Rudy, Toughness, and Torture

A friend of mine sent me the link to this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by ostensibly-liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz decries what he considers to be a "pacifistic stance" among the Democrats, and he argues that Rudy Giuliani appears to be doing well in the polls because "the post- 9/11 Rudy conveys a sense of toughness, of no-nonsense defense of America."

Well, maybe. But to me the post-9/11 Rudy conveys something else: the puffed chest and macho posturing of a small, fearful man. I don't think his attitude conveys strength and toughness; I think it conveys fear, weakness, and paranoia -- the same sort of fear that leads an Amtrak employee to become overwrought about an elderly Japanese photographer. Rudy's message: be afraid all the time. Sacrifice our honor and our most important values.

When asked whether waterboarding was torture, Rudy said it was, the way it was described by the "liberal media," but he seemed to leave open the option that there could be some forms of waterboarding that wouldn't count. Well, Jonathan Adler at Volokh links to this article, an article written by somebody who was an instructor at SERE school, a man who has undergone waterboarding and performed it on American soldiers in training. A real tough guy, one who doesn't need to engage in Rudy-style macho-posturing to prove his manhood. He says, simply, "when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt." This article has been cited extensively in the blogosphere, so you may have seen it already, but this is a passage that I think every American ought to read:

We live at a time where Americans, completely uninformed by an incurious media and enthralled by vengeance-based fantasy television shows like “24”, are actually cheering and encouraging such torture as justifiable revenge for the September 11 attacks. Having been a rescuer in one of those incidents and personally affected by both attacks, I am bewildered at how casually we have thrown off the mantle of world-leader in justice and honor. Who we have become? Because at this juncture, after Abu Ghraieb and other undignified exposed incidents of murder and torture, we appear to have become no better than our opponents.

With regards to the waterboard, I want to set the record straight so the apologists can finally embrace the fact that they condone and encourage torture.

History’s Lessons Ignored

Before arriving for my assignment at SERE, I traveled to Cambodia to visit the torture camps of the Khmer Rouge. The country had just opened for tourism and the effect of the genocide was still heavy in the air. I wanted to know how real torturers and terror camp guards would behave and learn how to resist them from survivors of such horrors. I had previously visited the Nazi death camps Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. I had met and interviewed survivors of Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Magdeburg when I visited Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. However, it was in the S-21 death camp known as Tuol Sleng, in downtown Phnom Penh, where I found a perfectly intact inclined waterboard. Next to it was the painting on how it was used. It was cruder than ours mainly because they used metal shackles to strap the victim down, and a tin flower pot sprinkler to regulate the water flow rate, but it was the same device I would be subjected to a few weeks later.

On a Mekong River trip, I met a 60-year-old man, happy to be alive and a cheerful travel companion, who survived the genocide and torture … he spoke openly about it and gave me a valuable lesson: “If you want to survive, you must learn that ‘walking through a low door means you have to be able to bow.’” He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know including the truth. They rarely stopped. In torture, he confessed to being a hermaphrodite, a CIA spy, a Buddhist Monk, a Catholic Bishop and the son of the king of Cambodia. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French. He remembered “the Barrel” version of waterboarding quite well. Head first until the water filled the lungs, then you talk.

Is that what we wish to become?

Now, it does seem that waterboarding has not been used particularly often -- at least if recent reports are to be believed. This ABC News report claims that only three people have been waterboarded by the CIA, and it has not been used at all since 2003. As Julian Sanchez, observed, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim that the technique is vital to national security when it hasn't been used at all since 2003. The ABC report indicates that, after being waterboarded, Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed. Of course, we know we can make people confess to pretty much anything if we torture them. He probably is guilty of at least some of the things to which he confessed, but the hard truth is that the fact that he confessed under torture tells us nothing.

And because of his treatment, it is now virtually impossible to try him in a real court. If we had treated him in a humane manner, we could have tried him before a real court, with real lawyers, a real judge, and a real lawyer. And the result would have been real justice. Would some have refused to believe he had gotten a fair trial? Sure. But for those who could be swayed, giving him a fair trial would have been an important symbolic act.

But what about the favorite example from those who wish to justify torture: the ticking time bomb scenario? Professor Dershowitz discusses this situation:

Consider, for example, the contentious and emotionally laden issue of the use of torture in securing preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism--the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio:

"You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over."

First of all, it never happens. You never know enough to know there's a ticking time bomb and that you have the person who knows where it is. If you know for sure that it's the guy and you know about the bomb, you probably know all sorts of other things which are likely to lead you to the bomb. So why spend all this time discussing a scenario that never happens?

Second, the ticking time bomb is the scenario in which torture is least likely to work. If the terrorist can ever hold out, or construct a convincing lie, this is the time he will do it. Because he knows that he just has to last a limited period of time, and then the bomb will go off.

I am curious to know how far people are willing to take this. Suppose, for example, that the terrorist has a child. We grab Terrorist Mastermind at home with his child. And somebody gets the bright idea of making the Mastermind watch as we crush his eleven-year-old son's testicles -- something John Yoo claims the President has the inherent power to do. So do we do it? Just how far do we go?

Let me make a somewhat different argument. If there were an imminent attack on America, and you could stop it at the cost of your own life, would you do it? I don't know for a fact that I would sacrifice my own life, but I certainly hope I would. And I assume our CIA and FBI agents, and members of our military would make the same choice. Likewise, I hope that they would sacrifice their freedom in order to prevent a terrorist attack on the United States. So here's my proposal: if the ticking time bomb ever happens, the CIA or FBI agents or whoever can torture the mastermind and then, after the attack is foiled, turn themselves in, plead guilty, and accept punishment. If your answer is that they are not really willing to do that, well, I suspect it is because they don't believe that torture is really necessary. And if a President believes it is really necessary, well, let him (or her) authorize it, and the resign from office and accept the legal consequences.

