American Idealism

A friend recently asked me if I would rather that the US be attacked due to the lack of information obtained via water boarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" than to allow said techniques.  We sent each other a couple of rounds of email in our discussion.  I thought it would be interesting to bring my side of that conversation to my blog.  Click "Read More" to see my take on the topic.

In light of the death of Osama bin Laden, there's been a renewed discussion of the use of "water boarding" and other interrogation techniques that cross the line into torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions.  Is it appropriate or moral to use these techniques if it leads to intelligence that stops an attack to the USA?  In my opinion, the answer is no.

The Geneva Conventions

Torture of combatants was banned by the Geneva Conventions in 1929.  The GC are a series of treaties ratified by the US starting in 1884 and continuing until after WW2, amended as late as 2005.  This series of treaties set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war and the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict.

This is what I understand:  Water boarding is defined as torture under the Geneva Convention because is it inhuman (and not because of it's effectiveness).  Therefore it should not be part of our arsenal of interrogation techniques.

This is my opinion: That torture works to extract information, some of the time, does not justify its use.  It is outlawed because it is recognized as cruel and inhuman.  It is wrong to torture.  Even though it is well-documented that torture does not work as intended, but does occasionally work with some people, does not justify its use.  In fact, its overall rate of failure to get the desired result reinforces to me that it should not be used.

Logic Leads to No Torture

Here are the logical steps to my position:

We are a moral and democratic country that does not act with impunity in its behavior.  We are a country of laws that bind the behavior of the government (US Declaration of Independence, Constitution, laws and court rulings).

We have agreed that torture is inhuman and should not be used (we signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions).

We do not know ahead of time with whom torture will work (it works some of the time but not always).

We do not know if the target of torture has the info needed (although we have alternative evidence that suggests they do, it is not perfect evidence [no evidence is perfect - our entire criminal justice system is based on this fact]).

Therefore, we are possibly using the torture technique on a person who does not have the info we seek.  We are torturing people who cannot not help our position.

Therefore, we are treating a person inhumanely with no possibility of our desired result.

Only the most despotic and cruel countries torture people who cannot possibly help their position.

We believe in moral behavior.  We are not a despotic country.

Therefore, we should not torture, ever.

Stated simply: We must never TORTURE the WRONG person.  This can only happen if we do not torture.

This isn't rocket science we're talking about.  This is torture, damn it.  Are we civilized such that we recognize that torture is wrong and should be avoided or are we not?

I want to believe we are.  I am sad that there are those in power to disagree with me.  Among other things, I vote to remove them from office.

They Started It!

We have agreed to not use techniques defined as torture.  By the principle that breaking the treaties is wrong, it is immoral for us to use these techniques.  That a group attacking us viciously, regardless of the fact they are doing things that are inhuman, regardless of the fact they have not signed the treaties, does not justify our breaking from the agreement.

It's been said that bin Laden did not care about the Geneva Conventions. Did the Japanese care in WW2? Did Hitler care?  It could be said we "broke" the convention in WW2 in many ways while winning the war and claiming high ground.

I agree that the Germans and Japanese did not seem to care about the Geneva Conventions.  The agreement as to the treatment and torture of POWs during times of war is defined in the Third Geneva Convention adapted in 1929.  They were wrong to do so.  It was wrong then.  It is wrong now.

I believe it is provable that the US treatment of German and Japanese POWs was closer to the conventions that the treatment given to allies held by the axis, especially near the end of the war.

The wrong should be punished regardless of the side.  At the same time, we are human and it is in our nature to ignore the wrongs performed by the winning side.  Just because it's in our nature does not make it right.

When founded, we were country that has slavery written into our constitution.  We have corrected that wrong and no longer allow slavery.  We can change and become morally better by making the right choices in our laws and our behavior.  I believe the use of torture is a behavior that we should acknowledge that we used in our past but have chosen to abolish.  Unfortunately it appears to be in our very recent past and not everyone agrees with me.

Lack of Info Means Another Attack?

I was asked "You would rather that the US be attacked due to the lack of information obtained?"

This question is posed as if there are only two alternatives.  This is not the case.

1. It is possible that the information to stop an attack could be retrieved by torture.

2.  It is possible that we would be attacked if torture does not occurred.

But is is also possible that

3. The info retrieved by torture is retrieved too late and we are attacked regardless.

4.  The information received by torture is false or plans have changed and we would not have been attacked regardless of the torture.

5. The target of torture could die from the torture before revealing the information.  It is now impossible to retrieve the info.  We cannot stop the attack.

There are many other alternatives.

This type of question is called a "false dilemma".  I try to be aware when I am asked such a question.  At the very least it means the question could be better stated.  Worse is the person stating the question is trying to trick me to making a statement contradicting my previously stated position.

Mine is not an easy position to hold but I believe it it the morally sound position.  My logic and morals won't satisfy me if we are attacked by someone with whom we could have stopped by using torture.  In fact, I will be very sad and angry.  Hell, I might even be dead.  But I also believe in honor and doing the right thing. 

At the same time I hold our government, and me as an individual, to a higher standard.  I don't always meet the standard but it is something to which I aspire.  It is something to which I aspire for our country.

I believe that by setting a better example that we will convince others that it is in their better interest to *not* attack us.  I believe that by lowering ourselves to the level of those who act immoral, we will reap what we sow.

Precedence

This is not a rare position that I hold.  It's actually common in history and in life today.

For example:

1. Many Christians believe that they should follow the example of Jesus.  What would Jesus do?  I doubt very much he would propose torture on those that mean to inflict violence on him.

2. Why we do not allow the family members of murder victims to prescribe punishment to the perpetrators?  It is because it is thought they cannot act without vengeance.   We choose someone who acts to a higher standard: the judge, who follows precedence and law to give fair and human punishment.

In the case of 9/11, most of us of feel we lost "family" in the murders of the victims of the attacks.  We want revenge and justify torture to seek it.  But I believe we must be guided by our higher angels, the best part of ourselves that agreed that torture is wrong.  We must do this even when we hurt and know the perpetrators of the hurt are alive and planning to do us more harm.

Torture is wrong.  We must not torture.