Our Lack Of Choice
With the release of the movie, Zero Dark Thirty, the gut-wrenching topic of torture has been re-introduced to the nation’s common discourse.
In the years since George Bush and Dick Cheney unleashed the dogs of war upon the world, we, America’s citizens, have been denied the damnable but needful conversation concerning the horror conveniently (and disgustingly) mislabeled enhanced interrogation.
President Obama, (for whom I’ve unapologetically twice voted), for reasons thus far kept from the public, chose to turn his back on the campaign rhetoric of his first run for the Oval Office, and refused to investigate the Bush Administration’s use of torture. As I recollect, one of the signal reasons Barack Obama received my unhesitant vote was because I wanted the Department of Justice to investigate the nooks and crannies, tell the nation what happened and hold accountable those who committed crimes. Why did the United States, THE leader of freedom and human rights in the world, suddenly plummet to the morally depraved depths of a Third World dictatorship?
Tragically, Obama’s unwillingness to scrutinize and lay bare the obvious unconstitutional and criminal actions of his predecessor created not just a precedent, but rather a blood-stained enticement to subsequent presidents to flout constitutional proscriptions against heinous and illegal acts. Apart from the rarely mentioned ocean of tears and mass graves, there was nothing . . . absolutely nothing . . . that shadowed George Bush when he vacated the White House. Not even a slap on his wrist. President Obama may have been concerned our nation wasn’t up to the task of self examination. If that was the case, I believe he gravely erred, and greatly underestimated our resilience. Although I’m confidant his overall intentions were honorable, his decision to sidestep even a minimal investigation of his predecessor’s culpability vis-à-vis crimes against humanity and authorizing unconstitutional acts that would make Richard Nixon blanch, broke, at a minimum, a deep-rooted campaign promise, and, at its most worrisome, harbors a miasma of misfeasance.
Without a national discussion about torture—will we or won’t we, and why, or why not?—our nation will, most assuredly, return to the abominable, criminal and unconstitutional practice of torture when tragedy, once again, strikes.
The End Justifies The Means
The recurring argument for the use of torture essentially states the end justifies the means. In other words, if we suspect someone knows the whereabouts of a weapon of mass destruction that is set and timed to kill and maim vast numbers of people, the end, (the deaths and injuries), justifies the means, (torture him or her mercilessly until they give up the answer.) Inherent to this, though usually unexpressed, is the view that life, or survival, must happen above all else. Death, in this view, is the worst thing that can happen.
That rationalization sounds tempting. In an age when suicide bombers and terrorists seem (and are) capable of the most horrific acts imaginable, pulling out all the stops to thwart an attack makes, at first glance, common sense. And particularly when the scenario is personally framed. Would you order this man or woman tortured in order to save your wife, husband, child, etc.?
The immediate response is, Of course!
But let’s consider a few consequences of that perspective.
I would imagine that when you contemplate the terrorist scenario just mentioned, you have in mind an image or scene. I’d be willing to guess the character about to be tortured in your scene is a somewhat swarthy, youngish man of (probable) Arab descent; a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth member of a terrorist organization who is already known to have killed and injured dozens, if not hundreds of innocents. No doubt about it, he probably deserves a miserable death, and chances are, there are absolutely no conceivable scenarios involving a ticking bomb where you wouldn’t order torture for this guy.
The philosophical framework that buttresses your willingness to torture this man is built upon The End Justifies The Means foundation. It’s not an easy thing to choose, but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts decision, the well-being of your loved one is worth the excruciating torture of a very bad man.
Now let’s mix things up.
Would your decision change in any way if the person strapped to the torture table was a young, female member of the same terrorist organization? Probably not. But how about if the person was a young man who was merely suspected of having ties to a terror network? Merely suspected. A young woman? How about if the merely suspected, young man claims he’s completely innocent, but is now on your torture table because a source, known by you to be questionable at best, fingered him? How about if it was an old man or woman? A child? What if the person on the table was a child who knew the bomb’s location, but refused to reveal anything because of love and fear for his parents, who were actually responsible for planting the bomb? What if the child is screaming his or her innocence, but was fingered by that questionable source?
Would you order your “interrogator” to torture that child? (Remember, the life of your dear loved one is at stake.)
How about this? Would YOU be willing to torture any (or all) of the above characters, in any of the mentioned scenarios? You, personally. You are attaching the straps, pulling the levers, flipping the switches, and hearing the screams for mercy. (Perhaps of a child?)
You will, at some point, leave that room and return to your home. Maybe you got a legitimate confession and you found the bomb and made it safe. But maybe you didn’t. Maybe all you did was inflict wretched agony upon another human being to the point of breaking their mind. Forever.
Maybe that’s what you did.
Or maybe you got a phony confession. Maybe your victim shrieked anything to end the torment, and that “anything” caused you to lose precious hours chasing a phony rabbit down a phony hole.
Maybe that’s what you got.
At the very least, you were privy to the agonizing screams and pitiful pleadings of another human, begging you to stop the torment.
That you were inflicting.
But perhaps you’d rather not engage in torture and spare yourself the night terrors and potential personality disorder? Perhaps you’d rather “outsource” that particular gig?
Good for you. There are a number of available options. Bush and Cheney — both, wicked and dishonorable men — took advantage of a rather vile and nefarious village industry that existed (Still exists?) just a skosh on the other side of civilized. (I’ll leave it to the reader to discover what countries actually performed our outsourced torture.)
It’s a damn shame Bush and Cheney had already pissed off Saddam. I understand he already had quite a system in place, and probably could’ve offered some sort of discount.
What Is Life Worth?
However, a competing view says that some means are never, ever justified. This view holds that death is not the worse thing that can happen to a human. This perspective maintains that some things that can and do happen to people are worse than death.
For example, suppose you had a similar scenario. The individual to be tortured is a suspect, and only a suspect; one man. And the potential victim is just that . . . a potential victim . . . and again, just one man.
Would you be willing to order the torture of one suspect, to save the life of only one other person? (Remember, the very word, suspect, implies nothing more than suspicion. A suspect may be guilty, or they may be innocent. It is unknown while they are a suspect.)
So, torture for the suspect? Why, or why not? What if torturing a suspect might save 10 potential victims? 1,000? 10,000,000? Is there a number that will validate the torture of a (possibly innocent) man? (Don’t forget, the suspect may instead be guilty.) Would he be easier to torture if you really thought, but weren’t 100% certain, he was guilty? Torturing suspects implies you’ve given up on all other methods of extracting or discovering the information you seek. Does that matter?
Does your view change if the suspect is a woman, old man, old woman? Or a child?
What if, somehow, a six year-old child held the key to saving another person’s life, but the only way to save that person’s life would be to torture the child? A ten year-old? Twelve? Fourteen?
Would you order the mind-numbing torture of a child in order to save 10 people? 100? 1,000? Is there a number that will justify that act?
Why or why not?
If torture will save lives, what, within the realm of torture, are the boundaries? Are there any? How could there be? If you engage in torture, is it possible to set the moral/ethical “bar” lower? (I suppose some would argue that torture without visible scars is milder than torture that physically rends, but to the victim, I would suspect being endlessly waterboarded to the point of permanent madness is not all that different from having body parts torn apart.)
If life, or survival, is the end that justifies any and all means, then certainly many lives surviving simply reinforces that idea, regardless the age, sex or personal circumstances of the victim. If you can further the survival of the many (the end), then the unfortunate, (and possibly mistaken) sadistic torment and trauma to the few or one, (the means), is of little or no meaningful consequence. Survival is what matters. (If you must torture 10 to save 1, is that justifiable? 10 to save 10? 10 to save ?)
If, however, survival stands somewhat less than equal to something else, (perhaps personal integrity, purity, righteousness, honesty, goodness, decency, honor, humility, etc.), then the purposeful, government-sponsored infliction of horror upon a human being is never defensible. This notion implies an understanding that life consists of something more valuable than simple organic animation, and that the purposeful commission of certain acts can detract from and demean that life.
Perspective
Those we consider our Founding Fathers rejected in word and life the barbaric and inhuman degradation of torture. The foundational documents to which our nation clings speak forcefully against immoral, ignoble and dishonorable acts. The men and women we most admire in our country’s history are people who, through their deeds, emulated the very best our national character describes. These were people who demonstrated, by their courage and personal dignity, a willingness to stand or die for things they believed good, true and noble.
Imagining one of them arguing for, or agreeing to, the torture of another human being is a thought beyond reason and common sense.
“Give me liberty . . . or bring me some British soldiers to torture!”
Death has always been death. It was no different in 1775 or 1861 than it is today. And if you believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person?
You need to read a little history. You might start with Patrick Henry, who actually said,
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