I think that we can defend our country from terrorists without throwing away our honor. We don't need to torture people, and we sacrifice something about what makes America great when we do so. Yes, be tough on terror. But do so in a manner that is consistent with American values.

Why Does Sully Do This?

On Friday, Andrew Sullivan graced his readers with a snarky one-line post: "Glenn Reynolds vs a real libertarian on torture." The "real libertarian" is the author of Glenn's stalker-site, Instaputz, and the post to which Andrew linked is here.

One reason I am not the biggest fan of blogwars is that if you come in in the middle of one, it's hard to untangle who said what, when, and who is misrepresenting whose statements, etc. And often it seems like it's not worth the trouble. But here goes, anyway:

Glenn's original post is here. Glenn links to this Andy McCarthy piece from The Corner which shows that Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Charles Schumer and Bill Clinton have all, at various times, admitted to the necessity of coercive interrogation (or even torture). Glenn then points out that there is a double standard at work: "Somehow, they are fit to lead the Democratic Party but the suitability of Mukasey — who has taken a more measured stance — to be attorney general is in doubt? What am I missing here?"

From this double standard he concludes that "the 'torture' debate is a political tool, and otherwise unserious." Taken in context, he's not arguing that we ought to have torture, or that the debate is unimportant, or anything of the sort. He is taking isssue with hypocrisy and double standards. He's saying that if you condemn Mukasey you should logically also condemn Clinton, Clinton, Obama, and Schumer. Failing that, he contends, that the torture debate is primarily political.

Now, it is possible to make logical arguments against Glenn's position. One could track down the original statements by Clinton, Clinton, Obama and Schumer, for example, and argue that they are, in fact, less sanguine about torture than McCarthy suggested. One could argue that the Attorney General should be held to a higher standard. One could even contend that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that all of these people should be condemned.

Does Instaputz do any of those? Does he take issue with any of Glenn's facts and reasoning? No. He simply quotes the sentence where Glenn says that the "The torture debate is a political tool, and otherwise unserious." But he gives no hint as to the chain of reasoning that led up to that conclusion. He's followed up on it, but again, he makes no attempt to come to grips with Glenn's reasoning or argument.

So why does Andrew Sullivan give an uncritical link to this snarky little jab? Note that it's not the first time -- Sullivan is a repeat offender.

Well, if Sullivan can put words in people's mouths, I can psychoanalyze the guy from a distance. Particularly since I am being clear that this is utterly speculative, although it is based on my observation of Sullivan's blogging over the past few years. Let me suggest a theory. Sullivan likes to accuse his opponents (particularly Bush) of having a Manichean world-view.

He may well be right about Bush, but the same is true of Sullivan himself. He seems to think that people are all good or all bad -- there's no in-between, there are no good-faith differences among well-meaning people, not even really any hard issues. Now that he sees Reynolds as a bad guy, well, he must be pro-torture, even though he's never said anything that one could plausibly interpret as being pro-torture. It's enough that Reynolds hasn't worked himself into a high dudgeon about it.

We saw this dynamic in Sullivan's attitude toward President Bush. the immediate aftermath of 9/11. At first, Sullivan saw George W. Bush as our mighty-thewed leader in the War Against Islamo-Fascism. But then, something happened, and Sullivan turned against Bush. Now he writes about Bush like he's a jilted lover. Don't get me wrong, I'm a harsh critic of President Bush myself. But at the same time, I don't feel any great sense of personal betrayal, because I never expected that much from Bush to start with.

And the same is true, though to a lesser extent, of Reynolds. Back in 2001 and 2002, they were fellow warriors in the war against Islamo-fasicism, but not that Sullivan has turned against the Iraq war and President Bush, Reynolds is a doulbe-plus ungood enemy. And he has always been an enemy!

You see the same dynamic now, with Sullivan's blossoming man-crush on Barack Obama. I finally made it through Sullivan's essay on why he wuvs Obama, and it is Andrew Sullivan at his self-indulgent worst. It is nearly as bereft of rational argument as his exchange with Sam Harris on religion. Sullivan admits that Obama's policy views are bog-standard left liberal views, but Obama will unite us all and heal our divisions because he's young, and handsome, and black. Did I mention handsome? Now maybe Sully's crush on Obama will last forever, but I suspect that, this year or next, Obama will dissapoint, and then Sullivan will give him the same sort of spurned lover treatment he now gives to President Bush and Glenn Reynolds.

Still More on Torture

This is a continuation of my ongoing dialogue with a conservative Catholic friend, whom I have dubbed "CC" for purposes of this discussion. In my first post on this matter, I outlined my basic anti-torture position. My second post was a reply to CC's emailed response. CC has taken the time to e-mail additional thoughts, and this post continues our dialogue. I am here quoting both some of my own prior statements and CC's response to them:

Well, as a religious believer it seems to me that you probably ought to apply a categorical command against torture. You do, after all, believe that Christ (whom you consider to be a manifestation of God, right?) was tortured by the Romans. This ought to lead you to a certain sympathy for the victims of torture, regardless of whether it works.

