For the past two weeks, the Religion and Philosophy club at my place of employment has discussed torture. Last week we tried to determine if torture should
ever be used, and a majority of the group said that if torture was employed for the greater good (finding out that a terrorist was going to crash planes into buildings), it was okay. Furthermore, when questions of ethnocentrism were raised, no one seemed to mind that one of "their" lives wasn't worth one of "ours."
This week, we discussed the applicability of Geneva to torture. Perhaps you can imagine how the discussion went...
In fact, the discussion was okay until I asked one student to explain to me how we can on one hand talk about morality and "spreading freedom and justice" and spread those values through torture. The woman said she didn't think torture was a value but she thought it was okay in some circumstances. A continuation of the discussion was posted on the R&P's discussion board. I will repost it here, with permission, and for everyone's elucidation. I will also post my reply. I'm interested to find out if you've encountered similar hypocrisy in your own communities.
Original Question, as Posted,
I want to say that I thought Randy did a good job in getting out some complex ideas. It is too bad that there was such little time for discussion. Perhaps we can continue online where he left off.
I think Randy is correct in pointing to a contradiction in those who support torture. Those who support the use of torture (in limited "ticking bomb cases) seem to urge us to preserve humanity by becoming inhumane.
However I also wonder if there isn't a contradiction on the other side. In a "ticking bomb" case keeping ones humanity and dignity (by refusing to torture) also seems to preserve a kind of dignity that refuses to save where it could have--this too seems a kind of inhumanity.
If both sides hold contradictions, it seems like it is time for fundamental re-thinking. Ends means reasoning leads to contradictions, but absolute prohibitions fail to notice that very few rules do not admit exceptions.
However, much of this may be moot--the ticking time bomb type cases aren't really the issue in many cases we encounter today such as in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. All of the information they may have is by now at least old and of little immediate use.
Perhaps by talking about torture in ticking bomb cases we legitimize its use anytime or anywhere. Other thoughts on this?
Here is my reply:
First of all, props to Randy for a very fine job yesterday. Thanks for all your hard work!
Now. On to the meat of the problem.
This is the way I see it: As stated by many of those present at our last two meetings, Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War/1992 Torture Victim Protection Act do not apply to either our (US and assignees of GPW)or enemy forces.
To those who believe the above is true, I have several questions, for which I have provided my own answers as based on my reading of pertinent documents:
1. How can we (US troops/Bush Administration)claim protection under Geneva if we do not uphold the provisions of the treaty?
- We can't: In his memo on 25 January 2002 which became de facto US practice although it was not codified) Alberto Gonzales advised Bush about the positives and negatives of Bush's prior decision that the Geneva treaty on the treatment of POWs does not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Under Positive, he lists this: "Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the war crimes act." Then under Negatives: "The United States could not invoke the GPW if enemy forces threatened to mistreat or mistreated US or coalition forces captured during operations in Afghanistan, or if they denied Red Cross access or other POW privileges." Bush was told by the man that will soon be our SecDef that he couldn't be held accountable for the actions of soldiers in the field (and that's what it means when he uses the phrase "Commander-in-Chief", that "office" only goes into effect in times of war) but woah!! when our soldiers are tortured we can't prosecute the bad guys. Secondly, the Administration has engaged in semantics by calling POWs "Enemy Combatants". I refuse. As I stated yesterday, the fact that the US fights a "stateless enemy" does not mean that the enemy has no rights. They're still "Prisoners of War" if they're taken prisoner in battle. Invading people's homes and taking them prisoner is another matter altogether.
2. Let's address that other matter. When American soldiers raid private homes, arresting individuals, are they civilians, covered by the Geneva Convention IV (I think) covering civilians? If not, what protection, if any, do they have?
- When we say we're fighting insurgents, how do you tell one from the other? (This, BTW, is a problem as old as warfare itself. That's why we have things like Geneva, so people who aren't "bad guys" aren't treated like them.) In Abu Gharib, most of the people (70% as stated by IRC, I think) were removed forcibly from their homes at night and taken to prison. There, many were tortured (according to GPW they were tortured from the beginning, because they weren't allowed to dress and they were hooded) as we all saw from the photos. Where do we draw the line? For that matter, who gets to draw the line? Should we, as Dershowitz states, have a code of conduct for torture, because it will happen, so we might as well provide a framework for it? IMHO, the idea of "constructive torture" is ridiculous. The act of torture in and of itself is beyond the pale; it cannot be regulated once it is begun.
3. So, Geneva is null and void. We can torture POWs, and enemy forces can torture our soldiers. Can we, as a nation, continue to claim the moral high ground as we have since the Puritans? What happens to the centuries-old idea of American Exceptionalism when we negate the rules of war? What happens to our "spreading liberty and freedom" around the world? How do we prosecute the War against Terrorism from the moral high ground which we have assumed?
- You can't have it both ways, folks. Americans can no longer serve (or say they serve) as "beacons of humanity" for the world as President Bush said we would in the Inaugural: "We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty." What do those words MEAN today? Does "human dignity" apply only to rich white people, or people who are willing to sell us their oil at a competitive price? Those words mean nothing - they're but empty rhetoric, because our actions completely negate the words of our rulers. By engaging in the actions which we profess to hate we have done nothing better than follow the guidelines of rulers we have traditionally vilified - Pinochet, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, and Karimov (he's our new favorite - leader of Uzbekistan, likes to boil dissidents alive. Why do we like him? We want oil. He's on top of it.)
It seems that the American people are the only ones still in the dark on this point. The rest of the world knows that on one hand we say we're going to "spread freedom and liberty around the world" and on the other hand we're going to use torture, war, imposed regimes, and puppet democracies to get there. It's something the US has done since (technically) Reconstruction, but specifically the Spanish American War. We only like liberty if it's in line with our aims; we only like democratically elected leaders if they want what we want. That's why there's been so much saber-rattling over Venezuela - they just elected and had a referendum to confirm the election of their president, Hugo Chavez. We don't like him because he's a socialist. He wants to redistribute lands in the hands of these huge hacienda/corporations (left over from our own establishment of banana republics) to the people who used to own the land so they can have their own subsistence farming. He also expects proper payment for all the oil and natural gas he sits on top of. If he ever decides to cut off his supply to us, we're in trouble. Venezuela supplies a majority of our crude and natural gas.
If we're going to continue on our current path, then let's be honest with ourselves. We're not "spreading liberty and freedom"; we're ensuring that our insatiable appetite for oil is fed by taking over countries that have what we want. We're not the "city on a hill", guided by (and guiding others with our) lofty principles and godly attitudes; we're affirmed torturers, imperialists, who will stop at nothing in the quest for power and international (corporate, at least) domination. We have much to learn from history - our own, yes, but also that of other (failed) imperial powers. Others have been down this road before and now lie in ruin to serve as signposts in this century. Will we ever notice their warnings?