« The Trouble With Prosperity Christianity | Main | Tech Question »
September 18, 2006
Why Torture?
Seems to me that Paul Krugman is asking the right questions here:
Is torture a necessary evil in a post-9/11 world? No. People with actual knowledge of intelligence work tell us that reality isn’t like TV dramas, in which the good guys have to torture the bad guy to find out where he planted the ticking time bomb.
What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding — told his questioners that Saddam Hussein’s regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This “confession” became a key part of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq — but it was pure invention.
So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?
His answer is that this group is so intent on expanding executive discretion that they'll fight for reprehensible simply to accrue the power. I think that's part of the explanation, but not the whole of it. The Bush administration's approach to the War on Terrorism has bespoke a profound immaturity on the subject. While the intelligence community easily separates the current conflict from an episode of 24, there's precious little evidence that Bush is similarly adept. I'd guess that some tough-talking hero-type from the CIA has Bush's ear and trust and has convinced him that torture is a necessary element of America's strength in this conflict.
While other spooks (and the US Army) deride the effectiveness of harsh methods, there's no doubt that they have a certain superficial claim to usefulness. In an administration with no interest in empiricism and a demonstrated proclivity towards favoring information that accords with their instincts, trumping the data dismissing torture's effectiveness probably wasn't hard at all.
September 18, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Plus, there is the whole sadism thing.
Posted by: Salmo | Sep 18, 2006 11:14:17 AM
I disagree, I think the issue is the intelligence, although not how the administration presents it. They have a predetermined course of action, and then they need something to hang it on. We know that torture produces the information the torturers want to hear- it's the perfect situation for Bush. I want to invade Iraq, so find me some intelligence that says we should- hey presto, someone confessed under duress that Saddam has biological weapons. You might say, for example, "that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Posted by: SP | Sep 18, 2006 11:19:49 AM
People with actual knowledge of intelligence work tell us that reality isn’t like TV dramas, in which the good guys have to torture the bad guy to find out where he planted the ticking time bomb.
...
While the intelligence community easily separates the current conflict from an episode of 24, there's precious little evidence that Bush is similarly adept.
I think "profound immaturity" is exactly the right phrase, Ezra... Bush, like far too many Americans, apparently really thinks that TV & movies are fairly representative of real life, or at least that real life should be more like entertainment. For all their contempt of "know-nothing" performers and Hollywood liberals, the right actually elects actors to higher office, constantly recycles catchphrases from action movies & westerns, and stages virtually every move they make. At least most real performers know when they're performing and when they're engaging in everyday life.
Posted by: latts | Sep 18, 2006 11:23:06 AM
There's also the point about election-year gimmickry. Remember how excited that guy at the Corner was about making Democrats vote against torturing terrorists?
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 18, 2006 11:25:10 AM
If you're looking for actual intelligence about terrorists, torture sucks. If you're looking to create broken, gibbering wrecks who will confess to anything, in order to extract scary stories that can be used to cow the American people into submission, then torture is just what you want.
As an op-ed in the Washington Post pointed out today- about two years late- the torture techniques we are using now were pioneered by the KBG under Stalin, when they were used to extort false confessions of the most bizarre and impossible plots and conspiracies.
What everyone should understand by now is that torture is not a tool to fight terror. Torture IS terror.
Posted by: JR | Sep 18, 2006 11:29:35 AM
I think one of the best insights in The One-Percent Doctrine is the way the Bush administration has fetishized Action.
To Act is to do right. To be constrained from Acting is to be weak, to allow others to Act and thus take advantage of the situation provided by your weakness.
Thus, all constraints on power are seen as constraints on the ability to Act, and must be opposed at all times.
So long as the administration is doing stuff - invading countries, threatening them abducting people, torturing them, then the administation has the initiative and the advantage.
"Profound immaturity" is a good term, though it doesn't get at quite how godawful scary this is.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 11:32:46 AM
ezra sez: this [BushCo] group is so intent on expanding executive discretion that they'll fight for reprehensible simply to accrue the power.
