From www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/King_on_Holder_You_wonder_which_side_theyre_on.html

Apparently Rep. Peter King of Long Island (R) is a little confused about torture.  I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about torture to correct him.  As always, comments are welcome.
They're on the side of the angels, sir.  It's not against common sense to prosecute people who willfully violate the law to harm people.  And the only disgraceful thing about the investigations is they aren't going far enough.
What you're describing is torture.  It's illegal, and where I come from we prosecute people who violate the law to hurt people.
Oh Christ, not this meme again.  Look, torture doesn't save lives, as Darius Rejali and Jane Meyer showed.

You're wrong.  The Geneva Convention does in fact tell you what you can do with "unlawful" combatants (who commit "intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons").  After a brief hearing you can execute them on the spot (Convention IV, Article 68).  You cannot torture them, however, which is why the Bush Administration tried to propagate this horse**** that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them.
It's not okay to waterboard someone.  It's torture.  It's illegal under US and international law.  You're drowning someone.  That's not "okay" at all.  That's evil, and where I come from we prosecute people who violate the law to harm people.

I also wouldn't call the effect that it'll have on the CIA's behavior to be "chilling."  I'd call it "welcome."
Again, torture doesn't save lives.

Torture doesn't get us useful information.  It puts our agents and soldiers in danger.  It makes us look like the bad guys.  It is evil.  In short, torture fails us on a tactical and strategic level.  So why do we keep doing it? 

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

-         The United Nations Declaration against Torture

 

"The fact that you want to have a discussion about how to avoid being accused of war crimes would indicate that you're pretty close to the edge."

-         Richard Armitage

 

We've recently seen some torture advocates come out to give a full-throated defense of the practice, particularly the practice during the Bush administration, with Cliff May and former Vice-President Dick Cheney among the most prominent defenders of the US policy to torture detainees for information.  They have produced complete and effective (though inaccurate) arguments supporting the decision to torture for information.

 

Those who debate them, however, have been less effective, solely because their arguments are less complete.  For example, in his interview with Cliff May, Jon Stewart rests his anti-torture argument on torture being antithetical to our values and grossly immoral.  Others have based their arguments on the fact that it makes us look bad, or that it opens our soldiers up to that abuse.  Partly this is due to personal preference; some arguments are more compelling than others to different people.  But partly it is also because no one has collected the main points against torture in one place.  So the various counter-arguments have been incomplete.

 

Ultimately, that is the goal of this work: to provide a complete counter-argument against torture.  It is not a scholarly work, but does try to cite sources so you can check them.  It stands on the shoulders of giants in this field, in particular Ignatieff's "Lesser Evil," Mayer's "The Dark Side," and Rejali's "Torture and Democracy," so if you're interested, please check them out. 

 

What I have tried to do here is collect the main points on the problems that torture brings, and boil them down to their essence.  I have also tried to shy away from arguments that rest on the illegality of torture.  While torture is illegal, laws can be changed; I wanted to focus on points that were more immutable.  I have also tried to answer some ancillary questions around torture, and provide an annotated further reading list for those interested in the subject.

 

Please feel free to quote or disseminate this work wherever you see fit.   Feel free to only quote the five points only if brevity is needed.  You can also direct people to this original post if you would prefer.   

 

While credit to me for compiling this would be nice, my goal is make people fully aware of the points against torture.  I would happily trade the former (name recognition, however minor) for the latter (the abolition of ignorance).

 

I have written this mainly for a Western audience (specifically with the Americans in mind, as the loudest torture advocates seem to come from that country right now).  The examples thus come from that setting and their history.  However, the points and overall argument are applicable to every country. 

 

Finally, any inaccuracies in or limitations of this work are my own. 

 

Why We Should Not Torture:

 

The argument against torture rests on five main points: one, torture is immoral; two, torture is the antithesis of democratic values; three, torture is an ineffective at collecting useful information; four, torturing opens our soldiers, diplomats, and citizens to similar treatment; and five, torture undermines our overall goals. 

 

Point One: Torture is immoral

 

There is little (if any disagreement) about this point.  Even those who advocate the use of torture agree that torture is evil. 

 

Their (Dershowitz, May) argument is that saving lives with information extracted through torture is the lesser evil, which would suggest that the use of torture can and should be regulated.  Putting aside the belief that torture is an effective way of collecting information (which I will debunk with point three), it is impossible to regulate, as Michael Ignatieff points out.  How many people's lives can be at risk before you can use it?  10?  100? 1000?  Why just murder- why not torturing to prevent torture?   Rejali also points out that the history of regulation has shown that torture cannot effectively be regulated.  Checked torture just leads to unchecked torture.

 

Point Two: Torture is the antithesis of democratic values

 

Again, another point that is hard to disagree with.  Ignatieff explores it fully in "The Lesser Evil."  Democracy places the highest value on the person.  Torture ultimately degrades both the subject and the torturer (more on that in point five).  In fact, a great deal of torture is designed specifically to degrade victims.  "Told detainee a dog is held in higher esteem…began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come, and bark, to elevate his status to that of a dog" (Mayer, pg 182). 

 

John Nagl put it best when he said "frankly, I joined the army to fight against people who torture."  

 

Point Three: Torture is ineffective at collecting useful information

 

Quite simply, torture doesn't produce reliable information.  For information to be reliable, you need to know that it is accurate at least the majority of the time.  However, life isn't like "24;" when you torture someone, they don't automatically tell you true and useful information.  Instead, torture produces three outcomes: a psychological breakdown in the subject, accurate information, and inaccurate information.  The first and second outcomes aren't in dispute.  No one on either side of the argument can effectively disagree that accurate information sometimes spills out, or that the subject's will can be shattered by repeated physical and psychological torture.  So I'll focus on the third outcome.

 

The subject confesses inaccurate information for a number of different reasons: the subject knows and won't tell; the subject doesn't know accurate information; the subject thinks they know accurate information but is mistaken; or the subject is telling the interrogator what he/she wants to hear, either to make the pain stop or because the interrogator wants a false confession. 

 

Giving false information under torture obviously happens.  An example of this is Mohammed al-Asad, who confessed under torture that "he had hatched plans to assassinate President Clinton, President Carter, and Pope John Paul II" (Mayer, pg 277).  Even the CIA didn't believe him, as they noted with his interrogation transcripts that "the detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead" (Mayer, 277). 

 

Another complication is that torturers' own beliefs can taint the interrogation.  "Not surprisingly, torturers interrogate with background assumptions and harvest self-fulfiling results" (Rejali, pg 465).  While this can be a problem with all interrogation, torture gives strong impetus for the victim to lie.  Quite simply, subjects will lie to make the pain stop.  The perfect example of this is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was "physically and psychologically brutalized into fabricating what he thought his captors wanted to hear" (Mayer, pg 135). 

 

Rejali also notes that torture can degrade memory, as prisoners after torture often "express(ing) high confidence in mistaken information, and they suffer peculiar lapses in memory remembering recent events" (Rejali,  pg 466).  So even if the subject thinks that the information is true, it doesn't mean it's so.

 

Jane Mayer was correct when she said that "the problem is recognizing what's true" (Mayer, pg 178).   Certainly that was a problem with the interrogation of Abu Zubayda, who under torture "reportedly confessed to dozens of half-hatched or entirely imaginary plots to blow up American banks, supermarkets, malls, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, and nuclear power plants."  Law enforcement officials wasted their time following these false leads (Mayer, pg 178-179).

 

Torture also taints further investigation.  Once you start torturing a subject, it is virtually impossible to change interrogation tactics.  Effective interrogation involves rapport-building, which requires trust.  Trust is inevitably and unavoidably destroyed by torture.  Torture also destroys the success of investigation and human intelligence sources by decreasing aptitude in non-confessional techniques, and by driving away potential informants (few people will step forward when they know torture is on the table, so those with information go to ground). 

 

Ultimately, "the key to interrogation is knowledge, not techniques" (Mayer, pg 144).  Torture advocates ignore and undermine this simple truth by insisting that torture will produce reliable information.

 

Point Four: Torturing opens our soldiers, diplomats, and citizens to similar treatment

 

Many distinguished thinkers and organizations, including Colin Powell and John Vessey (two former United States Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs), have made this point.  By torturing subjects, we give our opponents a legal argument and an ethical excuse to torturing any of our citizens who are captured.   Torture also encourages more torture on both sides by creating a Prisoner's Dilemma, even though both sides would be better off if they simply avoided torture. 

