The Problem with Torture (reprint)

I'm gonna move this back to the top because if there's one thing that I think I really have to say on this blog, it's this post on the futility of torture and abuse.

This is what started me off.

Senior Pentagon officials have opposed the release of photographs and videotapes of the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, arguing that they would incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of American soldiers and officials at risk, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a statement put forth to support the Pentagon's case that he believed that "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents will result" if the images were released.

First, if Sy Hersh is to be believed, one of the videos depicts a young Iraqi being sodomized. Yeah, that'll cause some trouble.

If this stuff does become public, it will completely undermine alot of the centrist support for the secret archipelago of prisons and renditions the US Gov't has been running. And if those come under pressure, there will be still more leaks and stories on what is really going on.

So, yeah, it's about the immediate investigation on Abu Ghraib, but it's also about the timid, "well, I guess they have to do it" supporters that have let the government disappear people under the rubric of fighting terrorism.


Second, I would question the relative worth of the information our detainee treatment provides against the political cost both in the Arab world, and in the rest of the world. In the Arab world, I would argue that our tactics are creating far more new radicals than our methods helping ensnare. Now, I must qualify this by saying that I am not privy to all the info these "interrogations" provide, but I would be willing to wager that these tactics are producing more terrorists than they are helping catch.

As to the rest of the world, the Chinas and Russias now have a free pass on whatever they want to do, not to mention the Nigerias, Sudans and the worst of the world community.

Also, the support from Europe is growing increasingly reluctant given that they know what will happen to those suspects turned over to US custody and that the officials involved may face some liability for the war crimes we commit. We are not members of the International Criminal Court, but the Italians are, where the Milan magistrate has issued arrest warrants for CIA personnel who conducted a "rendition," and the Swedes and Germans are who are now conducting separate investigations into separate rendition events. Because of Guantanamo and the outsourcing of torture to a whole slew of countries, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Uzbekistan,...., the Europeans will become increasingly hesitant to supply us with information, thus greatly hampering the "war on terror."



Third, there are several basic problems with using torture in the method the Bush admin is utilizing it.

Sub 1. You have the unconscionable torture of innocent people. There have been several cases of people being released from Guantanamo to their home countries who were then released without charge, four famously to Britain, who claimed torture. In order to establish these guys innocence, the Guantanamo system beat them, deprived them of water, kept them awake for up to three days, exposed them to extreme cold/hot/loud music/lights. To me it echoes the witch trials where the only way to prove your innocence was to die. That is unconscionable.

Sub 2. Once you've tortured these guys for information, there is no way that they will ever be able to stand trial, the evidence being obviously tainted. Let's assume that the "tactics" produced a belief of guilt, what do you do with them? You can't try them; you can't release them. So you're only alternative is to hold them without charge indefinitely. And, I don't know about you, but to my understanding, the idea that a president, solely by his fiat, can commit someone to lifetime imprisonment is both unconstitutional and anathema to the very America I was brought up to believe in. A nation of laws.


Lastly, as to the distinction between "torture" and "abuse." I understand that Rumsfeld very carefully chose that word as a softer word to describe what went on at Abu Ghraib as non- systemic and non-sanctioned to keep the blame solely on the lower level soldiers and away from himself, but to me abuse is so much worse than torture. At least with torture, no matter how strongly you oppose it, there is a purpose. In "abuse," it is simply the infliction of pain solely because of the dominant/submissive relationship in an attempt to "break them." Is that really any better?

And, for now, I'll completely leave out the discussion of whether or not torture is effective as an information gathering tool.

Enough.

And, as always, comments are welcome.