Geneva Conventions, Pro and Con

For the contra side, here's torture enabler Alan Dershowitz:

The Geneva Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

And for the defense, torture-sufferer John McCain:

It is critical to realize that the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions do not endanger American soldiers, they protect them. Our soldiers enter battle with the knowledge that should they be taken prisoner, there are laws intended to protect them and impartial international observers to inquire after them.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

During the Revolutionary War, the Hessians gave no quarter; they executed everyone they captured including soldiers in Washington's own army. When Washington crossed the Delaware and defeated the Hessians, he specifically ordered his soldiers not to return such treatment in kind. Washington made sure that captured soldiers were treated humanely, and when the war was over, rather than returning home, hundreds of captured Hessian prisoners chose to remain in America and become citizens.

Even if it saved the lives of American soldiers, what we lost by Rumsfeld's circumvention of the Geneva Conventions was worth far more than what we gained.

[thoreau]

I've been to a few Geneva Conventions, and it certainly some of the people there are into torture, or at least bondage, judging from the apparel and conversations.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I thought you meant GenCon. My bad. 🙂

[Hohum]

The whole question evaporates if we call them "criminals" instead of "terrorists". Just because we suspect that a criminal gang is planning to murder someone does not give our police forces the right to arbitarily torture other members of the gang.

There have been several such "gangs" in the recent history that have committed terrible acts against the public - think of McVeigh and his pals. Are we advocating that we should be able to arrest any known associate of McVeigh and torture them without restraint?

[troubalert]

"War is fightin', an fightin' is killin'"
-Gen. Bedford Forest

In fact I agree with the principle of the GC, but I dont believe it has really ever applied itself in an actual conflict, except in context.

Oh, and Dershowitz may be the anti-christ!

[David]

Prof. Bainbridge points out the oddness of Dershowitz writing a qualified defense of torture (and relatively unqualified criticism of the Geneva Conventions) AND signing a petition that chastizes the U.S. Government for engaging in torture and violating the Geneva Conventions.

[anon]

When dictators of third world countries violate the Geneva Convention, then they are murderous thugs that need to be ousted. When the US violates it, the Geneva Convention is wrong and need to be updated ... priceless.

[HH]

Dershowitz is just being "nuanced," don'tcha know. All the cool kids are doing it. I've decided to be for the war on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, against it on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays... for it every other Sunday and against it on the other Sundays.

[Fred]

Let me see, Dershowitz says the Geneva Convention may be outdated, yet opposes prisoner treatment at a U.S. run prison. This isn't possible! Why, it's like saying the Eighth Amendment affords too much protection to prisoners and then turning around and condemning prisoners being treated cruelly! We must condemn Professor Dershowitz for even attempting to make important moral distinctions.

[Dan]

It is critical to realize that the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions do not endanger American soldiers, they protect them.

As others have observed, the fact that McCain himself was tortured after being captured refutes the claim that the Geneva Conventions protect American troops.

Even if it saved the lives of American soldiers, what we lost by Rumsfeld's circumvention of the Geneva Conventions was worth far more than what we gained.

That just doesn't make sense. The Geneva Conventions are only *supposed* to apply to conflicts in which both sides obey them. It is important that the United States obey the conventions when fighting an opponent who does the same -- but it is ALSO important that the United States NOT obey the conventions when fighting people who don't.

This is basic game theory. If we are always nice, then our enemies are free to torture, rape, murder, use poison gas, etc, because they know that we're suckers, and that we won't retaliate. The only way we can encourage people to refrain from torture, murder, etc, is if they know that their refusal to do so is the only thing that prevents *us* from doing horrible things to them.

[Mark S.]

"Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I thought you meant GenCon. My bad. :)"

The only gamers I ever hear talk enthusiastically about abuse torture are the Vampire LARPers and the Warhammer Fantasy/40K players.

Then again, there is nothing more inhumane than being forced to see a 300 pound, 44-year-old, woman in a chainmail bikini. (Shudder....)

