Senate Democrats recently issued a scathing report condemning
what is claimed to be the use of torture by the CIA during the hunt of Osama
Bin Laden and the concurrent attacks on Al Qaeda.
Various former CIA officials, including current Director
Michael Hayden, jumped to the Agency’s
defense, citing the approval of its interrogation techniques by President
Bush’s White House and Congressional leaders of both parties during the time
they were used.
CIA representatives claimed that waterboarding, sleep
deprivation and humiliation did not constitute torture. They were merely methods of “enhanced
interrogation”.
Apparently, no one favors torture under any circumstance,
from conservatives like Wall Street Journalist
Peggy Noonan and Senator Lindsay Graham to any liberal you wish to name. To
quote Senator John McCain, a victim of torture in North Vietnamese prisons, “The use of torture compromises that which
most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured
enemies possess basic human rights.”
Mrs. Noonan put the sentiment somewhat differently. “Torture
is not like us. It’s not part of the
American DNA. We think of ourselves as
better than that because we’re better than that.”
Self-righteous words all – and foolishly naïve. Those uttering them believe them, I’m
sure. But only if they don’t subject
those words to hard-headed examination.
“The end never justifies the means” has the same superficial appeal but
fails to account for real world choices [a boy stealing a loaf of bread to
avoid starvation is to be morally condemned?].
One must weigh means versus ends in particular circumstances. Thus, while committing theft to survive is
most likely morally excused, killing to obtain food is unlikely to be justifiable.
Should the same analysis be applied to torture, as well?
Torture as a term is not subject to one definition. It can mean sadism (inflicting pain is the
purpose), terror objectives (intimidation) and coercion to force a disclosure
of information. Obviously, only the last
definition is applicable to this discussion.
Sadism is an end, not a means, and even the most hostile critics have
not accused the CIA of engaging in terroristic activities.
A formal dictionary definition states that torture is an “act
of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of
getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty”.
As so defined, did some of the tactics by the CIA against
Al Qaeda qualify as torture? Probably. Yet the term has such negative historical
connotations that those employing it dare not name their activities as
such. Hence we hear such expressions as “enhanced
interrogation”.
Can the use of torture to obtain information be
justified? I suggest that a means versus
ends analysis appropriately applies. The
proper questions are (1) whether torture worked, and (2) whether their use was
morally justified by the end.
If the first question generates a “no”, the second
question becomes moot.
The CIA, however,
reports that the interrogation tactics did work. If so, can anyone responsible for the safety
of Americans forbid their use?
But if torture succeeded, and there were no other
practical options to the acquire the information desired, was there really any
other choice in the face of Al Qaeda’s already established 9/11 capability to
kill massive numbers of Americans?
Is it a compromise of one’s principles to weigh ends
versus means? Yes, but that’s ok.
The world is not perfect where the choice is between pure
white and evil black. Rather, shades do
matter. Choosing to survive can involve
unpleasant alternatives, but making realistic choices to survive hardly makes
us like our foes. Refusing to account
for what serves the interests of survival is suicidal. I rather doubt that Americans desire to be
martyrs to moral perfection.
It would certainly be nice to live in Utopia where
coercing information from enemies would be unnecessary since, in Utopia, there
would be no enemies.
That’s not the world we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment