Comments on: Apologias and apologies

By: NB

NB — Tue, 04 May 2004 17:02:50 +0000

I have to second Nick’s opinion on this one. My comments limited in their depth as they may be, relative to the sharp insight others have posted, would be stretched at your own urging to infer such as statement as you drew from them. My premise and conclusion are simple. But for our presence in Irak we could not have subsequently been accused of torture at an Iraki jail. The simple point i am trying to make is that the soliders’ involvement should not be used as pretence for a general trial of the war in Irak as a whole. Perhaps in the same way as the 9/11 investigations, in my opinion, are not so much about seeking the truth in security failures, as they are pre-electoral tactitcs at damaging Bush’s credibility. The thrust of M. Farrell’s argument is well taken though. Certain quoted publications have recognized the use of terror in small amounts. It is not so much a stretch of the imagination to think given the reprehensible nature of torture, it is most often kept secret, thus what is known is probably but the tip of large iceberg of abuses. The experience of the French occupation of Algeria, which appears increasingly similar to the current Iraki conflict, (http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/210.cfm), shows us that these atrocities are going on, and all too often we realize them only much after the harm is done.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 04 May 2004 09:06:37 +0000

At some point, such selectivity starts to look suspiciously like it’s in the service of an agenda other than reducing the worldwide use of torture. And imputing such suspicions reflects badly upon you. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the ‘well, other torturers are much worse’ argument is something of a slippery slope; and it actively inhibits those who campaign against torture when other regimes have the luxury of saying ‘well, even the Americans do it’.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 03 May 2004 21:50:57 +0000

Since you ask, Henry, I’ll tell you—yes, I think that in extreme situations, torture can be justified. I’m not exactly sure where to draw the line, and I’m quite sure that routine torture is unjustified. That’s one reason why the “fewer than 100” figure stood out for me—it shows that whoever is making the decisions is at least not being wildly indiscriminate. Similarly, farming out the torture to other countries in no way lessens anyone’s moral culpability. But by imposing a cost, and eliminating the need for a domestic torture infrastructure—which would tend, like all organizations, towards expansion—the delegation of torture to other countries probably helps keep the practice confined to extraordinary cases. I’m also leery of the popular practice of lumping anything less than five-star accommodations for detainees under the rubric, “torture”. I consider torture to consist of the deliberate, methodical infliction of extreme pain or suffering. (Of course, “extreme” is open to interpretation.) That doesn’t mean that treatment that’s not torture is necessarily justifiable, but precisely because torture is so horrible, it’s important not to allow its meaning to be diluted through overuse. (The term “terrorism” is, I fear, suffering such a fate, with the result that it no longer carries the moral force that it once did.) The Washington Post article mentioned in a subsequent CT posting, for example, discusses “stress and duress” techniques—not pleasant, to be sure, but most likely a picnic on the beach compared to what the “extraordinary renditions” undergo when handed over to their interrogators in various Middle Eastern countries. Finally, the selectivity with which these few incidents are being singled out for worldwide attention strikes me as odd. In America, of course, as well as in Iraq, this is perfectly reasonable fodder for domestic political wrangling. (And I can think of much worse, and much more popular, reasons to vote for a particular candidate than that he or she will crack down harder on his or her own government’s use of torture.) But some of the claimed wider implications of these revelations are a bit odd. Judging by “NB”’s comments above, for instance, one might infer that the incidence of torture in Iraq has actually increased with the arrival of American troops. At some point, such selectivity starts to look suspiciously like it’s in the service of an agenda other than reducing the worldwide use of torture.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 03 May 2004 19:25:05 +0000

In the Washington Post story that quotes released Iraqi prisoners, torture seems to be standard procedure in the prisons to which we confine Iraqi prisoners—captured, by the way, not in battle, but in extraordinarily haphazard raids. A picture of a man with a gun can be the basis for arresting someone, stripping him, tying him up, depriving him of water and sleep, and shooting rubber bullets at him. Of course, these terrible things aren’t exactly confined to the American treatment of Iraqis. They originate in the American treatment of American prisons, right here in our own homeland. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have documented decades of abuses in American prisons, and they are only getting worse, as the prisons are privatized. A report is here: http://hrw.org/reports/2001/prison./ Of course, this is well known to the American public, which takes gleeful pride in the fact that sodomy rape awaits the average prisoner. HRW reports a 70 percent assault rate in 2001, so I do mean average prisoner. Saddam hired his torturers to jam legs and heads into paper shredders, kill and maim—being more entrepreneurial, Americans usually subcontract out a lesser dose of torture. We are, after all, humane, and on the right side of the clash of civilizations.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 03 May 2004 19:24:26 +0000

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Mon, 03 May 2004 16:37:15 +0000

Before I reach a verdict on the practice of torture, I want to know the height of all involved. Until then, I intend to withhold judgement. Now, do you have any information on the height question? Can you perhaps track down some links for me?