[Amy Phillips]

Look, I'm sorry if this messes up anyone's military strategy, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's wrong to assault, maim, rape, and kill people. Even if they're bad people, even if they were captured trying to kill good people, even if you think they might tell you what you want to know. It's just wrong, and any strategic concerns need to come second to upholding basic standards of human decency, no matter what the loopholes in the rules may let you get away with. If that makes me a squishy peacenik, so be it, but I'm going to take the hard line on this whole "torture is bad" issue.

I'm really sort of appalled that this is even debatable...

[thoreau]

Mark S.-

Admittedly, the torture fans were a minority, but they seemed to be present. As to obese women in chainmail bikinis, mercifully I've seen few of those. Most of the chainmail lingerie fans that I've seen were rather cute (with a few exceptions). The best place to find obese women in costume seems to be any place were Klingons are congregating.

Anyway, if Abu Ghraib prison were staffed entirely by obese women in chainmail lingerie, I think that even the hawks here would have to agree that that would be inhumane and beyond the pale! Especially if they forced the inmates were forced to watch "The Two Towers" over and over (face it, they butchered that novel like a Baathist with a plastic shredder at a dissident convention).

[David]

I'm with Amy on this one.

Dan's "basic game theory" would justify the threat (or perhaps the carrying out) of the most unspeakable horrors in the name of preventing other horrors.

If you have to threaten (or perhaps carry out the threat) to rape or kill a terrorist's child, in order to prevent the terrorist from doing the same, then truly you've allowed the terrorist to reduce you to his/her level.

There are some things we should not do, whatever the consequences.

There are always (in the real world) other ways to protect society against terrorists.

[Jason Ligon]

Test of Amy's convictions:

A 10 kiloton nuclear device has been planted in NYC. We have a suspect in custody that we have connected directly to the plot, but he isn't talking. Do we do what we need to do to get information, or not?

I agree with the sentiment, but principles can be horrific in their costs. I'm not sure where I come down on this myself, by the way.

[OldFan]

The Geneva/Hague conventions are very useful things.
1) They establish the principle that war must be waged by organized bodies subjec to accountability [i.e national armies] and that the scope of conflict must be limited in order to benfit both sides ["making a desert and calling it peace" was tried in 1633 ans Europe has a long memeory]. Unfortunately, terorists have specifcally and publically rejected both these notions.

2) They are driven by a totally practical notion of recipricocity [if we refrain from torture, then so will they] and their enforecement mechanism is the breakdown of that arrangement [sink our hospital ships and we bomb your hospitals]. It can be a powerful inducement, as the behavior of Nazi Germany toward Allied POWs demonstrates. Unfortunately, the Communist states and terrorist bands we fought since WWII display abolutely no regard for the lives of their own personnel, so the system breaks down.
3) The entire realm of interrogation is neatly sidstepped by the conventions. Some surmise that the relatively low percentage of captured personnel that can be subjected to interrogation caused the framers of the conventions to focus on larger issues. With 500,000+ men being captured on at least four different occasions in WWII, one sees their point. Only in the media- drenched 21st century, where 800 casualties in an entrie war are considered excessive, is it getting any play at all.

So, as a result of this study, we can conclude that we are free and clear to
a) Execute any terrorists we catch
b) Destroy any mosque used for [or even suspected] military operations of any kind.

The reason we have not done these things has nothing to do with International Law [a paper tiger: who can enforce it?] and everything to do with sound tactics and a proper moral restaint that is far more refined than the one we displayed in 1945 [US heavy bombers killed at least 1 mlllion civilians in 12 months].

Amazingly enough, we have improved to the point that we are demonstrably more concerned about the lives of the citizens of the enemy than their own leadership is.

