition, that by doing those things they would willingly submit to themselves is not torture.
Brian Ross also said:
\”In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with Al-Qaeda in this country and in Europe, and one particular plot which involved an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles known as the Library Tower. It\’s clear in several cases with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, with people who absolutely beyond a doubt are terrorists, terrorist masterminds, it does seem to have an effect, and that\’s just the bottom line. Certainly if you interrupt a plot to bomb a tower in Los Angeles, you\’ve saved lives. It has worked, it has thwarted plots.\”
I ask you again Ray, how would you value those potential lives lost compared to the fact, we didn\’t do anything to the guy that our own people wouldn\’t submit to themselves?
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:50 am
Ron, you seem fantastically willing to accept the rubber-stamped story on almost everything. Do you really think our CIA agents are submitting to waterboarding, or worse? Do you really think the intensity is the same, in any case?
I repeat: it’s only been in the last few years that the definition of torture has ever been disputed. And the only time it’s ever been disputed is when an American president knows that if it’s associated with him in a court, it will be very bad for his career and, erm, legacy.
Torture is ineffective. It causes people to confess to anything. The man from Canada ended up confessing just because he wanted it to stop. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “confessed” after 9/11, long after it was any good. Beyond that, we don’t really know if there was an additional plot against the Library Tower in LA. It’s just what they are telling us.
“I ask you again Ray, how would you value those potential lives lost compared to the fact, we didn\’t do anything to the guy that our own people wouldn\’t submit to themselves?”
I thought you said you weren’t into moral equivalency (aside from the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that we are indeed torturing people.)
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Ray said: \”I thought you said you weren’t into moral equivalency…\”
It sounds to me, your response is that you can\’t respond without resorting to moral equivalency? Come on Ray, don\’t be afraid to say what it is you want to say here. Let\’s face it, if people had died because the Library tower had been successfully attacked, it sounds to me that you would have been fine with that if it can be shown to you that we didn\’t torture anyone. Morally speaking, it would seem that you are saying that causing someone in detainment some discomfort is an equal act compared to american innocents murdered.
The fact that the definition of torture is being disputed was simply an inevitability due to the fact that it\’s meaning has been increasingly eroded for about 50 years. Even by your own definition it is not clear that there is any evidence of torture, Ray.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:28 am
Ron, your toolkit of rhetoric seems to consist of no more than putting words into people’s mouths and then arguing against the imaginary monologue you set up.
Clearly, this isn’t going anywhere. You win.