by Matthew Alexander, Small Wars Journal Op-Ed
Smarter, Not Harsher (Full PDF Article)
TV shows like 24 incorporate interrogations and the use of torture under the "ticking bomb" scenario because it is dramatic and entertaining. The myriad of cop shows on TV (including NYPD Blue, CSI, Law & Order, and The Shield) consistently use harsh and forceful interrogation scenes to build excitement, it is a favorite topic of talking head political shows, and was a major topic in the recent presidential debates.
What's interesting to me is that the debate over torture in interrogations is morally important, but pragmatically irrelevant. Politicians and bureaucrats supporting the current administration have put in Herculean efforts to legalize harsh techniques, labeled "enhanced interrogation techniques," and to keep them classified. These methods are in complete contradiction to the standards that we expect our own troops, when captured, to be afforded and they are incompatible with American principles. Enhanced interrogation techniques are torture by the standards of the Geneva Conventions which we proclaim to uphold. What's most important, they are neither the most efficient nor reliable methods of achieving cooperation.
About the Author(s)
Comments
Ken,
Thanks for the comments. I understand things seem much simpler from my seat in a university library than from the ground. Nor have I personally faced these kinds of choices, at least not yet.
But I know Abu Buckwheat on the Council has said, when everyone was discussing the Luttrell "Lone Survivor" case that "we must have a hard deck somewhere." And I tend to agree with that. Recognizing the opacity (opaqueness?) of these situations is necessary as well, but to me, "harsh" or "enhanced" interrogation or anything of the sort is often removed from the confusion and bedlam of the battlefront.
These decisions to set law and what I at least consider morality aside are decisions made not by junior leaders under fire in the heat of the moment, but by senior policymakers in Washington. I am willing to give the man on the ground a fair shake - God knows I don't have the experience to question him; when senior leaders throw out accepted domestic and international law, I cannot help but loudly disagree.
And as always, thanks for punctuating my flowery would-be eloquence with cold experience. If nothing else, it does a good job of keeping my big mouth in check.
Regards,
Matt
Good thoughts, Matt. I do not disagree with you but would proffer a couple of thoughts...<blockquote>"War is organized killing, and separated from murder only when honorably conducted within the realm of legality, as codified in the jus in bello framework in the Western (and now world-wide accepted) tradition."</blockquote>Having been an infantryman in a couple of wars, I do not recall anything remotely 'honorable' in doing what needed to be done and doing it legally and well. You may differ.<blockquote>"The point is that we must not reject torture on the basis of its utility. We must reject it on the basis of its complete incompatibility with the rule of law, honor, and everything we as a people stand for."</blockquote>Well said. No one can disagree with that, it's crystal clear. Unless they're out there in the middle of it all, than there's a lot of opacity about...
All the foregoing by me is not said with any intent to push moral relativism; it is simply to say that such things are easy for all of us to say. It is sometimes not so easy to do everything 'right' in the press of business.
I do not suggest you or anyone else should adjust their moral compass. I do suggest that any of us in judging others -- or in divining what we might do in a situation -- all possible factors be considered and all possible facts be known before making a judgment.
Although I don't really argue with any conclusions Mr. Alexander draws, I do take issue with the oft-used comment that "more importantly," (than the illegality and immorality of the conduct) is the pragmatic side, i.e., that torture is non- or counterproductive.
Our civilization is built upon the rule of law. For proof of that, remember that our ultimate goal in this "Long War" is the establishment of the rule of law in a society more closely modeled upon our own and (in theory) capable of handling its own extremists before their violence spills across borders. War is organized killing, and separated from murder only when honorably conducted within the realm of legality, as codified in the jus in bello framework in the Western (and now world-wide accepted) tradition. The cruel coercion of a helpless individual in your custody, regardless of the "nobility" of the eventual purpose of that coercion, is beyond the pale; by violating the codified and accepted standard of treatment, it strips the soldiers who must conduct these acts of their protections of law and honor, and it breaks down the legal structure of our society. If law only applies when we want it to apply, we are running a grave risk.
The point is that we must not reject torture on the basis of its utility. We must reject it on the basis of its complete incompatibility with the rule of law, honor, and everything we as a people stand for.
Regards,
Matt