This relentless push for executive power by Bu$hCo makes one wonder if they think they will own the executive branch in perpetuity. There may be more to this than is supericially evident. They may believe and act on the belief that with some combination of voting access restrictions, ballot (voting machine) tampering, (right wing) judicial intervention, and huge gobs of money that they are, in fact, pursuing a strategy of making Rome, the democracy, into Rome, the Empire. One Caesar after another.
When a series of actions appear to point to a single objective, we should examine carefully the premise on which all of these cumulative executive authority seem to be based upon.
We are warned. Are we ready to respond?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 18, 2006 11:59:15 AM
I agree with everything except "Bush". I had thought it was reasonably clear that in this matter (as in so many others) Cheney is calling the shots. I really don't think Bush cares much one way or the other. Of course, he can't back down now, or he'll embolden the Democrats McCain the terrorists.
Posted by: Allen K. | Sep 18, 2006 12:17:10 PM
an administration with no interest in empiricism and a demonstrated proclivity towards favoring information that accords with their instincts
A willingness to believe what's convenient to one's instincts is of course not limited to the Bush Administration. It seems to me to apply also to many of the critics of the administration on this topic, where our natural repulsion to torture appears to induce in many an unquestioning acceptance of counterintuitive claims that torture is never effective, or if it is, never more effective than alternatives. While it's logically possible that this is true, it's unlikely on its face, so the certainty attached to the claims is all the more reason to pause to wonder about them.
But there isn't much pausing among those who find the idea supports their gut feeling that torture is inexcusable. On the contrary, there are assertions that we shouldn't even talk about possible reasons torture might be needed, because those who don't see this their way 100% are morally blind, and talking with them about this would give the ring of legitimacy to their ideas. That latter point may be true in some way, but it hardly supports a climate for "empiricism." And, in this case, the forbidden ideas already have legitimacy among a large segment of the population to whom the response from the don't-talk-about-it contingent typically barely rises above name-calling. I don't think this has the desired effect of increasing opposition to torture.
The fact is that the publicly available information on the effectiveness of torture is haphazard and contradictory, and subject to questions about the motivations of the experts on both sides. Any experienced researcher in the social sciences could easily point out the severe problems of trying to settle the questions involved empirically without controlled, peer reviewed studies. (This isn't a call for such studies, only a fact.) The facts, from all I've heard, simply don't support the certainty evinced on either side.
As for the President's reasons for supporting torture, I see the likely psychology differently. I think he and his advisors believe that what they've approved isn't torture. They began with the question, where is the line between harsh interrogation and torture, and believe that they are on the right side of the line. I disagree, but I think I can see how they arrived at their view by what would be at least a plausible reasoning process, given the perceived need for harsh techniques. There have been questions raised about this approach to the issue, whether we should even try to find the line between harsh treatment and torture. I think that's an excellent question, but not one as simple to answer as many will claim.
About the perceived need for harsh techniques, it was reported around 2002 that the administration was receiving advice from Israeli experts on all matters related to terrorism, and, from all I've heard, Israel continues to believe physical coercion is necessary in some cases.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 18, 2006 12:59:30 PM
Can you imagine Republicans passing a law to give torture powers to a President Clinton, either past or future? Even to ask the question is to howl with laughter.
John Yoo's hypocritical, partisan posturing about presidential powers: Would Yoo and his ilk have supported giving the same powers to the last President Clinton? Why didn't they? What about the next President Clinton, or any other Democrat? If not, what the hell are they talking about?
Posted by: Madison Guy | Sep 18, 2006 1:13:51 PM
What Salmo said. Because a tortured person tells the torturer whatever he wants to hear, torture is an efficient way of generating whatever kind of evidence you want. Cheyney and Rice both still talk about Saddam having trained al Qaeda, despite knowing full well where the information came from.
In Germany during the Black Death, several Jews confessed (under "tough" interrogation, of course) to having spread the plague by contaminating wells. The confessions were used to justify widespread and vicious reprisals against Germany's Jews.
Welcome to Medieval America. Plus ça change...
Posted by: shargash | Sep 18, 2006 1:48:51 PM
Oops...that was SP I was explicitly agreeing with (not that I disagreed with Salmo either). :)
Posted by: shargash | Sep 18, 2006 1:49:58 PM
For an answer to your question, Madison Guy, see Glenn Greenwald today, http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/shrill-hysterical-lefty-partisan.html
Posted by: JR | Sep 18, 2006 1:52:21 PM
But there isn't much pausing among those who find the idea supports their gut feeling that torture is inexcusable. On the contrary, there are assertions that we shouldn't even talk about possible reasons torture might be needed, because those who don't see this their way 100% are morally blind, and talking with them about this would give the ring of legitimacy to their ideas.
You are morally blind if you support legalized torture. It's a really, really basic position.
I don't give two craps about reasonable discouse with those who approve of torture. You can use all the conciliatory language you want, but in the end this is a moral question and you're standing with Stalin.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 2:01:50 PM
This seems the question of the day. I've posted links to articles on my own blog (yesterday). The long and the short, however, is profound immoderation in the executive.
I can't cite one tactic and ignore the fact that the government is getting harpooned with unqualified "yes.sir" appointees, acts as though the rest of the planet is filled with despicable sub humans, acts to waive all constraints on power, and bullys anyone from press to domestic opposition and foreign governments : while cozying up to tyrants and terrorizing the weak.
Couple this with micromanagement by said idiot appointees.
I wonder why good natured co-operation and tolerance seem to be in short supply ?
Posted by: opit | Sep 18, 2006 2:10:14 PM
... in the end this is a moral question and you're standing with Stalin.
Precisely. And, you know, if the moral argument wasn't enough, you'd think they'd at least consider their own self-interest!
Posted by: Susan | Sep 18, 2006 2:15:08 PM
What SP said and what shargash said ...
... and the point that it is to the President's benefit in the process of spreading FUD to create confusion between the real world and an episode of 24 ... or even more, Threat Matrix.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 18, 2006 2:46:17 PM
If we see Torture as a homologue of Rape (which it is - with or without penetration)then we can start to appreciate the warm fuzzy feelings these priapic Bushies must be feeling. Makes you feel dirty just thinking about it!
Posted by: Ricard | Sep 18, 2006 3:30:48 PM
Read Foucault's Discipline and Punish and you might get some answers that aren't simply tied to personal sadism.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 18, 2006 3:34:27 PM
I don't see any evidence that Bush et al are torturing people so they can get (false) information to use for political purposes. The causality is mixed up. When they get information that suits their political goals of course they use it, but it doesn't follow that it was the reason for using torture. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the administration is confused by TV shows. Of course it feels good, in a perverse way, to just assume Bush and his advisors have stupid, evil motives, but the evidence isn't there in this case. The administration sought and received advice from Israel and others who have dealt with terrorism for decades. Some of these advisors, and particularly Israelis, support what they euphemistically refer to as moderate physical coercion and claim crucial benefits from it. If you really want to understand what's behind Bush policy, you have to deal with Israeli precedents and current policy, which still implicitly recognizes the need for physical coercion in interrogation in some cases.
DivGuy, you have illustrated my point very well. The replacement of reason with emotionalism and name-calling is surely no basis for the concern for empirical facts that Ezra refers to. That the issue is a moral one doesn't change that. On this issue you are behaving as the mirror image of those who know (from God, from their own clear moral sense, from moral arguments, whatever it may be) that abortion is murder and aren't about to lower themselves to the level of respectful discussion about it with morally blind baby killers. Moral certainty in itself just isn't a good guide to moral truth, nor a good substitute for rational thought and discussion.
I wonder why good natured co-operation and tolerance seem to be in short supply ?
The Bush Administration is much at fault in this. That ought to suggest to those who criticize Bush on this score that their own behavior not repeat the same mistakes.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 18, 2006 4:32:59 PM
Perhaps the Bush administration does not support reprehensible practices simply because they want to expand the Executive's power at all costs.
