Congress is in the dark, intentionally, about the interrogation techniques used by the CIA and other government entities. So, for instance: “I don’t know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know,” said Senator Jeff Sessions. What an astounding attitude from a United States Senator.
Sullivan:
I’m amazed that, in the context of what we now know this president has authorized for the CIA, and wants to retain for use by the CIA, an obvious connection has not been made more forcefully. When you look at the photographs from Abu Ghraib, what do you see? You see exactly the “alternative methods” this administration is trying to preserve: long-time standing, nakedness, degradation, stress positions, sleep deprivation – and much worse as well that will now be clearly banned: rape and murder. (Worryingly, sexual abuse short of penetration seems
to be a gray area in the proposal.) It strains credibility to believe that these images were not related by clear signals from the very top that the “gloves were off” and that the president and defense secretary gave torture and abuse cover and approval.
…“Doused with cold water” and “deprived of sleep for days at a time.” Sound familiar? One point we must repeat insistently is that the torture bill being unwisely rushed through the Senate may well legalize many of the abuses at Abu Ghaib, Bagram, Camp Cropper, Camp Nama, and
many in the dozens of sites of torture and abuse in this war for … democracy and human rights.Remember how you felt when you first saw some of those photographs. Remember the shame. Now remember we may be about to legalize and endorse some of it as American policy. Should we not take the time to get it right?
Not only would the bill open the door to these abuses, but it would make it nearly impossible to hold the Bush administration to account for their approval of such techniques. Boggles the mind.
Please, call your Senators and representative today. Remind them that this is an affront to human dignity, as well as to Christian Ethics (if they are themselves people of the Christian faith).
I am curious about something. I don’t know what your position is on warfare. (Pacifist, Just War, other?) If there can be just war can there be just torture. I think another interesting question is what constitutes “torture.” I would be interested in knowing how you process this in your view. Thanks for taking on important issue.
Hi Mike. Thanks for this question!
I’m favorably disposed to Just War Theory, but I go beyond it in some cases, unless one assumes that the just cause aspect of jus ad bellum goes beyond strict “defense”. Sometimes morality requires military action taken on behalf of others to address grave moral evil even if that moral evil isn’t directed at one’s self.
Torture, etymologically, is from a latin root ‘to twist.’ You can imagine where it came from. I’d define torture as intentional infliction of severe, inhumane physical or psychological pain and/or suffering for the purpose of punishment, coersion, or morbid enjoyment. I grant that there are some gray areas about particular procedures of interrogation, but not that a strong case couldn’t be made why certain procedures (e.g. waterboarding) clearly constitute torture.
Torture is close to ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ but that’s a slightly different standard.
I have to admit that I don’t have a fully formed view about what is appropriate at the margins of the boundaries. Somethings are almost universally agreed to be out of bounds in our culture yet it seems to me that something beyond name, rank and number is probably legit. Most just war persepectives not only talk about the just prosecution of a war but also other steps that must be taken before goinig to the level of war. It seems to be there are some similar issues here as well but I can’t point to full-blown ethical analysis of this topic that creates a framework for addressing the issue.
Right: there are just war criterion for both entering the war (jus ad bellum) and then for conduct in the application of warfare (jus in bello). I highlighted really my principle distinction from some traditional just war theories, which maintained a strict defense standard as the just cause aspect for the application of military force within jus ad bellum. I think there needs to be a broader consideration of the just cause criterion.
The two other areas of concern I have (which are more modern issues) deal with the “last resort” clause, which I agree with except in cases of undeniably imminent danger, and that modern war theory is questioning the minimum force doctrine, saying that a greater initial force might deter future fighting and thus be beneficial. On that last issue, I’m not decided yet.
I’m not advocating just name, rank, number. We need robust interrogations of duly detained suspects, and there is substantial evidence, really, that torture produces subpar intelligence anyway, but I didn’t want to get that deep into the utility of the torture question. While utilitarian considerations are important, deontological considerations here are more so.
What interrogation techniques are permitted? Any that don’t violate the torture and ‘cruel/unusual’ standards, and any that provide adequate and accepted legal protections to the detained. Acceptable techniques have been used for years. The military (as opposed to the CIA) have formally adopted techniques that are acceptable to most knowledgable observers. Why we want to blur the boundaries is beyond me.
Interesting thought about similar restrictions on interrogation techniques analogous to just war ideas. What might the criteria be before one apply “difficult” interrogation procedures, and what restrictions would be placed on the interrogator after those criteria were met?