 

Point Five: Torture undermines our overall goals

 

Torture makes us look evil (probably because when we torture, we are evil).  This makes counterinsurgency operations more difficult.  Counterinsurgency requires us to win over the population.  Without their support, we will be far less successful at identifying insurgents, and we are unlikely to gain their support if we torture.  Moreover, counterinsurgency requires us to protect the population.  As David Kilcullen notes, "unless you make people feel safe, they won't be willing to engage in unarmed politics" (interview with the Washington Post, but a common statement in most counterinsurgency manuals and documents).  People won't feel safe if it possible they might be tortured.  Furthermore, it drives people to join the insurgency or terrorist organization, because it both frightens the populace and blurs the line between us and the enemy.  Terrorist organizations debase human life.  In order to maintain the moral high ground, we must not descend to that barbarism.

 

As both Ignatieff and Mayer have noted, torture also drastically undermines the "discipline, professionalism, and morale" of our own soldiers and interrogators (Mayer, pg 174).  Ignatieff and Mayer quite rightly points out that torture not only affects the subject, but the torturer as well.  Mayer speaks to a former CIA officer, who states "when you cross over that line of darkness, it's hard to come back.  You lose your soul.  You can do your best to justify it, but it's well outside the norm.  You can't go to that dark a place without it changing you" (Mayer, pg 174).

 

Conclusion:

 

Torture is evil, against our nature, doesn't make us safer (in fact, it actually puts us at greater risk) and impedes progress in our goals.  Therefore we must not, under any circumstance, use torture. 

 

Q.E.D.

 

Other Questions surrounding Torture:

 Q: Is Waterboarding torture?

 A: Yes.  Waterboarding is the forced drowning of a subject.  As Chris Hitchens states in his Vanity Fair article, " You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure." 

Hitchens should know- he was waterboarded for that article.

 Q: What about loud noise or music?  Is that torture?

 A: Yes.  Loud noises can and are used to induce disorientation, inflict emotional distress, and disrupt sleep patterns.  Continuous loud noise is one of two components (the other being strobe lights) of the torture technique known as the "House of Fun" (Rejali), a technique designed to induce disorientation on the victim and which promises to "reduce the victim to submission within half an hour."  CIA black sites used the sound of a crying woman to inflict emotional pain on one of their prisoners (Mayer).

 Remember, it is not just about stimuli.  It is about how and why you use the stimuli.

 Q: What about SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Training?  Is it torture?

 A: By the UN definition no (no information or confession is sought, the soldiers aren't being intimidated, it is not discriminatory, nor is it a punishment).  SERE Training is designed to help US soldiers avoid, resist, and survive capture by giving them skills and experiences that would be useful in those situations.  This can include exposing them to interrogation techniques (including torture) in a controlled setting.  There is some debate over the effectiveness of this training, but there is no debate over why soldiers undergo this training: they do so to learn how to survive.

That doesn't mean you can use SERE techniques to interrogate people, because that is when it stops simply being cruel and becomes torture.  Moreover, the two situations are completely different.  In SERE training, the participant has a reasonable expectation that they will not be killed or genuinely harmed.  They know that the treatment will end (indeed, they know when it will end).  The instructors aren't there to gain information; rather, they are there to help soldiers resist such treatment in the future.  All of this means that the psychology behind it is fundamentally different for both the participant and the instructor. 

 

Bibliography/Further Reading:

Ignatieff, Michael.  "The Lesser Evil."  (specifically, pg. 136- 143)

One of the more comprehensive arguments against torture, it is simply missing point three and some of the consequences in point five.  An excellent starting point for anti-torture advocates.

 Mayer, Jane.  "The Dark Side." 

 A well-researched and well-written book on the legal and ethical abuses during the Bush administration.  Also a primer on how not to lead an organization.  I first read it at the same time as HR McMaster's Dereliction of Duty (on the Vietnam War), and was amused to see similar leadership mistakes described in both accounts.

 Rejali, Darius.  "Torture and Democracy."

An excellent, exhaustive, and seminal book on the history of torture, its effectiveness (or lack thereof), and its evolution in the modern era.  Also, an excellent paper weight or door stop- it clocks in at 3 lbs and 850 pages in hardcover.  Seriously, you can pretty much give up your gym membership and use this book instead.

