Been looking over a couple of blogs that are discussing torture/coercion of the Al Qaeda/Taliban detainees. You can find them at Belmont Club and Volokh Conspiracy though his link leads you to the Instapundit.
I'm not comfortable with the rather long term and systematic use of "coercion" to get information from these detainees. I do understand that due to those methods allowed by the present legalistic understandings of international law, that obtaining information is much more difficult, if not impossible. I have come to agree with Wretchard, that there is situations where you are justified in the methods used. At some level, you need to balance what is the least bad, allowing death/harm to our people or "torture" of the enemy.
I'd like to think that the USA could take the high ground on this moral issue. Though how can you justify the death of citizens when you could have forced the information from an obvious combatant that only wishes death on you? Where do you draw the line as to justify doing nothing to protect yourself especially when there is an obvious source of information?
Where does it lead when you allow it? As in the case of war, you're going to have effects on the innocent. Though the war comparison fails in that the people being detained were captured in the act of trying to kill our soldiers in the first place. It's a very complicated and uncomfortable issue.
I'm not comfortable with the rather long term and systematic use of "coercion" to get information from these detainees. I do understand that due to those methods allowed by the present legalistic understandings of international law, that obtaining information is much more difficult, if not impossible. I have come to agree with Wretchard, that there is situations where you are justified in the methods used. At some level, you need to balance what is the least bad, allowing death/harm to our people or "torture" of the enemy.
I'd like to think that the USA could take the high ground on this moral issue. Though how can you justify the death of citizens when you could have forced the information from an obvious combatant that only wishes death on you? Where do you draw the line as to justify doing nothing to protect yourself especially when there is an obvious source of information?
Where does it lead when you allow it? As in the case of war, you're going to have effects on the innocent. Though the war comparison fails in that the people being detained were captured in the act of trying to kill our soldiers in the first place. It's a very complicated and uncomfortable issue.
2 comments:
Morality & ethics aside, the number one problem with coercive techniques is the simple fact that they don't work that well. Oh yeah, you make anyone tell you anything. That's the problem. They'll tell you anything to make the pain go away. You have to know, absolutely, with complete and utter assurance, that the poor schmuck that you're about to hang by his arms till his shoulders pop out of their sockets, has 100% knowledge of whatever it is that you hope to attain. If it's anything less than perfect certainty of complete knowledge, then you're looking at the potential for lies, half-truths, misconceptions, etc. Anything to stop the pain. I've read accounts of the witch trials in Europe where a person had their feet roasted until the bones literally fell through the skin on to the floor without confession. The same person was then taken to strapado (the wonderful torture described above with the arm sockets) and not only confessed to being a witch, but turned in their whole family and several friends in order to stop the pain.
So, in my mind, before I even started to torture myself with worrying about the morality of the act, I'd be sweating the efficacy of what I'm proposing.
Apparently, while modern American techniques take more time than the old fashioned expedient of applied pain, they're more efficient in the long run. I guess the main question is whether or not sleep deprivation and isolation are forms of torture or not?
I have to say, I'd think that the intelligence services probably have some idea on how to extract useful data. Not all data they will receive will be useful, I understand that, but if it's not, the person they extracted it from, I'm sure, has been led to understand that there are consequences. I'm also thinking that this "torture" is more on psychological lines and the methods are probably more effective than just beating someone bloody.
Effectiveness is a key to part of the argument as well. If it was totally ineffective, would we be wasting our time on "torture." I don't see the people doing this as just outright monsters. That would over simplify a scenario that is already distasteful. I'm also guessing that the reason that the techniques take longer is due to that legal line that has been drawn in the sand.
I see your point though. If it's too slow and not very effective, then why bother. I just don't have sufficient empirical evidence on what is allowed and being used and the related results to make a clear materialistic judgement. So I guess I can only look at the moral/ethical aspects.
Post a Comment