Torture?

Torture? Is it okay? Even in the most extreme cases? Not in my opinion, unless the person authorizing the torture is psychic and has, you know, determined that the person being tortured is, in fact, definitely and absolutely a terrorist with information that will stop an immediate threat to life. Of course, someone of such magical abilities would be better put to use preventing terrorism in the first place instead of dealing with prisoners after the fact. Further, if torture is to be okay, we must stop pretending that we possess the moral high ground over any third world dicatator or thug. Employing their tactics wouldn't exactly allow us that distinction anymore.

What happens after we've tortured someone who turned out to be innocent? A simple, "oops, my bad" won't cut it. Collectivist platitudes like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" won't impress the wife and children of a man who's been broken, beaten and whipped for absolutely no reason. What if it was you? If it were me, I'd be out for blood and looking to hurt someone. And that's no exaggeration. No apology or explanation could ever excuse such treatment. I don't care what you think a person knew, if you're wrong, you've abused, defiled and disgraced a person based solely on what you "thought" they knew. And there is no surefire way to guarantee you won't be wrong. How is that suddenly okay? "Needs of the many" philosophies belong in neo-Marxia, not in societies interested in liberty.

Have we suddenly become infallible and exempt from the standards we wish for other nations simply because we happen to be born in a particular hemisphere? I don't think so. We've already had to free many Afghans after U.S. military forces have incorrectly arrested them, or in some cases simply arrested everyone in a particular place at a particular time. Al Jazeera has been complaining for months that one of their staffers has been falsely detained in Cuba and has been habitually mistreated. Perhaps he's been tortured as well. And there has been talk of kangaroo court military tribunals for over a year now. Do we really wish to say, he ain't American, who cares, mistakes will be made, but we gotta look out for number 1?

There is a reason why the military is forbidden (with very, very limited exceptions) to perfom police procedures within the confines of the U.S. Quite simply, they suck at it, and I say that as a veteran with some limited military police training. Who is going to make amends when those wrongly arrested are then tortured? And believe me, if we rely on military police and infantry seizures as a partial basis for who gets tortured and who doesn't, we'll be making amends over and over and over again. And we'll have only succeeded in producing future terrorists and ceding our moral standing in the world.

I've about made my peace with this issue for now. I may speak on it again, simply because I find the thought so repulsive. Further, I can't begin to fathom the horror an innocent person would endure at the hands of a state paid, trained and legally protected sadist. For those six years I wore a uniform on active duty I took my directives to adhere to the different Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war very seriously. As flawed as the various editions of Genvea Conventions may be, the thought of willfully violating one their most basic tenets based on what we think someone might know makes my stomach turn.

Below are more posts on torture, both pro and con.

Read Radley Balko's post on torture.

Read Gene Healy's post on torture.

Read Jim Henley's post on torture.

Read Arthur Silber's post on torture.

Read Eve Tushnet's post on torture.