One of the most memorable experiences of my life was a concert at the Gorge in George, WA.  We (100 000 in the campground, 20 000 in the venue) were there to watch the Dave Matthews Band perform what we all knew would be a memorable show.

But the show wasn't the memorable part.  Don't get me wrong, the show was incredible.  Off the top of my head, however, I couldn't tell you what songs were played.  I could guess, and would probably guess right on a number of songs, but that's just because I am a pretty big Davehead. 

No, what made the show memorable was the fact that it was LeRoi Moore's birthday, and me and 20 000 people sang "Happy Birthday" for LeRoi Moore.  I remember the singing starting unexpectedly.  I remember everyone joining in.  And I remember LeRoi taking off his sunglasses, stepping forward, and putting his hands over his heart.  From the 7th row seats I could see the tears in his eyes.

I just learned that LeRoi Moore passed away tonight at the age of 47.  And now there's another person I will never be able to sing Happy Birthday to again.

~AN

I learned of a great site from Neil Gaiman's blog.  Basically, it analyzes books you've read and sees how likely you are to have read other books.

I typed in Steven Brust's The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars and got these results.  Number 8's ironic, because Brust is a known Trotskyest sympathizer.  If you've read his book, you're less likely to have read Karl Marx.  In short, you're less likely to be a commie.

~AN

Step one will soon be completed.

~AN

I'm only posting this list because I'd like to spark some thought, and because I'm always interested in highlighting films.  When you read this list, please keep in mind that my qualifications for making this list are nonexistent.

1. Dr. Strangelove- The only perfect film ever made.  Every shot, every line, every actor, every direction, every musical cue.  All perfect.
2. Lord of the Rings Trilogy- The work, love, and skill that went into these films doesn't show through, only because everyone was so effortless in it. 
3. Seven Samurai
4. Casablanca- It's one of two films I watch every year on my day of bachelor bacchanalia celebrations.
5. The Maltese Falcon- Tracy was talking about Hepburn when he said she was "cherce."  He could've been talking about this film
6. Duck Soup-

"Mrs. Teasdale: The future of Freedonia rests on you. Promise me you will follow in the footsteps of my husband.

Firefly: (to audience) How do you like that? I haven't been on the job five minutes and already she's making advances to me. (to Mrs. Teasdale) Not that I care, but where is your husband?

Mrs. Teasdale: Why, he's dead.

Firefly: I'll bet he's just using that as an excuse.

Mrs. Teasdale: I was with him to the very end.

Firefly: Hmmph. No wonder he passed away.

Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him.

Firefly: Oh, I see. Then, it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first."

7. Raiders of the Lost Ark- It wasn't Spielberg's most celebrated film, it wasn't even his highest grossing film.  But shot for shot, it was his best.
8. Yojimbo- Probably the most influential of Kurosawa's films. 
9. Eyes Wide Shut- Highly underrated.  We'll think more highly of it in 20 years.
10. The Big Sleep- It's the best actor of all time, playing the best character of all time.  The plot makes no sense, but hey, you can't have everything. 

11. Citizen Kane- Stop drinking the Kool-Aid on Citizen Kane.  It's just not as great as everyone says.
12. A Clockwork Orange- The least subtle film on the list.  I mean, really, a two year old can figure out the
13. Beauty and the Beast- It's the other film I watch every year on my day of bachelor bacchanalia celebrations.
14. Schindler's List- The message almost drowns out
15. A Night at the Opera- I feel bad ranking it this low.
16. Hidden Fortress- Famously inspired Star Wars. 
17. Man with No Name Trilogy
18. The Incredibles- Monsters Inc was more original.  This was pure fun, with a sly, original undertone. 
19. Apocalypse Now
20. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade- It's Raiders, if Raiders had been played for laughs. 

21. The Killing- Kubrick doing a film noir.  Better than you'd expect.
22. Monty Python and the Holy Grail- Popularized British comedy.
23. Hard Boiled- Woo uses visuals to screw with the audience in the hospital scene, which makes me appreciate him more.
24. Barry Lyndon- Another one of Kubrick's films that has become more popular
25. A Day at the Races
26. Saving Private Ryan- Not as good as Band of Brothers, which was shot right after it, but damn good.
27. Star Wars- Really overrated, especially in light of all that came after it. 
28. Lost in Translation- It works on moods and subtlety.
29. Unforgiven- It works because of Eastwood's cinematic history.
30. Serenity- It's better written and directed than Star Wars, but less influential.  Go figure.

