We need to be informed on the uses of torture, not just the immorality of torture itself, but also that information is not to be morally obtained by any social scientist/torturer who argues the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Senator John McCain, May 13, 2011, in a Washington Post op ed has enunciated for the United States that torture must be prohibited by both our laws and our societal values, a moral imperative, with prospective benefit to our identity in the world as exceptional in our regard for individual rights as superior to the wishes of the majority which governs our nation:
"Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but evern then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others."
McCain states with certainty that "waterboarding," which he defines as mock execution, is an exquisite form of torture.
However, Senator McCain also took the position that those in our recent past who used these techniques should not be prosecuted. Does he also wish to protect from prosecution those officials who advised of the legality of waterboarding, authorized it, or condoned it? Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey may well endorse McCain's posture on prosecution, and for his own insularity from public condemnation for having condoned water boarding (although presumably there has to be some immunity available to this former judge and attorney general who has condoned and excused waterboarding). A former judge, the honorable Mukasey specifically has cited to the success however of waterboarding in unloosening the tongue of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
McCain concerned with Judge Mukasey's conduct checked the facts. He reports in his op ed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. The revelation of the name of a trusted courier of Bin Laden's by Khalid as valuable disclosure due to the effectiveness of waterboarding as an intelligence necessity was tied by Mukasey to the effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. McCain having checked his facts with the Central Intelligence Agency underscores that there is no such connection between the waterboarding of Khalid and the actual kill of Bin Laden by Navy Seals this spring of 2011. The good judge apparently in an effort to again condone waterboarding has been revealed as loose with his facts. His reputation for his brand of patriotism, my country right or wrong, appears to exceed his judicial review capacity for truth and veracity.
To make his case clear, McCain proceeds to point out that the information in fact obtained from Khalid was false and misleading. As a victim of torture himself, McCain has a clear picture of what disclosures might be made by a prisoner to bring an end to the torture experience. He makes it clear that the taint on the reliability of information which is the byproduct of torture is premised on relief from torture.
In effect, the victim of torture tells his tormentors what they want to hear if the victim can provide it and, if competent of subterfuge, will while doing so (if loyal to his cause, a patriot) provide misleading information or patently false information, especially if he or she can manage to do so. One has to believe that even a surcease of torture for a brief period of time is worth lying to your tormentors. I think it safe to say that an important aspect of torture is that the victim of it would do anything to have it stop (it being so psychologically harsh, a result of the type, nature, and duration of the pain inflicted). Waterboarding fits this aspect of the definition of torture.
McCain also makes clear that humane treatment of prisoners is ultimately a protection for our own who defend us in peace and war who may be taken prisoner, albeit not all enemies of the United States would reciprocate. At least, the U.S. known to the world as value centered could expect the humane treatment of its citizens as it treats its prisoners humanely.
Finally, McCain frames his position as a moral, not utilitarian one, and he would like for this country to decide from this time forward to be true to its values as the foundation of American exceptionalism. "Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us."
President Obama likewise appears to be genuinely concerned that this basis of American exceptionalism be perpetuated. Both President Obama and Senator McCain also seem resolved not to hold officials to account for conduct which during the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush so discredited and besmirched our reputation for upholding the dignity and respect of the individual captive who is under our control and dominion. Note that much of the harm that was done in the War on Terrorism was done to prisoners under the control and dominion of another nation, while the U.S. stood by holding the figurative robe of the torturer. Not just nasty, immoral!
Peter Dross, Center for Victims of Torture, rightly takes to task Jay Ambrose, an apologist for waterboarding as of limited use, i.e. three admitted cases of waterboarding individuals. Dross is very clear that Ambrose's attempt to relegate the humanitarian concern that this country not stoop to torture its prisoners as a ploy of the political left is a misrepresentation of the institutional disregard of the use of torture by leaders of the military, national security, and foreign affairs of this country, who supported President Obama's executive order banning torture back in 2009 shortly after he took office.
The potential efficacy of what proponent's call enhanced interrogation techniques is arguable if one listens to the recent public debate on such techniques. See Note 4 below for an example of Gregg Bloche's recent stance on the issue of public debate enhanced interrogation. Bloche points out that the case for enhanced interrogation remains unproven and unprovable since the utilitarian justification of immorality requires the practice of immoral torture be condoned long enough to document its effectiveness in procuring the public safety. Indeed, anyone acting in an official capacity, policemen or operative of intelligence agency, who tortures one to obtain information should be removed from office and prevented in the future from holding any office of public trust. That would include anyone condoning a study to scientifically establish that the use of torture is effective in obtaining vital national security information from a captive.
Notes:
1. "America should not be a nation of torture," John McCain, Star Tribune, Friday, May 13, 2011, at All,
(The Star Tribune reprinted this article from the Washington Post).
2. Ibid.
3. "A Silly debate? What a senseless argument," Peter Dross, Star Tribune, May 13, 2011, at A11 (Peter Dross is director of policy and development for the Center for Victims of Torture).
4. See for example "Torture is bad - but it might work," Gregg Bloche, Star Tribune, June 5, 2011, Op 2-3 (in which the author reports on the science of interrogation in conjunction with learned helplessness and the benefits of torture in inducing learned helplessness and disclosure of vital information by a captive) (originally published by the Washington Post).
5. Bloche at Op 3 makes this argument in his op ed piece as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment