From an editorial in the “Washington Post”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50490-2004Jul14.html today.
bq. According to the International Red Cross, a number of people apparently in U.S. custody are unaccounted for. Most are believed to be held by the CIA in secret facilities outside the United States. Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, the detainees have never been visited by the Red Cross; contrary to U.S. and international law, some reportedly have been subjected to interrogation techniques that most legal authorities regard as torture.
…
bq. What is known, mostly through leaks to the media, is that several of the CIA’s detainees probably have been tortured — and that a controversial Justice Department opinion defending such abuse was written after the fact to justify the activity. According to reports in The Post, pain medication for Abu Zubaida, who suffered from a gunshot wound in the groin, was manipulated to obtain his cooperation, while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to “water boarding,” which causes the sensation of drowning. Notwithstanding the Justice Department opinion, parts of which recently were repudiated by the White House, U.S. personnel responsible for such treatment may be guilty of violating the international Convention Against Torture and U.S. laws related to it.
…
bq. Nor has the CIA’s illegal behavior been limited to senior al Qaeda militants. The agency has been responsible for interrogating suspects in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is believed to have held a number in secret detention facilities. According to official reports, the identities of several in Iraq were deliberately concealed from the Red Cross, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. At least two detainees have died while being interrogated by CIA personnel. One CIA contractor has been charged with assault by the Justice Department in the case of one of the deaths, and at least two other cases are reportedly under investigation. But no higher-ranking CIA officials have been held accountable for the abuses or the decisions that led to them, even though it is now known that former CIA director George J. Tenet was directly involved in the “ghost detainee” cases in Iraq.
bq. The Pentagon and Congress are investigating the Army’s handling of foreign detainees; though they are slow and inadequate, these probes contrast with the almost complete absence of scrutiny of the CIA’s activity.
I’m not especially keen on self-righteous denunciations of the “people of political position _x_ are lying hypocrites unless they immediately denounce _y_” variety. Still, like “Kieran”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002092.html, I have enormous difficulty in understanding why sincere, committed US libertarians (with some “exceptions”:http://www.highclearing.com/ ) aren’t up in arms about this sort of thing. It seems to me to be an open-and-shut case of the kinds of state tyranny that libertarians should rightly be concerned about. Why is state-organized torture a less topical issue than state-imposed limits on political free speech, or individual ownership of firearms? If someone has a consistently argued libertarian argument for why the state should be allowed to torture individuals, I’d like to hear it. If someone has a libertarian argument, or indeed any argument at all, for why the state should be allowed to do this with no public scrutiny or accountability, I’d like to hear that even more.
{ 29 comments }
Rob 07.15.04 at 9:54 pm
The state? No. Now neighborhood associations of course have the right to torture people under the bylaws people agree to when buying a house.
digamma 07.15.04 at 10:17 pm
This libertarian agrees with Henry.
The answer, I think, is that the political debate in America has devolved into a war between This Side and That Side. A lot of libertarians have, due to what seem like unresolvable disagreements with people on This Side like the Clintons, spent most of their lives on That Side.
When the leaders of That Side pursue more and more un-libertarian policies, it doesn’t matter. They’re on That Side, and the people opposing said policies are on This Side.
This Side, of course, is guilty of the same hypocrisy.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.15.04 at 10:35 pm
(Note I’m not a libertarian though I have such tendencies.)
(Further note, I don’t like torture)
The war on terrorism (as fought either by police or the military) is a good example of something that isn’t likely to be done well in a committed libertarian environment. Talking about torture victims ends up raising a host of issues that end up being difficult for libertarians to resolve. So perhaps they avoid focusing on these potential torture victims because they want to avoid talking about the war on terrorism.
mc 07.15.04 at 10:54 pm
I don’t know if it’s a reaction that mostly affects libertarians, it seems just to be affecting a lot more people…
It’s simply that when those “individuals” being tortured are defined as enemy or potential enemies, then it’s war and in war all is allowed and have you already forgotten 9/11 by the way.
That’s the kind of framework that makes indifference to torture fit in any kind of political position, libertarians or not. I guess, with those libertarians who embrace that reasoning, it’s a case of two liberties at war, and “our” (not mine! just speaking from that p.o.v.) liberty is threatened by “them” so our has to prevail even at the cost of “their” liberty. (Plus the constant sliding of “terrorist suspect” into “terrorist” and so, the assumption they deserve it anyway).
Or, it may be simply a case of, this is too shameful to deal with it. Better swept under carpet.
mc 07.15.04 at 10:58 pm
Also, very important: it hurts “our” PR and moral to dwell on these things and this may weaken our resolve and hence, endanger “our” liberty. So let’s not dwell on them.
Lastly: just a few bad apples.
Did I forget anything?
Henry 07.15.04 at 11:03 pm
MC – Yes, I agree that this is not a problem that just affects libertarians. It’s just that one would expect – and hope – that libertarians would be volubly on the other side of the fence on this. It seems to touch on some of their core concerns after all.
Sebastian – I take it that you aren’t arguing here that libertarians’ silence on this is a good thing (I don’t think you are).
Neel Krishnaswami 07.15.04 at 11:06 pm
I’m a libertarian, and the reason I don’t talk much about the torture scandal online is that it makes me too angry to sound reasonable, and hence too angry to be effectively persuasive. Since I can retain my poise when criticizing (for example) the Bush administration’s position on the FMA, spending or trade, I preferentially talk about that, on the grounds that I am more likely to convince someone to not vote to reelect the President.
mc 07.15.04 at 11:09 pm
Yes, how could I forget: the liberal media are only pushing this story because it’s election year. And they hate Bush.
ie. the reaction known as “enough with this torture crap already, meanwhile our boys are dying in Iraq and why should we be nice to these animals?”.
Sorry, you were looking for a _consistently argued_ argument excusing the right to torture. There just isn’t, and cannot, be one. Or maybe there could be, a consistent if, by necessity, totally amoral argument, but who would be excusing the argument itself? It’s be a short-circuit of apologies and would get you right back where you started.
mc 07.15.04 at 11:16 pm
henry – I know, I never meant to imply you were only referring to libertarians, and I wasn’t objecting to your point at all, actually. (And I’m not a libertarian). I understood what you mean there, and I agree. My thought was simply “if only the indifference was limited to libertarians”, but it wasn’t what you said that made me think that. It was just, observing how sad it is, really, that no one really seems to care about this as much as the issue deserves. Or, that this is being trickled in news bits now and then and yes causing outrage at some level but not really being discussed in a major way at political level, first of all.
bull 07.15.04 at 11:33 pm
As a borderline small l libertarian, I can tell you that I’m outraged. Adding the horrors of torture to the virtues of gridlock, I’m probably going to vote for Kerry, who I’m convinced will be a lousy President.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.15.04 at 11:33 pm
Nope, I’m not at all saying it is a good thing.
q 07.16.04 at 12:18 am
I thought the federal governement crossed the line of acceptability in the Waco Texas seige. I never understood why it got away with what seemed to be criminal activities.
Since it seems to be important to this discussion, I’ll declare my interest: I am not a libertarian since I don’t know what it means! If anyone would like to tell me what a libertarian is I’ll think about it. ;)
bob mcmanus 07.16.04 at 12:33 am
Jim Henley,IIRC, has always been firm in his opposition to the Iraq war. Libertarians give lip service to national defense, but when it gets into the details, for example, the draft, there are simply horrific conflicts and contradictions. I would suggest you check the foreign policy of current Lib party candidate, from whom many blogosphere “Libertarians” are running away.
It has been fairly comfortable to be a soft Libertarian since Reagan. Perhaps the Cowens and Volokhs are not quite “The Libertarian Wing of the Republican
Party” but they are also closer to it then they may have realized before 9/11. This ain’t so bad.
What I don’t understand is Conservatives and torture. The Pope opposes the death penalty, abortion, assisted suicide, the Iraq War, and I would safely guess he would oppose torture. This I can understand. Conservatives who treat the above as a smorgasboard, with some decisions based on transcendant values and some on utilitarian arguments, are more difficult to understand as an even partially coherent and principled political philosophy..
Bruce Baugh 07.16.04 at 2:34 am
I think that Digamma’s This Side/That Side comment has a lot of merit. Too many libertarians got comfortable thinking of the Republicans as a reliable ally in the search for smaller government – never as true as any of us sometimes thought, of course. Then came the shock of 9/11, and libertarians were not immune to fear and rage. Indeed, a fair number may actually have been extra vulnerable precisely because of being so sure that their views were purely rational and logical. They lacked the healthy self-questioning that comes with an awareness of how emotion and reason intertwine. They can’t say, and may well not realize that they’re thinking, “I am so scared that I want Big Brother to keep me safe.”
jdw 07.16.04 at 3:04 am
We haven’t started torturing citizens yet, have we? I don’t think libertarianism is at all incompatible with torturing the people we’re torturing.
(Not that I’m defending libertarians or sadists; I just don’t think it’s the least bit confusing that a lot of people are both.)
Jerome 07.16.04 at 3:56 am
War is horrible, killing is horrible, what makes torture worst than killing? At least you can justify it, you might get vital informations. Before I heard about the torture in Iraq, I knew it was already happening. When you want to win a war, you go for it!
When you kill kids and women just because they might carry a bomb, why torturing can’t be justified? I know why, it’s because war can’t be justified.
christopher ball 07.16.04 at 4:03 am
The real issue isn’t why are libertarians so silent, but why everyone is so silent about the US practice of torture. After the NYT reported on 13 May about ‘water-boarding’ on the front page (“Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited In Top Qaeda Interrogations”), there was little sustained outcry. Even this blog never mentioned it, best I can tell. The CIA contractor who was indicted for assault in June was prosecuted because he killed an Afghan detainee, one who appears to have been uninvolved in any wrongdoing. But I have never heard the beating of Afghan detainees condemned. The problew was that this poor fellow got killed.
Sadly, this confirms the most paranoid views of libertarian extremists. Even the US government might torture you and the only consequences will be getting blogged at.
Kieran Healy 07.16.04 at 4:48 am
I don’t think libertarianism is at all incompatible with torturing the people we’re torturing.
Why? Are people from other countries not really soverign individuals in the same way that people from your own country are?
lenq 07.16.04 at 6:24 am
i am concerned about torture. yes.
it, however, escapes me that there are a great deal of people out there with a large concern beyond basic self-interest and issues on the fringe of that self-interest. sometimes i get stuck onto msn.com or yahoo.com and on the ‘news’ there are articles that are there solely to appeal for the citizen’s immediate self interest. the televised news and the class of self-help magazines seem to emphasize that the current advertising strategy is to appeal to the egocentricity of individuals and the companies seem to be doing pretty well with that. it would, therefore, strike me that there’s a lot of people out there who would not care about too much between getting out of their soul-sucking jobs and going to bed.
and if they happen to be concerned about it. the more common reactions i have heard is that individuals cannot make a difference, but is best left for the administration or the dream of becoming a decision holder in the administration – then they can think about it. kind of comparing themselves with people in the desert who stop thinking of food because there is none. it is great that people on this post seem to care about it. but i’m horribly guilty of having not done anything about it. you have obviously talked about it and raised awareness. what else have you done?
bad Jim 07.16.04 at 8:58 am
Room 101 isn’t particularly instructive for libertarians, since it’s essentially their starting point.
bad Jim 07.16.04 at 9:05 am
back in 1984
Chris Bertram 07.16.04 at 10:04 am
I think Kieran has it about right here. There are the libertarians, such as Jim Henley and an a very few others, and then there are the libertarianism-for-US-citizens-like-me -but-the-state-ought-to-stomp-on-the-head-of-everyone-else-ists. Sadly, most “libertarians” seem to be of the latter variety.
jdw 07.16.04 at 3:13 pm
_Why? Are people from other countries not really soverign individuals in the same way that people from your own country are?_
They’re signatories to a different social contract. I suppose the mystical, Ayn Rand-style libertarians might have a problem with torture, at least logically, but I think they’re the ones most likely to enjoy the idea for non-philosophical reasons.
mc 07.16.04 at 3:33 pm
Sadly, for some people, “American” takes precedence over “human” or “individual”. So, when “American” interests are affected, human rights don’t apply. It’s not even that subliminal.
rea 07.16.04 at 3:45 pm
“This Side, of course, is guilty of the same hypocrisy.”
No, “This Side” doesn’t torture people, generally speaking . . .
mc 07.16.04 at 4:34 pm
I just thought, there are people who can actually be excused for not being that shocked at the news that the CIA used torture. In countries like Chile or Argentina or El Salvador, it’s just no news at all.
Meanwhile, they found Pinochet’s money… in a US bank. Oh what surprise.
CIA torture, Pinochet, oil prices going up… Now we only need an ABBA reunion and then it’s 70’s revival full on.
Matt Weiner 07.17.04 at 11:59 pm
mc–Tremble!
(note–just because I’ll do anything for a cheap laugh does not mean I am not angry about torture. I am perhaps too angry for my own good.)
mc 07.18.04 at 1:12 am
Matt: ah, but that’s not the original ABBA is it? not that I would mind them coming back for real. :)
It’d be one of the least horrible of 70’s comebacks.
If you were angry when you wrote that post on your blog, it only added to the incisiveness and it being so spot on. I have the opposite problem. Brevity forsakes me altogether when I get irritated. As someone will likely notice in other threads, er…
mc 07.18.04 at 1:19 am
Ps – I wish I hadn’t followed your link, Matt, and read that line from Seymour Hersch about the “soundtrack of the boys shrieking”.
I hadn’t read about that yet. I didn’t think there could be anything a lot more shocking than what had already come out.
Comments on this entry are closed.