This is the sort of intellectual muddle-headedness that gives politicians a bad name.
The problem with trying to answer Senator King's questions is that there really are at least two issues with the use of torture by the authorities of the state which need to be teased apart unless one is simply trying to score political points to titillate the media.
One question is definitional or ontological, the other is ethical. They are: What actually constitutes torture, and, secondly, whatever torture is, is it ever justified? The argument in some quarters seems to boil down to this: "Don't worry about what torture is. Just don't do it." This position is quite unhelpful and more than a little ludicrous.
To start let's agree that torture is at least almost always wrong. If we're going to absolutely prohibit it, however, we have to have a pretty good idea what it is, especially if we risk abolishing a useful tool in preventing terror attacks that could potentially take the lives of our spouses and children.
The Geneva Convention of 1984 defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person...."
Let's apply that definition to one of the most notorious, and effective, means of coercing cooperation among suspected terrorists interrogated by the CIA - waterboarding. The CIA is believed to have used waterboarding in certain special cases to prevent the deaths of innocent victims.
In waterboarding a detainee is strapped to a table, his face is covered with a thin cloth and water is poured over it. This somehow produces a gag reflex, the sensation of drowning, and induces panic in the person to whom it's done. It's said to be very effective in eliciting accurate intelligence, intelligence which has saved lives.
Be that as it may, let's set aside the question of its justification for now and ask why we should think that this particular technique, if not abused, constitutes torture according to the Geneva Convention. What are some possible answers to that question?
Perhaps it's torture because it's painful.
But apparently there's not much pain involved, and if there were it would only be brief since people only hold out for a few seconds when subjected to it.
Perhaps it's torture because it does lasting harm to the detainee.
Evidently not. If done properly, the individual is no doubt shaken but none the worse for the experience. In fact, interrogators have had it done to them as part of their training just so they know what it feels like.
Perhaps it's torture because it's done to punish.
No. It's done to elicit information. Once the subject cooperates the treatment ceases.
Perhaps it's torture because it's unpleasant.
It is unpleasant, but surely an unpleasant experience is not ipso facto torture. If it were, then putting someone in restraints or feeding them institutional food would be torture.
Perhaps it's torture because it frightens the terrorist.
Indeed, it does frighten the terrorist, but so does the prospect of being executed for their crimes or being put in prison for the rest of their life. Should they not be threatened with these possibilities? Why must we be so squeamish that we're reluctant even to scare people who are trying to murder our children?
Perhaps it's torture because it elicits information against the detainee's will.
It certainly does motivate the terrorist to divulge information, but the fact that they don't do so willingly is hardly reason to think that the method is somehow tainted. If it were then phone taps, etc would be torture since they are means by which we obtain information from people who would not otherwise willingly give it.
Perhaps, it's torture because some men are exerting power over another.
Yes, but so is a police officer who stops you for a traffic violation, and we don't consider that torture.
Perhaps it'storture because it can be abused by the interrogator causing lasting harm to the suspect.
True enough, but any treatment of a suspect can be abused and cause lasting harm. The objection here is to the abuse not to the technique.
The fact is that the suspect has complete control over how long the process lasts or whether it will even begin. This is an important point. The terrorist is essentially in complete control of what, if anything, happens to him. He's no more damaged when it's over than when it started. He experiences no sensation other than panic and though he's frightened, he knows that he really is not drowning.
So why would waterboarding be considered torture but, say, lengthy imprisonment, which may do some, or even all, of the things mentioned above, is not? I really have no answer to the question.
Whatever one thinks about waterboarding there are certainly other forms of coercion that might violate the Geneva Convention, but the definition that the signatories to the Convention have endorsed appears to be inadequate.Defining torture is difficult enough, but insisting that it's use is absolutely wrong and should never be employed is perhaps even more difficult, as tomorrow's post will attempt to show. Please don't draw any conclusions about the present post until you've read tomorrow's offering.