[thoreau]

Jason-

I've thought about the question of torture in the case of a ticking time bomb. My (admittedly imperfect) answer is that those who make the decision to use torture under such circumstances should be subject to an exhaustive review with the full benefit of hindsight, and their careers should be over if the torture was unjustified in hindsight. Yes, hindsight is always 20-20, but extreme measures call for extreme accountability.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is always the excuse used for torture; of course the fact is that such an event would be likely so rare as to be pointless to use as a point of departure in a discussion.

[Gary Gunnels]

OldFan,

"It can be a powerful inducement, as the behavior of Nazi Germany toward Allied POWs demonstrates."

The Nazis tortured Allied POWs; indeed in fairly large numbers; including American, British, French, Polish, etc. POWs; what you are parroting here is a myth.

"Unfortunately, the Communist states and terrorist bands we fought since WWII display abolutely no regard for the lives of their own personnel, so the system breaks down."

Well, to blunt, the same thing can be said for the U.S. and its allies; indeed, ARVN soldiers, when they invaded Cambodia, committed numerous atrocities against Cambodian citizens - these included rather horrofying methods of torture. Anyway, the notion that only Communists states and terrorist bands committed acts of torture in the post-WWII era is a falsehood.

"3) The entire realm of interrogation is neatly sidstepped by the conventions."

Well, the reasons behind this include a desire not to tie the hands of the allied victors of WWII.

"So, as a result of this study, we can conclude that we are free and clear to
a) Execute any terrorists we catch
b) Destroy any mosque used for [or even suspected] military operations of any kind."

This is a conclusion without any support.

"The reason we have not done these things has nothing to do with International Law [a paper tiger: who can enforce it?] and everything to do with sound tactics and a proper moral restaint that is far more refined than the one we displayed in 1945 [US heavy bombers killed at least 1 mlllion civilians in 12 months]."

Well, duh; the Geneva Convention is enforced by the signatory states - meaning their various political branches. Your statement is nothing but a worn out truism and adds nothing to the discussion.

"Amazingly enough, we have improved to the point that we are demonstrably more concerned about the lives of the citizens of the enemy than their own leadership is."

That's not a particularly amazing feat given the nature of the Ba'athist party.

[Marquis of Queensbury]

I would concur that the allied annihilation of Dresden with fire and brimstone (just to teach them a lesson in how it feels to be attacked) puts the recent Iraqui prison abuse scandal in a bit of perspective.

I also find it laughable that anyone actually believes the Geneva Convention prevents prisoner torture or promotes the "humane" fighting of a war (as if there is such a thing).

[Ken Shultz]

"That just doesn't make sense. The Geneva Conventions are only *supposed* to apply to conflicts in which both sides obey them. It is important that the United States obey the conventions when fighting an opponent who does the same -- but it is ALSO important that the United States NOT obey the conventions when fighting people who don't."

Using that scary logic, we never would have made it out of the state of nature.

I should also point out that the only way out of some of the more hellish nightmare scenarios this Administration may have gotten us into is to win the hearts and minds of the people we're occupying, torturing, denying Geneva Conventions too, etc.

Cavanaugh was right.

[Mike H.]

Gary,

Just for the sake of principled argument, let's say that the Feds had someone in custody on September 10th, 2001... What then?

Is there ever a time when it's "ok" to sacrifice one's moral convictions? It's certainly a matter of degree, but...

[Ken Shultz]

Oh, you're so right Queenie-Baby!

Since the Allies bombed Dresden, we should all act like savages. I see it from your Iraqi perspective now...We should just torture, rape and murder whomever we please because, after all, the Allies did bomb Dreden!

[Phil]

The "ticking time bomb" scenario, in addition to being a poor departure point for these discussions, is predicated on at least two assumptions whose truth cannot be taken for granted:

1) That the suspect cannot -- indeed, has not been trained to -- resist until after it is too late to make a difference.

2) That the suspect will not simply lie to you in order to either end the torture, mislead you until it is too late, or both.

We know that Allied prisoners were tortured in WWII and that Americans were tortured by the Vietnamese. Do you really think they generally gave their captors a great deal of useful information?

