American Values: The Mental and Physical Torture of Human Beings
The underlying question is how far can American interrogators go to elicit information from enemy combatants or POWs? My background in criminal law generally requires that I err on the side of preserving civil and human rights when dealing with criminals that are accused and charged but not convicted by a fair and impartial finder of fact. A central tenet to American justice has always been, "I would rather set 100 men free, than imprison one innocent man".
I was fortunate to run across this article written in the Stanford Magazine. The basic idea is how far can we go and what tactics can we use to get the intelligence we need to win at war and ensure the safety of the United States from radical Islamic terrorist organizations. Some folks refer to this struggle as the "war on terror". I am not so ready to define something that is so ambiguous and elusive with one identifying catch phrase. Notwithstanding that, we are certainly at war and if you believe, as I do, that American military action never occurs without our leaders believing that what they do is morally justified, then what means can we use to achieve our goal. (This assumption needs to be pointed out because if you are waging war for unjust or immoral reasons then we do not need to explore the issue of this post) In particular, where is the line that we, as a model country for the world to study, should not cross? (For the record, I do still believe in the ideals of America in light of the current shortcomings of this Administration.) Can we use mental coercion, but not physical abuse? Should we afford enemy captives the same rights as American citizens accused of domestic crimes? Or should we, as many far right thinkers believe, elicit intelligence with any tactic available?
This is a tough question and one that I believed I had a moderately clear answer on until I read the article to which I previously referred. The title alone defines the moral and philosophical implications, Bound By Convention, In Afghanistan, Army interrogators invented new methods to get the information they wanted. One question kept nagging them: How far should they go? Here is an excerpt that made me begin shifting toward this idea that tougher interrogation tactics might be necessary........but I am not totally convinced.
"One of the biggest breaks came midway through the war when a Special Forces team returned to Bagram with a pile of documents. Among them was an Al Qaeda training manual on resisting interrogation.The interrogators were stunned. It spelled out all of the maddening tactics they had faced for months. It coached detainees to withhold key information until their former colleagues had time to adjust their plans, to claim to have forgotten all names and places, to use the Islamic calendar for all references to dates—anything to slow or confuse captors.The manual practically taunted the interrogators, saying prisoners had little to fear in U.S. custody, that Americans were weak and disinclined to use the harsh methods employed by Middle East countries. Indeed, it urged prisoners to bait American interrogators into physical confrontations, saying bruises or broken bones witnessed by the Red Cross could create an international outcry."
The United States is bound by convention as the article clearly makes as its core principle. Unfortunately, our enemy is bound by nothing and beheadings of civilians proves that fact. This passage clearly exemplifies this idea. They exploit our culture's humanity for their cause. If you could put the solution to this dilemma in a nutshell it would be the answer to this question: How can we take the high road and still effectively win war and ensure minimal loss of lives to our military? (My leap: by gathering superior intelligence than our enemy is how I believe this war will be won) It seems like the two practices cannot flourish without compromise of both principles. To erode either principle through compromise though, would devalue it and in my mind make it worthless. In other words, if you value the "high road" philosophy then you could never allow mental or physical torture no matter who the prisoner because there is a chance that one single innocent prisoner could be victimized. If this happens then the entire reason for your position would be lost: You failed to protect the innocent. The value itself requires that you be just as concerned if one innocent person was tortured than if one hundred innocent people were tortured. To compromise your value shows a lack of integrity.
A typical Republican mantra is, "The liberals don't understand the type of people with which we are dealing". The excerpt above surely supports that idea. It supports the idea, not in the sense that liberals don't understand radical Islamists tendencies for brutal and heinous murder, but more, it (the excerpt above) strengthens their (conservatives) ability to demonize the enemy. By demonizing the enemy, essentially making them not human, people are more likely to not mind retribution. Just deserts. And by all means, lets demonize the folks that struck us on 9-11 and threatened my homeland. But, this is the flaw in the idea that we should utilize torture tactics, physical abuse or harsh mental coercion. The flaw is that we would be utilizing these tactics on innocent human beings. We demonize the "terrorists" and Americans do not attempt to see the possibility that many of the folks in U.S. prisoner camps did nothing. Those Arabs are all terrorist is what many unsophisticated people think, so who cares about them. If you don't think racism of this sort is not alive in American culture then let me buy you a bus ticket to East Texas.
Any reasonable person who studies the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan easily concludes that there is a substantial percentage of inmates in American run enemy prisoner camps who should not be there. Many stories, for example, have come out that many Baathists who formerly were top scientists and doctors ended up in these prisons simply because they were Baathists. Many of these individuals were Baathists because of fear of death or imprisonment and typically despised Saddam Hussein. (Here is an excellent example of that fact and explanation from the New Yorker of the US debacle of de-Batthification and its leading to the current insurgency).
So there is the moral dilemma, is it okay to use extreme interrogation tactics to get what we need to win this war? If you say yes, then you MUST be willing to apply this to people that are innocent of any wrongdoing. That is essential for this position to be valid. I am referring to innocent human beings, just like you and me. I think the American ethos ingrains in much of the populous that "we" are better, or our lives are more valuable, than "them". This mentality stems from the American People's lack of culture and exposure to other peoples and cultures and is completely selfish and, as I mentioned above, racist. To agree that we are justified in torturing innocent human beings for a righteous end result is very much against the principles of Christianity as well, if you don't mind ME toting that around for once. Who cares though, throughout the ages, we have been picking and choosing what we like about Christianity. Right pro-death penalty advocates? "They" are just like us in the sense that "they" mourn the loss of loved ones and "they" are angered by injustice done to their innocent brothers and friends. But those who take the approach that we should use strong interrogation tactics, including physical and mental torture, don't see people the way I do. Individually.
The end result is this magnification of the lack of compassion for the individual. Perhaps our culture finds it much more convenient to not think about the daily realities that result from our political stances. This is exemplified in those who support the war in Iraq although its abundantly clear that the sacrifice was and is not necessary. The daily reality of supporting this is dead American soldiers as well as, and as importantly, dead Iraqi civilians. Those who support this war have little sympathy for those that mourn the dead soldier and the soldier herself. Sure they believe its sad, but their life marches on and they easily get caught up in the selfishness of daily pursuit.(This might anger some, but it is the truth and there are exceptions) By the way, placing a magnetic yellow ribbon on your vehicle does not convince me that you care and it surely does not mean that you have done your part. That is however, the American mentality: Support so long as there is no self sacrifice. Selfishness. The true patriot, puts down the pen, closes his mouth and takes action individually to aid the cause they support. This can occur through many ways, volunteerism and charity are two examples.
My point is that we should be mindful of the positions we take. We should consider the individuals who will be wronged by our beliefs and actions. We should step into reality when we decide United States policy. We must stop basing our war policy on fear and start basing it on principle and value. Basing policy on principle and value is what has made America unique. This includes, but is not limited to, whether we should utilize brutal interrogation tactics to illicit information from enemies. If we use mental and physical torture as a means to our end, we would surely get intelligence that will help us win the war, but the foundation that built this great Republic might have crumbled beneath us in the process.
posted by Bulldoza at 11/24/2004 01:19:00 PM
|
1 comments