Total List Commentary:  I was surprised to see no Scorsese flicks on the list, and no Godfather.  The list certainly shows my biases, both for (films with a sense of humor about them, and subtle films) and against (crime and war films) certain films.  No Eisenstein, no Godard, no Chaplin.  This list is defined by its weaknesses.

Additional List- The Greatest Directors (film or otherwise) of All Time:

1. Stanley Kubrick- He didn't make many films, but all of them were incredible (except perhaps 2001).
2. Steven Spielberg- He made many great films, but a few that were...less than great.  Jaws/Close/Raiders/Last Crusade/Schindler's/Saving Private/War of the Worlds/Munich prevent him from being overrated.  A master craftsman. 
3. Akira Kurosawa-  Watch his films.
4. Ang Lee
5. Joss Whedon- Probably the greatest writer of my generation, his greatest works have been in Television.  No matter.  If Hush/Restless/Once More with Feeling were films, they would have been on the list.

~AN

Well, the candidate I favored lost.  Not to Bob Rae, thankfully.  But my guy lost. 

That matters less than what it means to the Liberals.  I'll provide some quasi-insightful commentary on Wednesday.  For now, I have initial reactions:

I read blogs that call Mr. Dion a "non-establishment candidate," and I'm forced to laugh- folks, we're talking about a former senior cabinet minster under two Liberal PMs (Chretien and Martin).  He was as big a part of the "establishment" as you can be without being PM.  There's a lot to like about Mr. Dion.  But his non-existent "non-establishment" credentials aren't part of that package because they are, well, non-existent.

Then I read Liberal Blogs, taking parting shots at Ignatieff that are lazy at best, and dishonest at worst (they're wrong- I disproved their lies here), and I just want to weep out of frustration.  I've always wanted to believe that liberals, especially Liberals, tell the truth.  The past six months or so have proven otherwise.  I may have to reconsider that particular belief.

~AN

I just saw this quote from Samuel Beckett:

“No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

It almost makes me like him.  But then I remember Endgame.

~AN

This weekend's the Liberal Leadership conference, where my party will choose its next leader and hopefully the next PM. 

I'm not just a Liberal because I'm liberal in my politics.  I became a member of the Liberal Party because I believe that government, no matter how many times it lets me down, can play an meaningful role in the world.  It's not just there to provide a few essential services and ensure the market's free.  I believe that the government should be our advocate, standing up for us against corporate conglomerates and other countries.  That is why I'm on the political left.  But I also believe that our world works best when we are presented with the right information and ensured the freedom to make our own decisions.  Which is why I'm centre-left.

Somewhere along the way citizens forgot that.  We forgot that politics not just about policies, no matter how important they are (and I consider gay marriage to be a very, very important right).  It is about how we see the world, and how we will try to solve its problems.

Similarly, we forgot that leadership isn't just polish and policy.  Leadership is vision, accountability, and humanity.  Too many of our politicians don't understand that.  Too many mistake policy announcements as vision.  Vision without policy is mere noise; Policy without vision is mere politics.  Policy's tactics, Vision's strategy.  You need both if you want to win the war. 

Policy should be a product of leadership, not be a substitute for it.  Which is why I believe that Michael Ignatieff should be the next leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Ignatieff has shown his vision for Canada.  He wants us to be a country bound by common rights, laws, and opportunities.  His proposed domestic policies flow from this vision.  He sees a Canada "that takes risks, that stands up for what’s right.  A Canada that leads."  And then sets forth policy that supports this vision.

Many people have brought up issues about Mr. Ignatieff.  Some of them are wrong (Michael Ignatieff does not support torture), some are fair (I'd like Mr. Ignatieff's supporters to stop comparing him to Trudeau), and some are bizarre (where John Gray admits that Mr. Ignatieff's "right," but shouldn't do anything about it).

Mr. Ignatieff is the only candidate to show he has vision.  I have yet to see a vision about what Canada's should be from other candidates.  I've read Mr. Ignatieff's books, where he's written on shattered people and war-torn nations, and I sense he has humanity.  Does he possess the final piece of the triumvirate?  I want to find out.

Does the rest of the party agree with my assessment?  Some say no, some say yes.  In a week we'll find out.

~AN