[Ken Shultz]

I see the "ticking time bomb scenario" as a question of personal ethics rather than a question of policy. Keeping the Constitutional guarantee that people can't be forced to testify against themselves in place and letting whomever interrogates suspected terrorists make the call as to whether or not it's worth suffering the consequences of torturing someone is just fine to me.

But then I seem to be somewhat of an oddity these days. It wasn't always this way, but it now seems controversial to suggest that it's better to die at the hands of terrorists than to live in a society that tortures people as a matter of policy. Call me a controversial, idealistic dinosaur, but that's the way I feel about it.

Many of you believe that even if opposing gun control laws mean that some guns will fall into the hands of criminals, our Second Amendment rights are worth the sacrifice. More of you, probably, believe that it's better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. Why can't you make the same connection with terrorists and bombs? You look like cowards.

[Dan]

Using that scary logic, we never would have made it out of the state of nature

You're couldn't be more wrong. That "scary logic" is the *reason* we made it out of the state of nature. It has been proven to be the only stable model for society: start out nice, but if someone hits you, you hit back. "Always be nice" -- the strategy proposed by the so-called "moral" people in this thread -- has been proven, both mathematically and by real-world experience, to be a recipe for disaster. Entities who follow an "always nice" strategy get annihilated by the first non-nice entity to come along; in short order, the world is filled with non-nice entities.

This is why the Geneva Conventions are specifically written to exempt nations engaged in wars with nations that do not obey the Conventions. If the Geneva Conventions had said "you must obey these rules, even if your enemy doesn't", not one nation on Earth would have signed them.

I should also point out that the only way out of some of the more hellish nightmare scenarios this Administration may have gotten us into is to win the hearts and minds of the people we're occupying, torturing, denying Geneva Conventions too, etc.

We didn't win the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese. We killed millions of them, and the survivors decided that maybe imperial conquest and genocide weren't such wonderful ideas after all. We have problems with Moslem terrorists not because we hit back, but because we don't hit back hard enough or consistently enough.

[Ken Shultz]

Hobbes argued that people emerged from the state of nature out of self-interest. Individuals stopped the war of every man against every man in order to escape the kind of brutish existence you're advocating. I think it's an original thought though; I've never heard anyone argue that the foundation of a free and democratic society is the assurance of retribution. It's an amazing theory, but I don't have much experience with it. Tell me, how much harder do we need to hit the Iraqis before they're finally free and democratic?

[joe]

Amy, that was a breath of fresh air.

"The Nazis tortured Allied POWs; indeed in fairly large numbers; including American, British, French, Polish, etc. POWs; what you are parroting here is a myth." My father's golfing buddy was taken prisoner by the Germans in 1944. He was with a number of French partisans, way out front, when he was captured. The French were lined up and shot, and the Americans taken away. An SS officer showed up, and obviously wanted to shoot the Americans too. The German regular army soldiers argued with him, and kept using the words "soldat," "soldaten (soldiers)." Eventually, the SS officer gave up, and the Americans got sent to a POW camp.

It's better for the Geneva convention to be there, even if it's fallable.

[Dan]

Hobbes argued that people emerged from the state of nature out of self-interest

Hobbes argued that people emerged from the state of nature by establishing laws and a coercive power to enforce them. In other words, by formalizing retribution: if you do that which people do not want done, you are made to suffer for it.

I've never heard anyone argue that the foundation of a free and democratic society is the assurance of retribution. It's an amazing theory, but I don't have much experience with it.

The assurance of retribution is what makes it possible to have a society at all, "free and democratic" or otherwise. This idea is as old as recorded history; if it's new and amazing to you, you really need to get out more.

Tell me, how much harder do we need to hit the Iraqis before they're finally free and democratic?