Response: There you go again. The word "torture" is inherently ambiguous. I agree that the Romans inflicted pain on Jesus of Nazareth and killed him. Christ's suffering serves as inspiration to me inspires a "certain sympathy" for all persons who suffer pain at the hands of any government, including our own. Jesus taught us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek, and so, as a Christian, I try to live up to these ideals. It is not easy, however, to love terrorists who, if they could, would kill every man, woman, and child in the United States. But, Jesus calls us to do so, so those of us who are Christians must strive to do so. On the other hand, Jesus did not call anyone to be suicidal, nor did he suggest that worldly notions of justice should be abolished with his dying on the cross.

I agree that there is some inherent ambiguity in the term "torture," but I also think that the tactics which appear to have been utilized by the United States government fall well outside of any possible grey area.

As for the religious implications, my only point is that it seems odd to me that Christian conservatives appear to have so enthusiastically embraced harsh interrogation techniques, when in fact their theology cuts in the opposite direction. As a non-believer, I feel no particular obligation to even try to love terrorists. I'd be all in favor of torturing terrorists were it not for two things. The first is the risk of error, of torturing people who are not, in fact, terrorists. This isn't just a fantasy, it appears to have actually happened to a man named Khalid El-Masri, who was kidnapped by the CIA, flown to Afghanistan, and tortured. Or at least he so alleges. (He recently lost in his attempt to sue the United States, but not on the merits of his claim.) On TV, they always get the right guy, but life isn't a TV show, and we are talking about fallible government agents, here.

The other reason is that I don't trust the government to have the power to torture people. I think that if the 20th century shows anything, that power will be expanded, abused, and applied against the innocent. It's not about them -- it's about us.

That said, I agree that torture ought to be subjected to a largely utilitarian calculation. However, I think that the resolution of those calculations is actually pretty easy. Torture is an information-gathering technique which may or may not even work, and if it does work produces information which may or may not be particularly reliable. Its benefits are dubious and relatively short-term.

Response: Again, if one eliminates all forms of ineffective coercive interrogation techniques, what is left? Anything? Your position seems to be this: certain effective coercive interrogation techniques are should be permitted -- so long as the coercion does not exceed your "mild discomfort" standard; but other effective coercion techniques should be prohibited because they involved "torture," which apparently is more excessive coercion than "mild discomfort."

To begin with, "mild discomfort" was probably a poor choice of words. As I have tried to explain, my use of that language was intended to convey the fact that I'm not one of those who believe that any distress or discomfort constitutes torture. Nor do I believe that people captured on the battlefield need to be given Miranda warnings or the like. In my first post of this conversation, I cited this article about a study which says there's no evidence harsh interrogation techniqes work and these reports which suggest the same. I propose we use the techniques that past interrogators claim actually worked: learn their culture and language and talk to them. It's not as satisfying as waterboarding, but it may be more effective in actually protecting our loved ones.

But let me be clear on this: even if torture worked, I would be against it, for all of the Libertarian reasons I've outlined. I think that letting agents of the state get used to having this power is a Bad Idea. And that the state is far more dangerous, in the long run, than terrorists could ever be.

The immediate cost is a loss of credibility of the United States, a massively-reduced level of soft-power and ability to exercise moral leadership. It means we have a far more difficult time complaining if our own people or our allies' people are mistreated by an enemy. I'm not a huge fan of the Bush/Clinton notion of war as social work, but if the idea is to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into liberal democracies, might not our own conduct have a certain teaching function? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" isn't exactly the lesson we were trying to impart. In addition, while you may not think that the pain inflicted on terrorists or their sympathizers ought to count, the torture inflicted upon innocent people tortured by mistake certainly ought to count. And then there is the psychological cost borne by the torturers who have to live with what they've done in subsequent years.

Response: I agree that the reasons cited above weigh against "torture." But your analysis assumes that there are no benefits to aggressive interrogation techniques, and continues to avoid defining exactly what is "torture."

Given the lack of evidence that there is any up-side that cannot be achieved through other means, I think it more than weighs against it -- I think it's dispositive. As for the definition issue: "the deliberate infliction of severe physical or psychological distress."

CC and I actually agree at this point that that nuclear terrorism is fairly unlikely:

First, the danger of terrorists getting a nuke, "suitcase" or otherwise, is pretty small, for the reasons articulated by Gregory Cochran in his 2 Blowhards interview. And if we are worried about that, the best way to prevent it is not to go around torturing terrorists; it's to work with the Russians and the Chinese to keep the supply of nuclear weapons bottled up tight.

Response: I thought I sent a follow-up e-mail that acknowledged that the chances of terrorists obtaining a nuke is pretty small.

CC did indeed send such a follow-up, and I was in error to not acknowledge it.

That leaves "conventional" suicide terrorism. And he's right that terrorists can indeed kill a lot of people if they are so inclined. In fact, we can imagine all sorts of low-tech things that terrorists could do that are almost impossible to stop -- drive around medium-sized cities lobbing Molotov cocktails out the window of their vehicle, for example. But the number of people who are actually willing to do that seems to be fairly small. The chances of CC's kids, or my Main Squeeze being killed by conventional criminals is a lot greater than the chances they'll be killed by terrorists. The off-chance that a terror plot that would kill a lot of people will be foiled by torture isn't worth the very real costs associated with institutionalizing the practice.

Response: I generally agree, but the difficulty with making a risk assessment here is that we are not privy to confidential information in the hands of the government.

We agree? What's the fun in that.

I do agree it would be nice to have information now in the hands of the government. But the problem with relying on "trust us, we know what we are doing" is that government officials always have an incentive to increase their own power and cover up mistakes. At the end of the day, I don't trust the government to have this power, and that applies regardless of which party or person happens to be in office.

More Thoughts on Torture

In my last post on this topic, I argued that the government ought not be given the power to torture people because, if the 20th century has shown us nothing, it is that giving the state the power to torture people is just a really bad idea.

In that post, I discussed a dinner conversation with an old friend, whom I will refer to as "CC" for "Conservative Catholic, regarding this issue, and I used that conversation as a springboard to my discussion. Well, CC has since e-mailed me to clarify his position, and he has suggested that I misquoted him. Of course I misquoted him! I was too busy swilling down a really nice wine to take notes.

In any case, his position is probably more nuanced than I gave it credit for being--- more nuanced than mine, for that matter -- and in his e-mail he raised some interesting points. Here's what he said:

I am generally against "torture," but, frankly, the label "torture" fails to capture the issue. The challenge the government faces is to obtain most effectively critical intelligence information as rapidly as possible. I recall that you endorse the notion that the government may inflict "mild discomfort" but not "torture" in order to accomplish this goal. There are not, however, bright lines between what some may call "mild discomfort" and "torture." Let's take an example: sleep deprivation. Women of infants are sleep deprived typically because they are taking care of their children. Are they tortured? Mildly discomforted?

The reference to "mild discomfort" is, I think, the result of CC's misunderstanding of my position, or perhaps my own lack of clarity. The point which I was making to him when I used those words is that I don't consider some of the things I've read about to be "torture" as that word is used in English. For example, I don't think it's "torture" to smear somebody with menstrual blood, or to make them watch you pee on the Koran, or for a female interrogator to strip off her shirt and parade around in a bra. Some folks on the left claim this kind of thing is tortue, and I think they're nuts. There are people who if you put detainees up in the Ritz will insist that only the Four Seasons would be good enough. I'm not one of them.

I can even agree with CC that it can be difficult to draw bright lines -- there are indeed grey areas. But techniques like waterboarding, forcing people to stand in "stress positions" for hours, sensory deprivation and waterboarding aren't in any gray area -- they're torture. Sure, to some extent women caring for children are slightly sleep deprived. But those women are allowed to take naps between feedings, and to get some sleep some of the time. Likewise, some people work standing for hours on end. But they aren't forced to work standing in a "stress position" designed to produce agony. Here's a hint: most of these techniques were pioneered by totalitarian regimes. Maybe that tells us something.

As CC sees it, there are actually two issues:

The "torture" issue presents two real sub-issues: (a) whether "torture" is an effective means of obtaining intelligence; and (b) whether "torture" violates some human right against cruel or inhumane treatment. As to (a), I offer no opinion. I agree that the governments hould not use any interrogation or intelligence-gathering technique that is not effective, but, then, only sadistic people would suggest otherwise.

Even sadistic people won't say otherwise overtly, but that doesn't rule out sadism as a potential motive. I certainly can't prove this, but to a great extent I think that the Cheney/Addington/Yoo/Tenet position on torture is indeed motivated by sadism. Oh, not sexual sadism of the whips-and-chains variety, but a desire to hurt people, or a callous indifference to their suffering. The desire to inflict suffering is strong enough that it predisposes the advocates of harsh measures to believe that those measures are necessary and effective. This may explain the popularity of TV shows like 24, as well as the ubiquitous ticking time bomb scenario. And this is why I will never, ever vote for Rudy: at the end of the day I think he wants to hurt people.

The human rights question is more difficult and depends upon a variety of factors: the gravity and imminence of the harm; the information sought; the type of interrogation technique being considered; and a reasonable likelihood for success. There may be other considerations. But I do not believe there is a bright line, especially in times of war when, as now, the national security is threatened. This may come down to a largely utilitarian calculation of choosing among a variety of bad options.

Well, as a religious believer it seems to me that you probably ought to apply a categorical command against torture. You do, after all, believe that Christ (whom you consider to be a manifestation of God, right?) was tortured by the Romans. This ought to lead you to a certain sympathy for the victims of torture, regardless of whether it works.

That said, I agree that torture ought to be subjected to a largely utilitarian calculation. However, I think that the resolution of those calculations is actually pretty easy. Torture is an information-gathering technique which may or may not even work, and if it does work produces information which may or may not be particularly reliable. Its benefits are dubious and relatively short-term.

The immediate cost is a loss of credibility of the United States, a massively-reduced level of soft-power and ability to exercise moral leadership. It means we have a far more difficult time complaining if our own people or our allies' people are mistreated by an enemy. I'm not a huge fan of the Bush/Clinton notion of war as social work, but if the idea is to remake Afghanistan and Iraq into liberal democracies, might not our own conduct have a certain teaching function? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" isn't exactly the lesson we were trying to impart. In addition, while you may not think that the pain inflicted on terrorists or their sympathizers ought to count, the torture inflicted upon innocent people tortured by mistake certainly ought to count. And then there is the psychological cost borne by the torturers who have to live with what they've done in subsequent years.

And you have the huge potential down-side of people who work for your security services getting used to the idea that they are allowed to torture people. While terrorism is indeed a danger, a state with security services acclimated to the idea of torturing people is a far greater danger in the long term. If you say that "terrorists" can be tortured, it's a pretty easy step to define one's political opponents as being terrorists.

My friend CC, however, doesn't see it that way. He seems to think that I underestimate the danger associated with Islamic terrorists:

The notion that the "terrorists" are weak is generally accurate in the conventional military sense, but there is the possibility, at least reported, of suitcase nukes obtained via the black market, suicide bombers, and the like that could result in large numbers of casualties. The real danger with Islamic terrorism is that (1) the terrorists seek to kill as many Americans as possible, including all men, women, and children (including my wife and children and you and [the Main Squeeze]; and (2) the terrorists are willing to carry out their murderous schemes by suicidal means. This presents almost unimaginable possibilities for mass murder and must, unfortunately, affect the analysis of the types of interrogation techniques that are possible, at least with respect to those that are effective.