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 03 May 2004 15:02:04 +0000

Also, Dan—even if you think extraordinary rendition could ever be justified, or that the Post and the Economist might be mistaken—a lot of those questions you asked cannot be answered with certainty right now. I’ve looked a fair bit into extraordinary renditions. All of this information is classified. The one case we know a lot about is that of Maher Arar, since he’s a Canadian citizen and since he got out. There have been a lot of stories in the Canadian press on it, and there’s an investigation beginning. Arar was taken from JFK airport, detained and interrogated at an immigration facility, driven to Newark airport, flown on a small plane to Washington, and than flown on a jet—alone, accompanied by a bunch of U.S. government intelligence agents of some sort—to Jordan, then driven to Syria. I believe there was some “assurance” that he would not be tortured, but that may have only been because Arar explicitly said he would be tortured & this would put the U.S. government in violation of the Torture Convention. In any case, we had no reason to believe the assurances of a country that we list as practitioner of torture, and one a lot of hawks want to invade. The Syrian government claims they only took him as a favor to us. He seems to have been arrested based mainly on confessions beaten out of other people tortured in Syria—so it seems clear that Syria was sharing the information gained from torture session with the U.S. and Canadian governments. The other men were Canadian citizens too, but they travelled to Syria voluntarily. It seems very likely that Arar was innocent. It’s less clear that the other two men were, but if I had to guess I’d say they were too. The White House has not answered any questions about the practice of extraordinary rendition; they’ve barely been asked. What we need is a serious investigation—that’s what’s happening in Canada in response to the Arar case. And that, and not an empty apology, is part of what Henry is calling for (if I’m not mistaken.)

By: NB

NB — Mon, 03 May 2004 14:14:04 +0000

Would the present situation have occured if the US had not entered into the war? Probably not (at least not at the coalition’s doing). However, torture and forms of human cruelty are prevalent always, and that is ever so true in times of war. Thus do the leaders who initiated this war bear moral responsibility for these consequences? Absolutely, but for their actions this state of affairs would not have arisen. Yet to ask for an ‘apology’ is a hollow point, some will see it as no more than PR, whilst for others it will change nothing of their opinion of what has occured of those responsible. The immediate culprits should face prosecution (and one that we should hope would be administered by an international court some day), but to seek to make a show of this trial to make an indictment of all people within higher positions, seems like an attempt to make a trial of war in general. that would tend to abuse justice for the purpose of politics; something we should try to avoid at all times.

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 03 May 2004 14:09:15 +0000

Dan – It could be that the Washington Post, the Economist etc are wrong or are basing their stories on falsehoods (this isn’t at all likely – but it is possible). But this possibility aside, I don’t think that there’s any doubt that US military interrogators (a) know what is going to happen to the people that they are sending for extraordinary renditions, and (b) are directly complicit in what happens. Quoting from the Washington Post bq. According to U.S. officials, nearly 3,000 suspected al Qaeda members and their supporters have been detained worldwide since Sept. 11, 2001. About 625 are at the U.S. military’s confinement facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some officials estimated that fewer than 100 captives have been rendered to third countries. Thousands have been arrested and held with U.S. assistance in countries known for brutal treatment of prisoners, the officials said. bq. At a Sept. 26 joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees, Cofer Black, then head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, spoke cryptically about the agency’s new forms of “operational flexibility” in dealing with suspected terrorists. “This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11,” Black said. “After 9/11 the gloves come off.” bq. According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands, the understanding is, “We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” My question is a simple one – do you think that this is justified? Or could be justified? What is the gray area involved in turning over individuals to others under the expectation and desire that they be tortured? How are the people who do the turning over – sending them to other countries so that these other countries can ‘kick the [expletive] out of them’ morally distinguishable from those who are actually doing the torture? You seem to be inventing subtleties and nuances here that are eluding me. It’s quite plain from the Post’s account that the US officials responsible for extraordinary rendition know what’s going to happen to the people involved, and want it to happen. If you think that the Post is lying or is otherwise somehow mistaken, say so, and state the reasons why. If you think that torture is justifiable under some circumstances, come out and say it. But stop waffling about this “difficult issue.” Either you favour the use of torture under some circumstances, or you don’t. If you do, you may be coming from a reasoned and even reasonable position – but you owe it to us to state what that position is.

By: cafl

cafl — Mon, 03 May 2004 13:27:01 +0000

Dan—It is unlikely that your questions will be answered with facts as long as the present administration remains in the White House. Unfortunately, in the absence of answers, given their secrecy and their record of lies, I assume the worst.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 03 May 2004 07:33:11 +0000

Katherine, I don’t by any means discount the distinctions you’re making—indeed, I agree with most, perhaps even all of them. And I’m glad to see you discussing them. Now let’s discuss some more distinctions. Did the higher-ups in the US military give explicit orders to torture? Or did they do so implicitly? Or did they implicitly send the message that they would condone torture? Or did they explicitly order their subordinates not to practice torture, but fail to take the necessary precautions to ensure that their orders were being followed? (What would the necessary precautions have been in these circumstances?) Similarly, under what circumstances are foreign interrogators who are prone to use torture given access to prisoners? Do the host countries have to justify the interrogation—for example, by declaring the prisoner a wanted criminal in the host country—or are they simply acting as proxies for US interrogators? What are the terms under which the prisoners are handed over? A nod and a wink? A disingenuous “promise” not to use torture? A serious promise that is not always honored? Finally, what are the circumstances of these “extraordinary renditions”? The Economist asserts “fewer than 100”—how is the decision made? What are the criteria? Is the practice increasing, decreasing, or fairly constant? At what level has it been approved? I don’t know the answers to any of these questions, and I certainly believe that reasonable people can differ as to what answers to them are acceptable, what answers are morally unacceptable, and what answers should be considered criminal. I welcome further careful, distinction-respecting discussion of this very difficult issue. I just hope that it will crowd out some of the blithe moral posturing that has preceded it.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 03 May 2004 06:16:53 +0000

Dan Simon—Sins of omission and comission aren’t the same thing. They aren’t. That’s not some newfangled moral distinction—it’s as old as the hills, and certainly as old as our criminal laws. You can only be sent to jail for failing to help someone in a few, narrowly defined situations. It’s also the basis for the difference between “negative” (e.g., the right not to be tortured, abritrarily detained, or killed by your government) and “positive” (e.g. the right to food, shelter, education, health care) human rights. 750,000 people were murdered in the Rwanda genocide. 3 million people have been killed in the Congo civil war. Hundreds of thousand in Bosnia, before we acted. I don’t know how many people in Liberia and Sierra Leone. And those are only wars; the number of people dying from treatable or preventable diseases is surely much higher. And it doesn’t only happen in Africa; there are people who are homeless or hungry or without health care in America. We bear some measure of responsibility for all of that. In some cases there was not much we could have done, but in other cases there was. But it’s just not the same as if we killed them ourselves, or if other soldiers from our country killed them. Nor is it the same as if we knowingly sent them to their torturers from JFK airport, because we thought torture and interrogation could give us useful information; or turned a blind eye to abuses of Iraqi prisoners by soldiers under our command.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 03 May 2004 05:28:10 +0000

Henry—allow me to clarify: the antecedent of “their” in my last sentence was “others”, not “those”. I’m certainly not accusing anyone who opposes the use of torture by American forces in Iraq of somehow being complicit in anybody else’s use of torture. But you’re going further, and indignantly placing a comparable (presumably not equal) burden of guilt on those who apparently failed to act with sufficient vigor to prevent these cases of torture, which they had the power to prevent. You treat similarly those who accepted disingenuous promises of good behavior from obvious torturers, because the alternative—taking action to prevent the torture—would have weakened the struggle against a dangerous kind of lawlessness. And suddenly, the analogy to the antiwar movement’s stance on Iraq is quite striking. You can call these “’it’s a hard world, isn’t it’ cliches”. I call it dealing with difficult moral issues in a difficult world, and I think it calls for a good deal more circumspection and humility than I have seen displayed here.

By: provocateur

provocateur — Mon, 03 May 2004 05:04:08 +0000

John Isbell, that’s an awful thing to say about Henry. I’m confident that even he would agree that torture is an terrible practice when committed by the United States.

By: daveb

daveb — Mon, 03 May 2004 04:59:47 +0000

What seems to be missing from most of the reports is the usefulness of torture as a means of gaining good information. What I remember from my (long-ago) history courses is that torture elicited things that the torturer wanted to hear rather that what the subject gave up. Torture was/is used as a device to install fear into a subject The effectiveness of torture seems to be the domination of one group over another group. Torture may show dominance but over time causes resentment and hatred of the dominators. As far as the above post that the soldiers were not trained in the Geneva Convention rules; as a veteran that arguement does not carry much weight. Boot camp, even 30 years ago, taught that there were things the US military does not do to prisoners. Also, did these soldiers/officers ever learn The Golden Rule (the religious version-NOT the military one ‘those that have the gold make the rules)?