It seems much more likely to me that they are simply reprehensible people. They have no problem with torture, seeing it as simply a particular method to use for interrogating suspects.
Maybe there aren't any ulterior motives, any grand schemes to consolidate power. Perhaps the Bush administration has just become a group of people who don't care about anyone or anything but themselves and their own short-term interests.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 18, 2006 5:09:22 PM
The replacement of reason with emotionalism and name-calling is surely no basis for the concern for empirical facts that Ezra refers to.
If you can't understand that under every basic system of moral reason, torture is wrong, then I don't know what to say. From the mainstream churches to secular theorists, torture is considered a moral evil. This is a fully reasoned stance.
It's ludicrous to have to make this argument. It's ludicrous to have to argue that murder is wrong, that physical abuse is wrong, and it's ludicrous to have to make this argument. I'm not going to give you and your ilk that satisfaction.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 18, 2006 5:26:00 PM
Again, Stephen, I see no evidence that the Bush Administration considers what they've approved torture. They say they reject torture on moral and legal grounds. It's too easy to just explain away whatever reasons they may have for their policy as based on their supposed lack of concern for people and the long term. (I'm pretty sure they care about both.) Deal with the reasons themselves.
DivGuy, I don't know quite what you mean. Obviously some people reason from basic, widely shared moral principles that torture is morally acceptable in some cases, to save lives, for example. Torture is a moral evil in the same way killing is. I would say myself that killing people is generally the greater evil of the two, and that view is reflected in criminal law. Nonetheless, we find ways to justify killing people with great regularity.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 18, 2006 6:12:42 PM
There's one practical legal reason why the Bush team wants to legalize torture: they've been engaging in it for four years. If they don't get ex-post-facto authority for it, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and on down are all presumptively guilty of war crimes. This is not theoretical at all; they need legal cover, or they could be summoned to the Hague.
(Of course, one of the first Bush foreign policy initiatives was repudiating the International Criminal Court, arguing that American soldiers and agents should not be subject to indictment by Europeans--a stance that looks today like preparation for what they ended up doing.)
Posted by: cwhig | Sep 18, 2006 7:53:37 PM
Again, Stephen, I see no evidence that the Bush Administration considers what they've approved torture.
So what?
Anyway, they obviously consider what they are doing to be torture, since they have not tried to redefine what constitutes torture under our law. Rather, they have been seeking to allow behaviors already defined as torture in circumstances where it is "necessary."
It's too easy to just explain away whatever reasons they may have for their policy as based on their supposed lack of concern for people and the long term. (I'm pretty sure they care about both.)
How charitable of you to be so sure. Just because I am not does not invalidate my opinion, nor the supposition I presented.
I didn't engage a particular aspect of this whole issue. I did not respond to your comments with the one you reference. So don't fault me if you think my comment doesn't rebut your arguments.
Deal with the reasons themselves.
And a merry go to hell to you, too.
I suggest that the "reasons" for the Bush administration stance on torture are the same as their "reasons" for everything else. They are profiteers, scumbags who seek nothing save their own enrichment and power. The complete lack of direction for this administration - save the debacle in Iraq - has confused many people for the last almost 5 years. Programs, policies and initiatives have been proposed, put in place and then abandoned with no rational reasoning. They have to know that the country is fully against the misadventure in Iraq, yet not only have they continued it, they have resolutely refused to make any changes to their strategy whatsoever.
Some think this is about their pride, or that they really aren't so politically savvy as they seemed. I believe that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney realize that they will never again hold the reins of this government. They will never again be able to influence the world stage, hand out government largesse or put people in their debt for the favors being done them. They have been "governing" merely to enrich those close to them and ultimately themselves.
There is plenty of evidence that they have only a short-term view. This hasn't hurt them politically because many Americans - most notably our sad excuse for journalism - have the same problem.
Your problem with my statements and others is that you really, really want to find a way to make tortue compatible with being a moral person. The only way that can happen is to just declare it and ignore everyone else who says otherwise, because there simply is no moral justification for torture, period.
Deal with that.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 18, 2006 9:34:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