First, the danger of terrorists getting a nuke, "suitcase" or otherwise, is pretty small, for the reasons articulated by Gregory Cochran in his 2 Blowhards interview. And if we are worried about that, the best way to prevent it is not to go around torturing terrorists; it's to work with the Russians and the Chinese to keep the supply of nuclear weapons bottled up tight.

That leaves "conventional" suicide terrorism. And he's right that terrorists can indeed kill a lot of people if they are so inclined. In fact, we can imagine all sorts of low-tech things that terrorists could do that are almost impossible to stop -- drive around medium-sized cities lobbing Molotov cocktails out the window of their vehicle, for example. But the number of people who are actually willing to do that seems to be fairly small. The chances of CC's kids, or my Main Squeeze being killed by conventional criminals is a lot greater than the chances they'll be killed by terrorists. The off-chance that a terror plot that would kill a lot of people will be foiled by torture isn't worth the very real costs associated with institutionalizing the practice.

On Torture

No, I'm not talking about the sight of Rudy in pantyhose; I'm talking about actual, physical torture. As used for interrogation.

A while ago, the Main Squeeze and I had dinner with an old friend, and that topic came up. I took the position then, as I have here, that torture is bad, and that it ought to be rejected as a tactic in the Global War on Terror. My friend -- a decent, humane guy, an old-fashioned Church-going Catholic -- expressed some disagreement. Referring to his children, he said "I would be inclined to agree with you were it not for the fact that really bad people want very badly to hurt my two kids." He admitted that torture was brutal, and that it inflicted suffering. But then, so too does war, and war is sometimes necessary as well. I understand his desire to protect his children, friends, family, loved ones, and fellow Americans from harm, but he's dead wrong about the desirability of torture.

To begin with, I'm not convinced that torture is actually likely to be an effective way of extracting information. Bill O'Reilly (via Balloon Juice and Flopping Aces) thinks it does, because, well, the torturers told him it did:

Both former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA official Michael Scheuer, once the head of the bin Laden unit, told me that coerced interrogation methods often provided accurate intelligence that potentially saved thousands of lives.

Well, there you have it. It works -- case closed.

Seriously, of course George Tenet says "enhanced interrogation" works. He was the guy in charge at the CIA when a lot of this stuff was goig on. Of course he wants to claim that it was necessary, that it saved lives. In order to really evaluate his claim, a disinterested observer would have to have full access to all of the Super Top Secret burn-before-reading files and see what was gleaned. Unitl that happens, Tenet is saying "trust me." Has George Tenet done anything to earn that trust?

Publicly-available information does not suggest that torture or "enhanced interrogation" is particularly effective. At least one government study by the Intelligence Science Board found that there's no scientific evidence that torture works. Anecdotal evidence suggests that less coercive methods can be very effective indeed. A recent report of the reunion of World War II veterans of a unit known then as "P.O. Box 1142" has caused a bit of stir. The members of that unit extracted information from people, and they did it without torturing them. Likewise, this Anne Applebaum column from 2005 notes that the French used torture in their (losing) war in Algeria, and there's no real evidence it actually, you know, worked. She also quote quite a few past and present interrogators who concluded that harsh methods aren't all that effective. I'm sorry, but I trust these guys over George Tenet.

But let's suppose that it turns out that torture or "enhanced interrogation" really is effective, at least when done properly in some cases. It's still a bad idea. Glen Greenwald is right when he points out that small-government conservatives are often inconsistent with their own stated values when they support expansion of state power in the War on Terror.

Terrorists are indeed bad people intent on hurting us. But there are limits on what terrorists can do. They succeeded in killing several thousand Americans on September 11, 2001, and it's possible they will launch another attack that will be equally murderous. Even so, there is a reason why they had to use hijacked airliners rather than their own. At the end of the day, terrorism is a technique used by groups that are fundamentally weak. It is tragic for the people who are killed and their loved ones, but it's not an existential threat.

There is, by contrast, no limit to the amount of damage that can be done by an oppressive government. Murder by millions. Industrial scale torture. Seizure of property. Imprisonment without a fair hearing.

I don't want the government to have the power to torture people for one simple reason: I don't want to the government to have the power to torture people. I am, reluctantly, forced to admit that we need to have some government, but there is ample reason to not trust the government or its agents to not abuse their power. If the 20th Century taught any lesson at all, it ought to be that you don't want to live under a government where the agents of the state are given the power to torture people. Conservatives ought to understand that, and before President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney took office, they did.

"Your Agonizer, Please."

I have a bad feeling about this. Courtesy of Radley Balko, this article about a new weapon with an appropriately Orwellian name: Silent Guardian. Made by Raytheon, it's a ray-gun. Really -- it works by emitting "an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings." And it's supposed to hurt like hell.

Here's the kicker: the beam from the Silent Guardian barely pentrates the skin -- just far enough to cause pain, but not far enough to cause permanent damage. Or leave marks. Silent Guardian is being billed as a humane, non-lethal weapon which can be used to disperse crowds and the like. But as the Daily Mail article points out, it's the perfect torture weapon:

Perhaps the most alarming prospect is that such machines would make efficient torture instruments.


They are quick, clean, cheap, easy to use and, most importantly, leave no marks. What would happen if they fell into the hands of unscrupulous nations where torture is not unknown?


The agony the Raytheon gun inflicts is probably equal to anything in a torture chamber - these waves are tuned to a frequency exactly designed to stimulate the pain nerves.


