[Industrialblog,
September 29, 2006]
Definitions of torture
I haven't waded into the argument over torture until just now ... mostly I see more heat than light in the blogosphere and MSM. To get to the bottom of it, I'd need to add a few general principles:
1. Of course I'm against torture.
2. The problem is the definition.
3. All definitions of torture are going to probably lead to endless hairsplitting about terms such as "intense suffering," "degrading treatment," "cruelty," and the like. In fact, these terms are far more culturally specific than we might like. I would consider it degrading and cruel to be forced to eat gefilte fish and pickled herring. To others it would be a delightful snack.
Thus:
1. Lets not be a bunch of pansies about this.
2. But let's not lose our humanity, either.
3. So let's cut the crap: in general, the Golden Rule applies. And the Army, apparently, has their own definitions, which I can't seem to find. But I wouldn't say the U.S. Army's definition is the last word. At the same time, it probably is an effective guideline.
4. Also applying are rules of effectiveness — that is, does it work?
5. Remember we are talking about harsh actions designed to elicit information only. We are not talking about punishment. I am talking about interrogation techniques only, and what qualifies as torture.
What would be allowed for purposes of interrogation?
Well, it depends on the circumstances, see ... do you start to see the problem? All humans have certain inalienable rights, we believe that. I would argue that terrorism and waging war against the United States are special cases, designed as they are to tear at the very fabric of our community and attacking our public spaces. We cannot harden every possible target in the U.S. So getting info is rather important, unless you want to pay for hardening every target in the U.S. You see, this is a real problem, not an abstract intellectual exercise.
Things like "humiliating treatment," "degrading treatment," and "cruelty" need to be defined. And everyone draws a line somewhere. Even Mark Shea would say that one thing may be used to apply pressure, but that, that's over the line. And by the way, it doesn't help our cause when our enemies KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.
Which is one reason the torture debate irritates me the most, and also why I've been trying to ignore it. Our enemies shouldn't be exactly sure what we're willing to do or not do. But that's water under the bridge now.
Now, I understand waterboarding has been declared off limits. I suppose we'll try to live with that. There may be other methods of interrogation just as effective. But it's sure disquieting to know that we've just told the world we won't do it anymore. Thanks, guys.
But I suppose the CIA will have to get very creative in their interrogation techniques. I don't despair. They'll probably come up with something. There's always mind games. We better get good at them.
1. Of course I'm against torture.
2. The problem is the definition.
3. All definitions of torture are going to probably lead to endless hairsplitting about terms such as "intense suffering," "degrading treatment," "cruelty," and the like. In fact, these terms are far more culturally specific than we might like. I would consider it degrading and cruel to be forced to eat gefilte fish and pickled herring. To others it would be a delightful snack.
Thus:
1. Lets not be a bunch of pansies about this.
2. But let's not lose our humanity, either.
3. So let's cut the crap: in general, the Golden Rule applies. And the Army, apparently, has their own definitions, which I can't seem to find. But I wouldn't say the U.S. Army's definition is the last word. At the same time, it probably is an effective guideline.
4. Also applying are rules of effectiveness — that is, does it work?
5. Remember we are talking about harsh actions designed to elicit information only. We are not talking about punishment. I am talking about interrogation techniques only, and what qualifies as torture.
What would be allowed for purposes of interrogation?
Well, it depends on the circumstances, see ... do you start to see the problem? All humans have certain inalienable rights, we believe that. I would argue that terrorism and waging war against the United States are special cases, designed as they are to tear at the very fabric of our community and attacking our public spaces. We cannot harden every possible target in the U.S. So getting info is rather important, unless you want to pay for hardening every target in the U.S. You see, this is a real problem, not an abstract intellectual exercise.
Things like "humiliating treatment," "degrading treatment," and "cruelty" need to be defined. And everyone draws a line somewhere. Even Mark Shea would say that one thing may be used to apply pressure, but that, that's over the line. And by the way, it doesn't help our cause when our enemies KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.
Which is one reason the torture debate irritates me the most, and also why I've been trying to ignore it. Our enemies shouldn't be exactly sure what we're willing to do or not do. But that's water under the bridge now.
Now, I understand waterboarding has been declared off limits. I suppose we'll try to live with that. There may be other methods of interrogation just as effective. But it's sure disquieting to know that we've just told the world we won't do it anymore. Thanks, guys.
But I suppose the CIA will have to get very creative in their interrogation techniques. I don't despair. They'll probably come up with something. There's always mind games. We better get good at them.
Maybe we should compare sources.
BTW - Waterboarding? It was a favorite of the Khmer Rouge.
story HERE