Demosophia

Torture: A Taboo Subject?

The London Telegraph recently published an article by Julian Coman entitled
"Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'" that has been represented as casting aspersion on the Bush Administration, (Article may require registration.) I'm probably too dense to understand what they're driving at, but it seems to me that this is simply bringing a taboo topic into the open. The subtext of the article is that the Bush Administration challenged the taboo, and they ought to be punished for doing so. From a practical standpoint, that's probably a not as solid a postition for Democrats in the US to take as they might be inclined to think.

I've pulled a few excerpts from the article, with what I think are some obvious responses. You be the judge.

A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror.

Which is, of course, true. I'm sorry, but I just find this totally unremarkable. The issue for me is whether the application of interrogation techniques are appropriate and specific, and whether anyone was accountable for the decision.

Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States attorney-general, John Ashcroft.

And I hope he continues to refuse this silly fishing expedition.

"It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the administration about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser to the Pentagon. "And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now that it's in the open, the administration is having to change that answer somewhat."

So what's the position? That there shouldn't have been a debate? Or that "pretty far" was unjustified? Fine, let's talk about that.

In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign, set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use - including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days.

And there really is no problem with using any of these techniques provided the circumstances warrant it. The problem, and the only problem, comes about in issuing a general ruling allowing individuals to use their own discretion. And I think most of those in the military will agree that that's the only thing that's really dysfunctional here... other than the blatant posturing that's being done by bloviating Democratic senators. It's hard to see that they're going to reap any political rewards from holding this picture too close to the public's face. I'd venture to guess that the majority will not object to the logic involved in these memos, but they would have a problem with having it shoved in their faces too much. Of course I'm just guessing, but I should think there's a risk in being too screechingly self-righteous in the long run. Most people will recognize that it's probably reasonable to use some fairly drastic measures to extract information from someone with knowledge of a mass terrorism plot.

The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realizing how damaging this scandal could become."

Notice here that the Pentagon has launched an investigation. Not CBS News, or even a Senate Committee. The Pentagon.

A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by a more senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not have the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that the Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees.

As it probably ought.

Legal and constitutional experts have expressed astonishment at the judgments made by administration lawyers on interrogation techniques. In one memo, written in January 2002, Mr Gonzalez told President Bush that the nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions".

Why someone would be "astonished" at the obvious is beyond me. Of course it renders the Geneva Conventions obsolete. And as I've said, and others have also observed, we've never fought an enemy that adhered to the Geneva Conventions anyway. (In fact, I don't think the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, though I could be wrong about that.)

A separate memo, written by Pentagon lawyers in March 2003, stated that "the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental is insufficient to amount to torture. [The pain] must be of such a high level of intensity that it is difficult for the subject to endure".

Well that's sort of common sense isn't it? If the pain is easy to endure how is it torture? Of course, the only sort of easy-to-endure-pain that would have any efficacy in interrogation would involve making the subject uncomfortable in some way. I fail to see how that, alone, would consitute torture or even unethical practice in most cases. We are talking about warfare, not membership in a sports club... though I daresay that even in the latter situation not everyone would demand total comfort or absence of pain.

The bottom line for me is that I just see an enormous amount of posturing. Some of these proposed practices are certainly extreme, and one can disagree about whether, or when, they ought to be used. But I should think that the mere fact that a debate existed within the DoJ or within the Administration is not cause to indict. Rather, I think it's precisely what they ought to have done.

Again, the dysfunction seems to be that discretion on where and when to employ such techniques seems to have been left to local officers, or even civilians. This is a serious problem, but in general it is not the problem that critics of this administration are pointing to. And I do not think the war effort is well served by a general taboo, either on techniques and methods or on debate and discussion. That seems like the opposite of what we ought to be doing.

[Update: I'm not sure that the position I'm staking out here is necessarily in direct conflict with that of Andrew Sullivan, but I would like to know what, specifically, he would stop. All efforts to intimidate and discomfit terrorist suspects? Everything that looks unseemly, based on the appearance alone? Or is it simply the lack of accountability and specificity? The general application of torture and torture-like methods from hands length? If the latter then we don't disagree, but I wish he were less vague.]

Posted by Demosophist at June 14, 2004 03:46 PM | TrackBack