I couldn't hold my finger next to the device for more than a fraction of a second. I could make the pain stop, but what if my finger had been strapped to the machine?


Dr John Wood, a biologist at UCL and an expert in the way the brain perceives pain, is horrified by the new pain weapons.

"They are so obviously useful as torture instruments," he says.


"It is ethically dubious to say they are useful for crowd control when they will obviously be used by unscrupulous people for torture."

Unscrupulous people? You mean like Bush, Cheney, Yoo, and the whole "enhanced interrogation" crowd? This thing is barbaric, and it's going to be used. This thing is going to cause a lot of pain to a lot of people, and decent people everywhere will curse those who invented it.

Somebody was bound to invent something like this one of these days. Did it really have to be an American company working for the United States military?

A Vile, Disgusting Crime

Via Steve Sailer, this report of a horrific crime in West Virginia. This is like something out of the movie Deliverance -- A young black woman was allegedly held for a week inside a shed located near a mobile home by a group of degenerate sadists who allegedly sexually assaulted her, forced her to eat dog and rat feces, poured hot water on her as they performed the sexual assault, and undoubtedly performed other evil acts upon her. In addition, the suspects, who are white, are alleged to have used racial slurs during the attack -- from the delicate manner in which the media reports are couching things, I assume they used the "N word." (Additional coverage -- including video of the poor woman and her mother can be found here.)

The AP is now reporting that the alleged perpetrators include two mothers and their grown children. As one report put it, the suspects are "not strangers to the criminal justice system." Since 1991, the six have faced a total of 101 criminal charges, the most serious being a first degree murder charge against Frankie Brewster, the owner of the mobile home where the alleged crime took place. She pled down to manslaughter and wanton endangerment and was released in 2000 after serving five years in prison. Brewster's son, Bobby Brewster, has also been charged in connection with this attack.

The other defendants include Karen Burton, who has faced 33 charges in her life, and her daughter Alisha Burton, who has "only" faced 20. Of course her daughter is only 23, so she can probably catch up with mom. Danny J. Combs and George A. Messer round out the list of defendants.

Words cannot express the sympathy I have toward this poor girl who was brutalized in this manner. Certainly if these charges are proven, the people who did them are vile scumbags who deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I would have no problem at all if this whole gang ended up dying in prison. And they're being charged with some serious crimes, so let's hope so.

Steve Sailer makes the point that this story will probably get more national attention than it otherwise would. He's probably right about that. If this were an otherwise-identical black-on-white attack, it's likely it would get less national coverage, and it's certain that the race of the attackers would be less prominently mentioned. Likewise if the attackers were illegal aliens. So he's right on the substance.

Maybe I'm having an attack of political correctness -- something I'm not generally prone to -- but I found Sailer's post a bit distasteful. My first reaction was "the poor girl," followed closely by "send these vermin to prison." Fine, make your point. But at least show some human compassion to a woman who appears to have been brutalized in an unspeakable manner. And some recognition that the people who did this are lower than dirt. (Assuming the allegations are borne out, that these people did it, etc.)

Like Steve Sailer, Dave Neiwart had a similar impulse. Not compassion or outrage, but instead the impulse to use the case to ride his favorite hobbyhorse. A different hobbyhorese, but still. For Neiwert, the case is a club for him to beat Michelle Malkin and the "wingnutosphere." He doesn't think she will talk about the case, and so that raises some issue of inconsistency. His very first sentence isn't about how bad the crime is or how he feels for the victim. Nope, it's a link to this post, where he bashes Malkin, at great length.

I'm not even worried about whether he's right, and Malkin has a big enough stage to defend herself. Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of Malkin, and I think she's wrong about a lot of things. Of course I also think that much criticism of her -- including Neiwert's -- tends to be overwrought and unfair. Untangling the fair criticism from the overwrought criticism requires rather more effort than I want to make at the time, and as I said I'm willing to let Malkin fight her own battles.

But couldn't Neiwert at least at least express some compassion for the poor girl who got raped and forced to eat dog shit? Show some desire that the culprits be punished (after a fair trial, of course)? His first impulse is to use this as a way of attacking his perceived enemies. And the truth is, I don't think that even Michelle Malkin condones this sort of attack. I think Neiwart has a touch of "Malkin Derangement Syndrome."

Torture and Evangelicals

All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of John McCain and Ron Paul, seem to have taken the pro-torture position, using the euphemism of "enhanced interrogation" or some such. Presumably this is designed to appeal to the Republican "base," which includes a lot of Evangelical Christians.

There's something about this that I just don't get. Now, I am an atheist, and I don't want to mischaracterize other people's beliefs. Maybe I've been wrong all these years, but, as I understand it, when Christians read about the crucifixion, they're supposed to identify with Jesus Christ, and not the Romans, right? There's a bit in the movie A Clockwork Orange where Alex (played by Malcom McDowell in his finest role) is being indoctrinated in religion, and we see him imagining himself as one of the Roman soldiers whipping Jesus. That's supposed to be funny (in a dark way) because it's clear to the audience that Alex just doesn't get the point. Right? When Christians saw Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, they were supposed to feel empathy and compassion for the guy being tortured, not get off on it. Right?

Evangelical Christians consider Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior, somebody with whom they have a personal relationship with. And their Lord and Savior was tortured to death by the Roman state. They think this was capital-E Evil.

