>Six Illogical Errors: Torture Apologists and Their Arguments

>

Each day brings another form of tortured logic to the torture debate. The following are the six lines of argument offered so far by the apologists for the application of torture on persons in U.S. custody – and why those arguments are tenuous, irrelevant, or simply downright obnoxious.

Is the application of torture a violation of U.S. statutes? Yes. See Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C (2340) in which torture is defined. Paragraph 2340A specifies the offense.

What are the main lines of argument offered in support of the Bush Administration’s use of torture on detainees?

1. What was done to the detainees really wasn’t torture. Tautological circumlocution, as evidenced in the Bybee/Yoo memos is required to make this argument, contentions which brush perilously close to the edge of “it’s not illegal if the President does it.” The memos sought by the former Administration seek to define torture so narrowly that almost any action might be determined beyond the scope of the statute, even actions determined to be torture in established precedents. Torture apologists then argue that it can’t be torture if it was performed on members of the U.S. military. The concept of intent, so important to the Bybee attempts at justification, has to be ignored if the torture proponents wish to enter this thicket. The intent of the SERE program, in which members of the Armed Forces are subjected to torture techniques, is to introduce the trainees to those interrogation methods used by unscrupulous adversaries – for the express purpose of teaching the trainee how to avoid giving useful or operational information. Torture apologists really can’t have it both ways, and by attempting to argue both (a) it really wasn’t torture in the first place, and (b) it can’t be torture if we did it to our own troops, the apologists have placed themselves securely on the horns of their own dilemma.

2. What was done was torture, but it was necessary to protect the nation. The ‘necessity defense’ has no traction in this country, but finds some support in rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court. There is a fundamental hypocrisy in evidence when conservative torture apologists, who otherwise deride the acknowledgment of international laws and agreements, seek to advance the ‘necessity defense’ as set forth in foreign courts. However, the hypocrisy isn’t the main problem with this line of argument. The most popular incarnation of this defense is the ubiquitous “Ticking Bomb” scenario. The assumption underlying this fantasy is that, just like in the movies and on scripted television shows, the ‘bad guy’ will endure a few seconds of punishment and promptly ‘give up’ the location of the device. If these scripts were applicable in the real world then why would one detainee be subjected to waterboarding 83 times? The testimony available to date indicates that the waterboarding and other torture methods actually stopped detainees from cooperating with their interrogators. If we really want immediate and useful information about the location of that “Hollywood Bomb” then the slow application of torture would, in reality, produce the opposite result from that which we desire – reliable and truthful information. Perhaps we ought to remember that our adversaries may also be training to avoid giving useful, truthful, and reliable information under torture?

3. There was torture, but those people who knew about it didn’t do anything at the time. The recent assertions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Shelby, former Congressman Porter Goss, and former Senator Graham (FL), knew from briefings about the use of torture and did nothing at the time to stop the practices assumes that there was something they could have done. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Rule 9.7 deals directly with classified briefings and information: “No member of the Committee or of the Committee staff shall disclose, in whole or in part or by way of summary, the contents of any classified or committee sensitive papers, materials, briefings, testimony, or other information in the possession of the Committee to any other person, except as specified in this rule.” And, the rule precludes sharing information without authorization. The House rules for its Intelligence Committee are equally stringent. Meeting are to be closed if the information received or discussed concerns: National security, Sensitive law enforcement information, Degrading or incriminating anyone; or otherwise violate House rules. When dealing with classified information members and committee staff “shall not at any time, either during that person’s tenure as a member of the committee or as committee staff, or anytime thereafter, discuss or disclose, or cause to be discussed or disclosed the classified substance of the work of the committee, any information received by the committee in executive session, any classified information received from any source, or the substance of any hearing that was closed to the public pursuant to these rules and the rules of the House. Frankly, this is one of the weaker arguments, and presents more distraction and explication. First, this line of argument admits that torture took place, (not a very comfortable admission for the torture apologists), and secondly, it assumes authority not granted to divulge the information received during the briefings, to anyone, much less the general public.

4. There was torture, but then, there has always been torture so it must be effective. As stated in the previous post, this argument fails the laugh test. Merely because people have indulged in some belief or action over the centuries doesn’t mean the beliefs or actions are either effective or rational. The fact that for most of our existence as homo sapiens we dressed in animal skins and slept on the ground doesn’t imply that we should revert to doing so. Nor does this argument address questions of morality and ethics. Adultery has been a long standing human practice, that it has existed over the centuries doesn’t make it moral or ethical. Murder has been acknowledged since the Cain/Abel incident, but we do not condone it merely because of its historical tenure in the annals of mankind.

5. There was torture, but to discuss it will embolden our enemies and place members of our government and Armed Services in jeopardy. Obviously, this argument, too, acknowledges the application of torture to detainees in U.S. custody; and it is no more reliable than the previous contentions in its abuse of reality. There has to be an initial determination that members of the CIA and the Armed Forces are already in jeopardy during the course of the work we send them to do on our behalf each and every day. The question, then, becomes does the acknowledgment of torture cause them to be in greater jeopardy? One of the more egregious results of our use of torture, and defiance of international standards, could easily be an opponent’s belief that if we torture their adherents then it must be perfectly acceptable for them to torture our military and intelligence personnel. Extrapolating these mutually destructive assumptions would logically lead to exactly the kind of sub-human behavior the authors and signers of the non-torture agreements sought to remove from the realm of acceptable human behavior in the first place. We would all be reduced to a level below that of the beasts of the forest; “nature is violent – only man is vile.” Surely, this bestial level of behavior is not what the torture apologists have in mind as they attempt to rationalize their conduct. If they do, then perhaps they should reflect on how much this reveals about themselves as opposed to how much it reveals about their adversaries?

6. If you investigate the behavior of our Party, we’ll investigate yours. This line is closely related to the contention that any investigation of the behavior Bush Administration members is, of necessity and by definition, a political stunt. Partisanship often precludes logic, and certainly does so in this instance. The logical position is that questions of who knew what, or who may have acquiesced, are tangential. Anyone who was in a position of authority to devise, execute, and implement a policy of torture in contravention of U.S. law may be culpable for his or her actions; party affiliation is utterly irrelevant.

Tomorrow is another day, and no doubt more efforts to excuse the inexcusable and to justify the unjustifiable will be introduced to the discussion of this sad chapter in our nation’s history.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com