"He calls it Reason, but he uses it / To be beastlier than any beast."

Following up on the dialogue between Seth and me (and Mattie in comments), just a bit more on torture and I'm done. In talking about torture I realize how grossly unclear it is as to what's meant by the term. The Catherine Wheel comes to mind, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Catherine Wheel has no place in US investigations. But "coercion" falls in there somewhere too, and as Bowden discussed in his review of state-sponsored coercion/torture, this can include creating a highly uncomfortable environment (like solitary confinement), removing indicators of time (which makes people extremely cranky), interrupting sleep, and other psychological or physical impediments. Torture (a la the Catherine Wheel) is an extreme point on a range of investigative procedures, so it doesn't do any good to say you're simply against torture—you have to posit your legal or moral limit somewhere on that range.

What we have now is (to wit) a left-right range, with the US stance mostly established by the Constitution and court precedent. September 11th and the ensuing war on terrorism basically through that comfortable spot into question, and the nominal resolution was the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a terrible resolution, and I don't need to explain why, but I do think we need something: some kind of on-the-books policy about how we treat captured or suspected terrorists that defines exactly what we do with them. Frankly, this requires a debate about torture and everything else in that range—because apparently our actual-but-not-on-the-books policy is on the extreme end.

I looked up a short Wolf Blitzer interview with Alan Dershowitz (proponent of the notorious "torture warrants") and Ken Roth (executive director of Human Rights Watch) and I think that they might represent two poles in the debate about the American position on torture/coercion. Dershowitz says that "having laws on the books and breaking them systemically... creates disdain." Worse than that, when the laws on the books in question are the PATRIOT Act, accountability and transparency are eliminated. What we need are clear laws on the books—either to illustrate in what situation coercive practices will be allowed, or to fully bind US law to the Geneva Convention protocols and eliminate extranational renditions and what-not.

Since there's a big need to rewrite our security laws (and axe the Patriot Act) we should consider the "ticking time bomb," a few of which have indeed gone off in the United States over the last decade. Dershowitz:

[W]e should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice.

Dershowitz then sends off to crazy world by supporting actual torture, rather than grey-area coercion. Roth's rebuttal is that Israel basically went with that philosophy and ended up torturing willy-nilly until their supreme court struck that power; that's a case to consider. Roth's other argument though, is a dinosaur:

We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, "Well, the U.S. is doing it, we're going to start doing it as well."

A nice sentiment, but the USA clearly does not set a model for the rest of the world. Terrorist/assymetrical warfare works exactly because rogue nations or terrorist groups don't give a shit. I sure wish we were the shining city on a hill, but as it turns out the world and its discontents aren't so far away after all. I don't think it's wise to raise our chin high in the air and pretend that uncleanliness isn't real, abroad or at home. Other nations have had to deal; the reason I initially praised extranational renditions is because 1) some of our allies have more experience in the kinds of interrogation techniques that work on religiously inspired zealots, and 2) the coercion I hesitantly endorse isn't legal here. (Obviously we're all wrong sending anyone to Syria.)

As to Mattie's comment that "the odds are probably better that we will be killed in a car wreck tomorrow than killed by terrorists ever," well, good. Personal safety isn't so much the concern as striking a balance between liberty and security that limits government abuse, protects citizens' rights, and does what needs to be done to prevent terrorist acts of mass murder. If the balance is right, and that threat is minimal, then the applications of coercion ought to be minimal as well—as well as the abuse of goverment authority. And if terrorism is always going to be a looming possibility, it's all the more reason to get it right.

I think Seth summarizes aptly:

My basic opinion is that if you're an "enemy combatant," you are detained on the terms you enter into battle with. That is, if you're a soldier and you fight other soldiers, you are treated like a soldier if captured. If you violate the rules (e.g., act against civilians), all bets are off. That said, torture is still wrong. "Coercion," perhaps not.

Where the administration errs is in the process by which it defines "enemy combatants." The Arar case demonstrates that this process is nothing if not arbitrary. That is totally, completely, and in all ways unacceptable. If you're gonna "coerce" somebody, you'd better be damn sure they're an "enemy combatant," and not Joe Random Looks-Arabic off the street. The jurisprudential standard should be higher than for a normal court case, and from what I've seen, it looks like it's the other way 'round.

So let's make sure that the rules are the prudent ones, that we do whatever it takes to stop terrorism, and that we know what we mean by "whatever it takes." This is the warfare that will affect the war against terror, not the tanks in Iraq.


Title courtesy of Goerthe, from the prologue.
posted by kriston at 2:08 PM........

! - ?

BlogStreet