Is there some reason you're conflating "a few thousand rebels" with "the Iraqis"? I've seen nothing to indicate that the United States and the majority of the Iraqi people have any particular trouble between us. So far we've caused a dramatic net decrease in the Iraqi death rate, and a dramatic net increase in Iraqi freedom. How much longer will we have to "hit" them in this manner before they become democratic? I don't know; a few years, I imagine.

[R Marshall]

"there are laws intended to protect them"

Senator McCain, please name one instance in which these laws ACTUALLY protected captive US servicemen, since the conclusion of the Korean war. Sure, the intentions are fine, but that's all they are . . . intentions.

And it is worth noting that the intention of the law is not simply to protect combatants abiding by the laws of war; it is also to DENY protection to those who do not so abide. Denying unlawful combatants the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions to lawful combatants is not disrespectful of the law's intentions; it is exactly what the law intended in that circumstance. Such denial of protection provides the negative sanction which is intended to deter violations of the laws of war (dressing as civilians, concealing combatant status, using human shields, etc.) Were we to afford such protections to unlawful combatants, we would remove the disincentive the law provides to deter violations of the laws of war.

[Jason Ligon]

There is plenty goofy about Geneva. Shotguns are inhumane? Hollowpoints increase suffering? Pits of sharpened bamboo are cool, but for heaven's sake don't shoot someone with a quick killing .50 cal round?

I don't that I would include the torture guidelines under the same heading of 'goofy', but they do suffer a problem of their own. Dictators interested in saving their own hides don't follow them, only western democracies do. I think tit for tat is a good rule of thumb, if you can make it work.

[Josh]

Didn't John McCain spend a few years in a North Vietnamese prison camp? I'm kind of baffled here.

[Marquis the Queenie]

Ken, interesting note.

Janet Reno may have offered her resignation but she didn't leave office until her boss did, thus rendering the meaningless gesture as nothing more than a PR ploy.

The entire incident is important however in the context of reaction to the prisoner scandal in Iraq because many of those now calling for resignations, calling for trials, calling for jail, using the term ?war criminal(s)?, wearing armbands at the Berkeley graduation, and calling for blame to be placed where it may or may not belong had no such outrage over the events at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

I speak of the chattering classes, our CONgress, and John Q. as well. Reactions ranged from yawns to a great deal of explicit commentary revolving around the idea that Koresch either brought it on himself or deserved it, good and hard. Ditto for Randy Weaver's dog.

On the scale of horror, I find the US Government?s deliberate assassinations at Ruby Ridge and the burning to death of 50-plus innocent children at Waco to be worthy of at least as much outrage as the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq. In my recollection that hasn?t been the case (Reason magazine excepted) with most people claiming the moral and ethical high ground with regard to prisoner abuse. That has the effect of making it ever so difficult to separate the legitimate concern over warfare and human morals from the apparent glee of sticking the pro-war crowd?s collective face in a pile of stinking you-know-what.

That is why the litmus test is important and why the deaths of American citizens nearly ten years ago is relevant. Those who rage against the cowardly guards at Abu Gahrain, who yawned, shrugged, or condemned the dead at Waco for bringing it on themselves and are now screaming for justice for the abused Iraqui prisoners are the worst kind of hypocrites.

There were no armbands worn at Berkeley in memory of the children of Waco.

[Maquis the Queenie]

Ken, interesting note.

Janet Reno may have offered her resignation but she didn't leave office until her boss did, thus rendering the meaningless gesture as nothing more than a PR ploy.

The entire incident is important however in the context of reaction to the prisoner scandal in Iraq because many of those now calling for resignations, calling for trials, calling for jail, using the term ?war criminal(s)?, wearing armbands at the Berkeley graduation, and calling for blame to be placed where it may or may not belong had no such outrage over the events at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

I speak of the chattering classes, our CONgress, and John Q. as well. Reactions ranged from yawns to a great deal of explicit commentary revolving around the idea that Koresch either brought it on himself or deserved it, good and hard. Ditto for Randy Weaver's dog.

