Why We Can't Use Torture -- Ever
We are having an argument in this country that, frankly, I never thought we would have: whether or not we should use torture, and how much torture is allowable.
For anyone who is still debating the answers to those two questions, let me pose the points that have led me to conclusion in the title, and you see if you agree:
Most people who argue for torture use the "ticking bomb" justification: you've captured either a known or suspected terrorist, a bomb is going to go off in an hour, and you have to get the bomb location out of the detainee in time to defuse the bomb. Thus, torture is justified on the one person in order to save the lives of many persons.
There are two immediate objections to this argument, so I will share them even though they are not the clinching argument for me. Here they are:
Torture is ineffective. Forget for a moment whether or not it is moral -- let's just talk about whether it works. And if you've read the research, you know the answer: torture is infamous for NOT working. Persons being tortured will say anything to make it stop. If you doubt this, answer me this -- all those Americans who confessed to being war criminals after being tortured in World War II and the Korean War, were they guilty? Of course not, and everyone knew it. That's why we have laws about obtaining confessions under duress. Torture doesn't work.
What if you have the wrong guy? Jack Bauer on "24" never makes a mistake, never picks up an innocent person in the fog of war. In real life, though, innocent people become enmeshed in the system all the time. The Canadian that the US arrested and sent into the hell of extraordinary rendition is just one example. If we torture, we will inevitably torture innocent people.
::
I know, I know ... I can almost hear you saying "But what about that bomb? What if a little waterboarding, a little beating, a few stress positions would actually get us the location? Wouldn't that be okay?" So let's deal with the main reason we can't torture ... ever.
Reverse the first two arguments, for now. Torture can work, and you've got the right guy. You ask for the bomb location, and he refuses. So, you beat him for about ten minutes. No go -- he's not talking. You strip him naked and douse him with ice-cold water. You waterboard him once, twice, three times. But he's a tough nut, and you're desperate.
Now what? You've got to get that bomb location, or thousands, millions of people may die. You've already justified what you've done in order to save lives -- why not go further? Why not start pulling out fingernails? Why not start cutting off fingers? Hell, you've gone this far -- why not rape his wife in front of his eyes? Why not rape his 5-year-old son? After all, you've already concluded that the end justifies the means, so what moral ground do you have to choose between one form of torture and another? If some torture is allowed, then all torture is allowed.
THAT is the reason that we cannot ever sanction the use of torture: it is truly the slippery slope. Once you have made the moral decision that abuse of another human being is justified, there is nothing to stop you from going further, and further, and further ... until you, and your government, and your nation have all fallen down the rabbit hole, where evil is good and torture is moral and the government writes memos redefining the word "torture" so it can say it does not torture. If today waterboarding is morally justified, then tomorrow electric shocks will be morally justified, and the country may survive but America will be destroyed.
Anyone reading what was in the Bybee memos knows what it is -- torture. This nation, the shining city on the hill, is now officially a nation that practices torture. The acts that we once prosecuted as war crimes when carried out by others, we now do ourselves. It is time for everyone who is a patriot to demand that not only must torture stop, it must also be so thoroughly discredited and outlawed that never again will a president, a military official, or an intelligence officer be able to take us down that slippery slope. Never again should there be any question as to how we treat our prisoners. Never again should there be any question about the use of torture. We don't torture ... period.
Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 10:37PM
Reader Comments (2)
Thanks Bruce. You have spoken with a voice of moral clarity at a time when moral clarity has been sacrificed in the name of expediency and fear. I am glad we are having the debate, even if it is too late to prevent what has already happened. The issues will continue to surface, however, so let us debate the issues.
Oh Bruce, I'm with you 100%.
This should never have been a debate or even an issue and this has been haunting me ever since it has surfaced. I cannot believe it and yet there it is. I really wish we were punishing those responsible. And by those I mean the administration that allowed it to happen and those that morally knew it was wrong but did it anyways.
It almost shames me to be an American with the news of Torture. Now we're just as bad as the rest of them.