The Guardian reports that some of the information leading to the arrests of alleged terrorist plotters in London may have been procured under torture (via Doug Krile):
It’s important that we realize that this latest news presents a challenge to one of the biggest arguments against torture — that information produced under duress is often unreliable. As expected, conservatives pounced on the news. Here’s what Karol Sheinin, writing for MichelleMalkin.com, had to say:
Personally, I have no such quandary. It is one thing to debate the ethics of torture in a general sense, whether captured terrorists can be subject to uncomfortable conditions in order to extract information about their network and associates. It’s quite another to understand the use of torture in order to save the lives of innocent people. An attack was imminent, and the information had to be obtained, no matter the method.
That’s a nice sleight-of-hand — Sheinin derides discussion of torture “in a general sense,” and then discusses torture in a general sense. She’s unwilling to name the barbaric acts of which she approves: “uncomfortable conditions” are what one experiences when the air conditioning goes out in 90 degree weather; waterboarding, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and anal rape are what one experiences when one is “rendered” by the United States Government.
The first condition of any sort of dialogue on this matter involves an honest description of it, rather than a cynical and politically motivated minimization of what torture truly entails. It’s particularly important because the entire process of what The New Yorker calls “the outsourcing of torture” depends upon an effort to keep American citizens ignorant of what is being done in their — in our — names.
So, let’s welcome this chance to educate Americans about what “uncomfortable conditions” really means — and let’s start with the videos from The Abu Ghraib Files. Let’s ask our fellow citizens to watch the videos of Iraqi prisoners being forced to masturbate in front of the camera, the footage of Iraqis being shocked by electric nodes, the images of them being stacked naked in pyramids. And then let’s talk about what “uncomfortable conditions” really means.
Writing for Alternet last year, Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine summed up the need for a robust and honest dialogue about torture:
The president and vice president wish to chart a course of heretofore unacceptable savagery toward anyone even suspected of terrorism. If we are to become a nation where a president may torture anyone he wishes, it deserves a broad, sober, fact-based national debate.
A year later, conservative writers and administration officials are still preventing that debate from taking place. Until that changes, torture will remain our national shame.
Update: Please see my comments on this post at the end of the next one.
3 Comments on "Sugarcoating Torture"
Kevin Wolf:
I had no idea Salon had posted those vidoes. I jumped over and watched one and that was more than enough. I think the same could be said for most viewers.
Torture fans operate not solely by using nebulous terms but by positioning their every argument in the realm of fantasy.
The most famous such argument is the ticking time bomb. This presupposes that the bomb will defninitely go off, it will kill many innocents and that the location of the bomb can only be found through “torture” (again, never really defined) of a participant in the bomb plot.
Any part of that train of thought could derail in the real world. But that’s just where we are encouraged not to go. Better to keep watching TV and shopping.
Kuni:
Torture can never be justified. If someone has to resort to torture to get intelligence, they are incompetent.
I suggest you study methods developed by brigadier general David Irvine (Ret.) which are a kinder, gentler interrogation style: Legal under international military law, effective against the most stubborn enemy, and - above all - moral.
Matt:
Thanks, Kuni. I’m unclear whether you saw my link to Irvine’s comments above in the post. In any case, you’re right: torture cannot be justified, and, as I noted in my next post, this very incident may prove again the point that information gleaned from torture is always suspect.
Comments