New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 16, 2006

From our March issue, Cathy Young interrogates the concept of "coercive interrogation."

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Deep-Sixing 527 Groups | Main | Smoke-Free Balconies? →

See all 34 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|3.16.06 @ 10:46AM|#

My question is: is terrorism really the worst thing the world could ever face? If we're doing all this to fight terrorism, what about full-on wars, with big-ass weapons and stuff?

How did terrorism leap-frog over things like "having nuclear missiles pointed at Moscow"?

If you can torture somebody who might know about a nail bomb on a subway car in New York, then a fortiori you should be able to torture somebody with knowledge about a foreign country's nuclear missiles aimed at New York.

Or for that matter, with knowledge of that country's arsenal, the country's future plans for using its weapons, how they work, who has access to them, etc. In other words, if you allow torture of a terrorist, then don't you have to allow torture of every member of every nation's military, government and intelligence units?

This is not a slippery slope argument, by the way. I don't know what you'd call it, but it seems we've slipped right past other, bigger dangers with more extreme consequences.

Someone on this board the other day raised the question: why didn't we need this stuff when the Soviets were threatening to annhilate us with nukes? That's a question I'd like to see put squarely to the administration.

|3.16.06 @ 11:08AM|#

It leaves me aghast to hear conservatives defend the right of the Government to torture.

They would only torture those who deserve it. Only those and no other.

Is the Government so wise then? And if the Government is so wise, why not let it run other things, which, being so wise, knows so much better than us?

If a Government will not respect the bodies, how can it respect anything else? Are your fingernails not your property?

Somehow it reminds me an observation that given the choice of an oppresive government who respected property rights, and one who didn't, he'd take the one that didn't, because if they wanted your property they would just take it, while the one that respected it would feel duty bound to confiscate it only after you had been convicted of treason and executed - after extracting a confession under torture...

|3.16.06 @ 11:15AM|#

While Taranto's infantile dime-store psychology is ridiculous, it highlights a bigger point. If we are going to make torture illegal, we are going to have to do considerably better at defining it than "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". There are perfectly reasonable points on both sides of the issue, but in order to draw a line in the sand we have to know where to put it. Waterboarding may well be torture, but "mak[ing an unlawful combatant] unclean in the eyes of his God" ain't. We need to be weeding out the sadists from the military, but we still need the information.

|3.16.06 @ 11:21AM|#

independent worm,

I hear what you're saying. Half my life was spent close to nuclear armageddon. We were told how untrustworthy the Soviets were, how unimaginably aweful it would be (obviously), and how many times it almost happened. Now we're told that the Soviets weren't really that dangerous.

As a follow up question to the administration I suggest, "So, SOMEBODY is a liar. Is it you or your Cold War predecessors?"

|3.16.06 @ 11:25AM|#

"We need to be weeding out the sadists from the military....."

I'm told by an aquaintence who is a vet of Gulf War I that the CIA recruits them. No worries.

|3.16.06 @ 11:38AM|#

If we are going to make torture illegal, we are going to have to do considerably better at defining it than "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".

Locking someone in a cage is "cruel and degrading." (I omit "inhuman" because it's an insult to non-humans: humans are the cruelest animal).

Waterboarding may well be torture, but "mak[ing an unlawful combatant] unclean in the eyes of his God" ain't.

I vote for pissing on Korans and flushing them down the toilet* - in those cases the suffering is mostly imaginary and created by the subject. (* just for the fun of it, if no other reason).

The captive will tell the interrogators a fake story...

That's a very pragmatic reason for not using torture (beyond locking in cages); people often plead guilty to practicing witchcraft and very commonly ratted out others.

|3.16.06 @ 11:46AM|#

The "ticking bomb" scenario is absurd.

You KNOW there is a bomb. You KNOW your subject is a terrorist. You KNOW the subject is linked to this bomb. And, importantly, you ALREADY HAVE enough relevant, detailed information to determine whether your subject is telling the truth, lying to you, or just saying what he thinks you want to hear.

|3.16.06 @ 11:53AM|#

Forget ticking time bombs, what about missing persons? Do you torture the Dutch dude in Aruba right after? There's a better case for that (if any) than most alleged anti-terrorist torture.

|3.16.06 @ 12:03PM|#

You can start here (UN convention) for your clear definition

"For the purposes of this Convention, 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."

Despite all the legalize, it is pretty clear.

Locking you up doesn't count.
Questioning you doesn't count.
Coercive interrogation does (unless you are offering them candies or something = positive coercive methods).
Waterboarding counts as torture.
Pissing on the Koran doesn't count (it is just rude).
Making you stand on a bucket with wires attached to your scrotum, counts.

Torture is not as fuzzy a term as the current discussion surrounding it implies.

|3.16.06 @ 12:25PM|#

You can start here (UN convention) for your clear definition

It's A definition, but it's not my ("your") definition, nor is it clear.

Despite all the legalize, it is pretty clear.

No it's not.

Locking you up doesn't count.
...
Making you stand on a bucket with wires attached to your scrotum, counts.

I think the only real difference is that we're "used to" torture in the form of locking people in cages for long periods, and so we are inured to it. I'd prefer a few hours of the second (wires) to 10 or 20 years of the first (locking up). So, which is torture and which is worse?

|3.16.06 @ 12:26PM|#

You know, as Professor Fagan argues, it was the pressures of overseas engagements which helped to undermine the Roman Republic (whether it was worth preserving is another matter of course). This line of argument of course prompts a question about our time...

|3.16.06 @ 12:28PM|#

I am of course not arguing that there was any sort of static high point in the Roman Republic's history (indeed, it was a constantly evolving entity), but there were some core attitudes, institutions, etc. that could be generally found in any snapshot of the Republic's history.

|3.16.06 @ 12:37PM|#

You can start here (UN convention) for your clear definition

Bill Clinton could parse every word in that definition. Even I consider the following words sufficiently ambiguous as to being worthless:

severe pain
suffering
intentionally
intimidating
coercing
acquiensence

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So as long as the sanctions are the law then everything goes?

|3.16.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Mr. F
What do you find ambiguous in the definition?

Yeah, jail sucks.
We should never put people in jail no matter what.

Every infringement on freedom is torture.

Hak,
No one would accuse you of advocating one Roman era over another. That would be silly.

I have always thought we needed a new chapter in the 12 Ceasars dedicated to W.

|3.16.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Swillfredo
By definition, lawful sanctions can't include acts of torture. That is the point of the definition.

Look, if you want a definition that is so tight it can never be argued over, you will end up making the thing useless. The world is full of concepts that need to be considered on a case by case basis. Defining severe pain, or suffering requires a process, but most people's everyday definition will work (that's the point of a jury of peers on our system).

As for the other words being ambiguous... gimme a break.

|3.16.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Swill

You can read the document yourself, but an important part of it includes

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

|3.16.06 @ 12:50PM|#

and

"Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture."

|3.16.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Swillfredo, if you find the word "intentionally" to be "sufficiently ambiguous as to be worthless", I'll have to say that you apparently find practically the entire US legal system to be "worthless", since concepts of intent and negligence are critical to the majority of civil and criminal suits.

|3.16.06 @ 12:56PM|#

science,

We'd have to create a figure like Suetonious first.

|3.16.06 @ 12:58PM|#

If that definition meets your needs fine, but you appear unwilling to accept the fact that reasonable people are going to disagree. The UN has no real jurisdiction anyway, so the definition is somewhat moot whether we are a signatory or not.

most people's everyday definition is not going to matter when in court.

|3.16.06 @ 1:09PM|#

"you appear unwilling to accept the fact that reasonable people are going to disagree"

I think I fully accept that fact.
This is why I am willing to go with a general definition based on everyday usage of words. It is those that want an airtight definition that don't accept disagreements among reasonable people.

Hak,
A modern Suetonious. That's a hard bill to fill. Maybe if Gore Vidal could manage some political influence... nah.
I'll have to think about that one.

Courtney Love|3.16.06 @ 1:16PM|#

This line of argument of course prompts a question about our time...

Holy shit! gaius, gaius, get in here!

:)

|3.16.06 @ 1:35PM|#

A note: slate.com has dozens of Abu torture-related photos online. I was embarassed by the giggly teen-aged girls who now represent the US military.

|3.16.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Here's a good rule of thumb for defining torture: If you're having to argue what the definition is, it's probably torture.

My general feeling on it, on ticking timb bombs, and the rest of that bullshit is this: If you do it, it should be exposed. If you were right, you'll be pardoned, forgiven, or at least not jailed because no jury will convict you. If you're wrong -- well, perhaps the courage of your convictions will sustain you in jail. You wouldn't be the first to end up there for doing what you felt was the right thing.

But in the end, people parsing the definition of torture are almost certainly torturing people and looking for a way to claim they're not.

|3.16.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Yeah, jail sucks.
We should never put people in jail no matter what.

I didn't imply that. My point is that what we do as a day-to-day matter of course is actually worse, more torturous, than what the UN defines as torture.

Say you've been convicted of something. Which would you choose:
- a public flogging + having a fingernail pulled out, or
- many years (10-20) locked in a cage?

I'd choose the illegal torture over the legal and common torture.

|3.16.06 @ 1:46PM|#

If you're having to argue what the definition is, it's probably torture.

So the anti-torture side is taking the ball and going home because there is no room for disagreement on what acts constitute torture? Do smearing red paint and throwing books in the toilet constitute torture because at least one person has defined them as such?

Ken Hagler|3.16.06 @ 1:58PM|#

It's a little late for Cathy Young to be complaining now. She asked for this.

|3.16.06 @ 2:33PM|#

Mr F

Your preference for physical abuse aside, the jail sentence does not constitute torture. I have worked in a prison. It would not be fun to be imprisoned for 10 to 20 years. But prisoners have moments of joy, moments of fear, moments of despair, and many, many moments of boredom (some get college educations and develop job skills, really).

Not really torture as the term is typically meant.

But, if you allow for the finger nail pulling and flogging, that 20 years might also include (sanctioned) periods of pain and terror. It is a much different thing to be locked up AND have to contemplate pain and terror, than it is to be locked up and have to contemplate being locked up.

|3.16.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Torture is the ultimate depravity.

What a crock! If my daughter is being held by kidnappers and I have access to one of the group's members, I will start slicing off HIS member 1/64" at a time. And you can bet your bottom dollar I'll also have a case of Liquid Plumber on hand (just to keep the wound clean). Call me depraved if you want to, but if it takes depravity to get my little girl back, then I will reach down to the very depths of depravity to accomplish my aim.

Have A Nice Day,
Heather

|3.16.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Heather,

An artist you may find interesting

http://www.brainwashed.com/axis/schwarzkogler/2aktion.htm

|3.16.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Science,

While that may be true, nevertheless, his art serves no practical purpose.

|3.16.06 @ 8:47PM|#

Call me depraved if you want to, but if it takes depravity to get my little girl back, then I will reach down to the very depths of depravity to accomplish my aim.

Seeing as how it's widely believed that such torture doesn't work and wouldn't accomplish your aim, would you kidnap one of the kidnappers' children? Would you send the kidnapper his daughter's pinky as proof of your seriousness? I think that would be much more effective than traditional torture. Also even more depraved. I think those depths go pretty far down.