For Evangelical Christians, shouldn't this translate into a moral imperative to avoid torture? Or even something close to torture? Shouldn't they be particularly offended by the notion of their own country engaging in torture? Why is it that "appealing to the base" seems to require candidates to be if not pro-torture, in favor of coming as close to the "torture" line as possible? It seems to me that Evangelicals, of all people, ought to be absolutely outraged by "Enhanced Interrogation." And they, of all people, should be the least amenable to the sort of pragmatic "we've got to catch bad guys" arguments used to justify such practices. After all, I'm pretty sure the Romans could have come up with a reason why crucifying dissidents was necessary to national security.

Now, I will grant you that Christianity has previously been used to justify torture. There was that little interlude called The Inquisition, after all. "Get medieval on your ass" has meaning for a reason. So it's clear that ostensibly-Christian people can dig the whole torture scene.

But I thought they were supposed to be beyond that.

I guess not.

Yes, Al Qaeda Is Still Evil

Instapundit links to this article by Don Surber, about a recently-declassified Al Queda torture manual, found at The Smoking Gun.

If you decide to click on that Smoking Gun link, well, I hope you have a strong stomach. The first few pages consist of drawings designed to illustrate various grisly torture techniques, which include drilling through hands, gouging out eyes, applying a blowtorch to the skin, and putting the victim's head in a vice. The drawings look like something done by a disturbed high school student -- the kind who ends up shooting up the school. They're almost comical, until you come to the photographs of torture devices, and the dirty little room where these sadistic thugs carried out their brutality. Worst of all are the pictures showing the scarred and burned burned flesh of surviving victims.

Don Surber is right when he points out that Amnesty International, which hasn't been exactly shy about criticizing the United States, didn't say anything about this -- and it should have. He's right that papers like the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post didn't give this the coverage it deserved. He's right that something like this ought to take priority over a ginned-up story about flushing a Koran down the toilet. And yeah, Andrew Sullivan is being a bit obtuse when he says "I don't get the point" in response to this report. He even illustrates a report of al Qaeda torture with a picture of a bloody cell at Abu Gharib. As if Al Qaeda torture weren't independently worthy of reporting and condemnation absent reference to our own failings

Surber was too nice to say it, so I will: Many folks on the hate-America left have used the prisoner-mistreatment issue as a convenient club to beat the United States with. Lots of these people (not, I think, Andrew Sullivan) will hate America pretty much no matter what it does. If we put detainees up at the Ritz Carlton, some folks would say that only the Four Seasons is good enough.

But it's a club we gave to the enemies of the United States. Or, rather, a club that John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, and President George W. Bush gave them. No, that's not quite a fair characterization. It would be more fair to say that Yoo, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush went into the woods and identified the stoutest tree they could find. They then felled the tree, and fashioned a portion into a club, polishing it to a fine sheen with all the care and attention the Louisville Slugger company gives to its justly-famous bats. After which they gift-wrapped the club and presented it to the enemies of the United States to beat Uncle Sam about the head and shoulders.

Our leaders knew darn well -- or should have known -- that our Islamist enemies and their de facto allies in the hate-America left would take every opportunity to score propaganda points against us. So what do they do? They give our enemies valid propaganda points. Sure, the media under-reports Al Queda wickedness and over-reports ours. And sure, sometimes they're credulous about claims of American wrongdoing -- like the Koran-flushing story. But isn't that a reason to be more careful about our own conduct?

And shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Yes, al Qaeda consists of a bunch of degenerate sadists who are twisted by religion, hate, and fanaticism. So what? Does that mean we have license to become depraved ourselves?

If nothing else, by authorizing torture -- eh, "enhanced interrogation" -- the Bush administration has undermined America's ability to condemn our enemies for their barbarity. As I pointed out when the mini hostage drama involving the British sailors captured by Iran was resolved, we had a lot less room to gripe about their relatively mild mistreatment of British sailors when our own mistreatment of at least some prisoners was worse.

President Bush should have been able to wave the Al Quada torture manual like a bloody shirt, but he couldn't -- because to do so would raise questions of waterboarding and stress positions and naked human pyramids. Sure, I'd probably choose waterboarding over being branded with a red-hot iron or one of the other al Qaeda tortures. But "America: slightly less sadistic than al Quada" isn't a motto I feel comfortable with.

Yes, the New York Times and Washington Post ought to put al Qaeda torture on the front page. Yes! A thousand times, YES. But that doesn't for one second obviate the need to stop our own government from waterboarding people, putting them naked into an ice cold cell, forcing them to stand in "stress positions" for hours on end, or engaging in other forms of torture.

And one other thing that's worth thinking about. If you accept the George W. Bush notion of War as Social Work, then presumably we are in Iraq to help them build a peaceful, stable, prosperous democratic state. I haven't done a scientific study on it, but I am pretty sure that one difference between peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states and totalitarian hellholes is that in peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states, security services aren't allowed to go around torturing people. Yes, it can happen, but it's not supposed to, and there is a real norm against it.

So what are we teaching the Iraqis? Remember, the Ba'ath Party took power in 1968 -- many Iraqis alive today never lived in a non-totalitarian society. Sure, we talk about liberty and due process and all that good stuff. But shouldn't we be showing them how to maintain order without using what is, after all, one of the mainstays of totalitarian states? Hasn't our acceptance of "enhanced interrogation" made it far less likely that Iraq's future government will abstain from brutality in the future?

Way to go, guys.

More Pissing

He doesn't want to get into a pissing match -- or so he says. Rather than actually try to answer the arguments against his view, or to, you know, prove his case, Sully prints a fawning letter from a reader who makes broad-brush accusations he won't -- or can't -- support.

What a shock.

Prove It, Sully

Andrew Sullivan is being, well, a curse word associated with chickens. Earlier, he accused Glenn Reynolds of being pro-torture. (I blogged about that here.) As you might expect, Reynolds objected this mischaracterization.

So now he says he doesn't want to get into a pissing match with Reynolds. Then he invites his readers to search Reynolds' archives and make up their own mind.

Jeez Sully. Make an argument, or retract your position.

Sullivan on Reynolds on Torture

I know that Glenn Reynolds probably doesn't need my defense, but Andrew Sullivan is going a bit bonkers in his zeal to attack Reynolds. Example: a post on Today's Daily Dish entitled Maguire and Reynolds on Torture. Money paragraph:

But what Reynolds and Maguire and others support is the permanent routine use of torture, legally protected, and a cadre of professional CIA torturers trained to do it on a regular basis.

Where the heck does that come from?

I find this a bit confusing, because Sullivan doesn't even link to an offending post on Reynolds' part. I mean, if somebody accused me of supporting the eating of Irish babies, I would appreciate at least a link to where I endorsed such a proposal. However, I think I know what Sullivan is talking about. Sullivan does link to this longish post by Tom Maguire, and Instapundit had linked to it earlier, so I guess that Sullivan's argument is a) Maguire endorses torture, and b) Reynolds agrees with Maguire.

I read Tom Maguire's offending post, and truth be told, I'm not sure what to make of it -- either the post Sullivan finds so objectionable or this one. I'm pretty sure I disagree with him, but his position takes more untangling than I'm willing to give it at the moment. In any case, I think he deserves more than a point-and-sputter condemnation. So let's put aside the question of whether Sullivan is being fair to Maguire.

That leaves part b) of Sullivan's argument: the notion that Reynolds agrees with Maguire.

Here's what Glenn Reynolds said:

TOM MAGUIRE LOOKS AT JOHN MCCAIN and the truth about torture.

I have omitted the link to Maguire's post, which I provided earlier. But other than that, I have quoted Reynolds' entire post, in full.

Reynolds doesn't say "Tom Maguire posts a really kick-ass defense of torture, and I agree with every jot and tittle of it. Nor does he say "great post by Tom Maguire." He said Maguire looked at the issue. Glenn Reynolds links to a lot of people, and sometimes he expresses agreement or disagreement, but other times he simply passes the link on.

Here's a thought: maybe Reynolds agrees with some aspects of Maguire's argument but disagrees with other aspects. Or maybe he read what Maguire had to say but didn't have time to give Maguire's argument careful consideration. Maybe he doesn't even have an opinion on Maguire's post.

I had this really novel idea: instead of reading every link as an endorsement, I thought I might actually read what Glenn Reynolds has to say about torture. So I went to Instapundit, and I typed "torture" into the "Search Instadpundit" box. I found this post linking to an article about Japan's "not-very-pretty" justice system, which features forced confessions. and this one, about torture in Egypt. This post might be (ahem) tortured into being pro-torture, but in fact all it is is an explantion of why something Megan McCardle said was not pro-torture.

And then there is this post which linked to Radley Balko's renunciation of his past support for torture. Reynolds made his own position plain:

Glad to have him join me in the anti-torture camp, which needs some sensible and non-hysterical members.

Ironically, that post is updated with a prior link to Sullivan, again accusing Reynolds of being pro-torture based solely on something he linked to without comment. What I didn't find were any posts that led me to believe that Reynolds supported torture.

I just don't get it. What is Reynolds' sin? Being insufficiently emotional about the issue? Not taking every opportunity to cast out heretics? Just what is it with Sullivan?

Rudy on "Interrogation"

Sully nails Rudy for his recent foreign policy speech. He asks an important question. Giuliani says that, if the Democrats are elected, “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

So, Sullivan asks, "does Giuliani support the Bush-Cheney policy of detainee imprisonment without charges, rendition, abuse, and torture?" I think that's a critical question.

This administration has sanctioned torture, and it has been a stain on the honor of the United States. I'm not naive -- I know that torture happened before now. But this is the first President who has embraced torture as a matter of policy. It's wrong, and it's dangerous, and it's stupid. What they don't understand is that Islamic terrorists are not an existential threat to the United States. They can kill Americans, and yes, we should take steps to fight Islamic jihadism. But they can't take our freedom or our honor. Only we can do that.

Ronald Reagan used to call America a "shining city on a hill." But you can't be a shining city on a hill if you have a torture chamber in the basement.

Whoever the next President is, he -- or she -- must erase this stain on our national honor. I fear that a President Guiliani would be a dangerous authoritarian, an even meaner George W. Bush with a higher IQ.

What Hath Woo Wrought?

Well, I have to say that, despite whatever humiliation that Britain and the United States may have suffered, I, for one, am happy that the caputred British sailors and Marines are home, safe and relatively uharmed. I'm certainly glad it didn't drag on forever like the Iranian Hostage Crisis I remember from my youth.

It now turns out, predictably, that the British sailors were "blindfolded, isolated in cold stone cells and tricked into fearing execution . . . ." Well, color me outraged -- and I am outraged that the Iranian government chose to parade them people on TV to further their propaganda.

And yet my degree of justifiable outrage is somewhat limited. You see, it appears that these people weren't subject to waterboarding, or forced to stand in stress positions for hours on end, or attacked with dogs, or subjected to sleep deprivation, or forced to form naked human pyramids.

People have always been abused -- undoubtedly prisoners have been mistreated by American troops in every war our country has ever fought. But the Bush Administration has made mistreatment of prisoners a matter of policy. Which makes it far more difficult for us to muster world opinion if our guys (or, in this case, our allies' guys) are mistreated. The damage that the Bush administration has done to our moral authority is simply incalculable.