On the scale of horror, I find the US Government?s deliberate assassinations at Ruby Ridge and the burning to death of 50-plus innocent children at Waco to be worthy of at least as much outrage as the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq. In my recollection that hasn?t been the case (Reason magazine excepted) with most people claiming the moral and ethical high ground with regard to prisoner abuse. That has the effect of making it ever so difficult to separate the legitimate concern over warfare and human morals from the apparent glee of sticking the pro-war crowd?s collective face in a pile of stinking you-know-what.

That is why the litmus test is important and why the deaths of American citizens nearly ten years ago is relevant. Those who rage against the cowardly guards at Abu Gahrain, who yawned, shrugged, or condemned the dead at Waco for bringing it on themselves and are now screaming for justice for the abused Iraqui prisoners are the worst kind of hypocrites.

There were no armbands worn at Berkeley in memory of the children of Waco.

[Marquis of Queensbury]

Ken, you missed the point. A glowstick up the butt isn't the same as your entire family burning in flames.

I don't recall suggesting that we should treat Iraqui prisoners as some of the photos suggest we have, just that said treatment beats the shit out of having your mom napalmed. Perspective, man.

And, although it has been brought up by others, I'm curious to know if you were you as outraged by the incineration of the Koresch Kids as you seem to be by the uncool treatment of Iraqui prisoners? If not, I suspect that your outrage is selective and your tears are crocodile. It's my own personal litmus test.

[MALAK]

The Marquis is a pussy who wouldn't last two minutes in a real fight. The comparison you make is one of degrees, not perspective. Once again: The military is there to win the fight, and nothing else should take precedent. It is the responsibility of the civilian authority to define what limits are to be imposed on the military while carrying out that task. As my CSM once said: Give us the tools, give us the rules, and then get the fuck out of the way!

[Dan]

I tried to avoid taking this line of argument because I find utility arguments about moral issues like slavery and torture utterly abhorrent

Yet you repeatedly quote Hobbes, who offered utilitarian arguments to support governments stripping their citizens of their freedom.

Try offering some philosophically or morally coherent arguments, please.

I doubt he's really as authoritarian as he makes himself out to be

A person who cites "Leviathan" as frequently as you do is in no position to be calling somebody else an authoritarian. Hobbes' philosophy has traditionally been used to justify egregious abuses of governmental power.

If someone hits you, you either:

(a) Turn the other cheek.
(b) Hit back.

People who followed philosophy (b) founded the United States of America. People who follow philosophy (a) are moral idiots, kept alive only through the efforts of those who follow (b). It's as simple as that.

[JD]

My thoughts on the "ticking time bomb" scenario: the right thing to do, given the theoretically-perfect TTB setup, is to do the torturing and save the city, then turn yourself in and plead guilty, and for the relevant authority to punish you appropriately - meaning, to punish you as though you'd done it for no reason at all. Our goal should be to do what is good and right, and here we're faced with a situation in which we can only do one right (saving the city) by doing a wrong. Refusing to do the torturing is admirable in a sense, but letting thousands of people die so you don't have to get your hands dirty is abhorrent; to do the torturing and argue that there should be no consequences is to say that the ends justify the means. While it may seem contradictory to argue that the right thing is to torture and to punish the torturer, I view both parties as being driven by the logic of right and wrong.

Along the same lines, I'm reminded of CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy. There's a bit in which the girl Aravis drugs her stepmother's servant so that she (Aravis) can run away, knowing that the servant will be beaten for allowing her to escape. Aslan later puts some deep claw marks into Aravis' back, to teach her what it felt like, but there's no suggestion that Aravis was wrong: she was right to run away and it was right that she should suffer for what she did.

[Ken Shultz]

Off the top of my head, the only thing I remember Janet Reno doing that I approved of was offering her resignation in the wake of Waco. I'm not sure what that has to do with Rumsfeld circumventing the Geneva Conventions, but it is interesting relative to Abu Gharib in one way. I didn't see anyone publicly arguing for a government policy of gunning down and burning people at Waco, but there seem to be a number of people in this forum arguing in favor of the very policy that led to the horrors at Abu Gharib.

I tried to avoid taking this line of argument because I find utility arguments about moral issues like slavery and torture utterly abhorrent, but if pressed, I would argue that, rather than helping us win, nothing has harmed our efforts in Iraq more than denying Geneva Conventions to Iraqi prisoners of war. It's made sure that an even larger portion of the Iraqi people will always hate us, and it's drained extremely important support among Americans for the effort.

On a separate note, for those of you so inclined, I would caution against addressing Dan's provocative posts. I doubt he's really as authoritarian as he makes himself out to be. He seems to troll the forum looking for the posts of people he?s infatuated with, and his arguments, much like those of my ex-girlfriend, seem to almost invariably morph into the exact opposite position of whatever such a person is arguing. That may seem rather harsh to those of you not familiar with his posts in the past, but that's the role he's chosen for himself. He's my bitch.

[Ralf Goergens]

The ticking-time-bomb scenario is unrealistic. First of all, it's very unlikely that you'd know that a particular prisoner has the information you need. Secondly, even if you knew and had no compuctions to use torture to get that information, you'd still won't get the prisoner to spill the beans soon enough to do any good. Third point, even if he talks early enough, he could easily mislead you. He might say tha first thing that comes into his mind to get you to stop torturing him, or he even might have the presence of mind to deliberately mislead you and tell you something that turns out to be a time-consuming red herring. Etc, etc.

[Ralf Goergens]

I am against torture under any circumstances, but leaving aside the moral aspect it's easy to point out that torture is hugely counterproductive to the war effort.

As Dershowitz points out, terrorists hide among the civilian population. That doesn't only mean that civilians are killed when those terrorists are attacked, it also means that many of those captured as suspected terrorists will be innocents, for the military can't tell terrorists from civilians and doesn't have the time for checking anyway when conducting sweeps. This in turn means that many civilians will be submitted to the same procedures as the terrorists. This will turn them into enemies, for abuse and humiliation, if not even outright torture, has this effect.

I'm sure that some here will argue that the civilians deserve that treatment too, for they let the terrorists hide among them, or some such nonsense. This argument is easy to refute: First of all, the civilians have no choice, for the terrorists would kill them if they didn't, and secondly, that attitude would lose the war, for insurgencies only succeed if the reaction to it hurts the general civilian population. If civilians arrested as suspected terrorists are routinely abused and humiliated, if not even tortured, they will turn against the troops, and the war in Iraq and elsewhere is lost.

As to the issue of reciprocity, or rather its absence: If captured Islamists are treated are treated humanely, their friends won't return the favor, that much is true. Even so, the knowledge that that the will betreated relatively humaely seems to have a tempering effect on them. If it didn't, there would be a lot more beheadings like that of Nick Berg. Conversely, rougher treatment for their captured friends would lead to crueler treatment of the people they capture, and sadistic murders of Western victims would become commonplace.

Proponents of torture should also remember that abuse and torture don't just have an effect on the victims, but also on the perpetrators, who become increasingly dehumanized. The soldiers who are ordered to do that kind of thing will return to civilian life some time in the future. The consequences are easy to predict. Even worse, many of those interrogators will be police officers in civilian life, for where else can the military find enough skillful interrogators? Do you torture apologists really want police officers who are used to roughing up the people they arrest?

[Ken Shultz]

"This reminds me of the 'flag pole' argument that convinced me I am a consequentialist libertarian rather than a principled one. You fall out your 15th story window and grab a flag pole that belongs to the guy down stairs on your way down. He says, 'Get off my property.' Surely you aren't some unprincipled cad who doesn't believe in property rights, so you let go, right? Isn't it better to die than to live in a world where people can willy-nilly violate the property rights of others ..."

I have to confess, I wasn't familiar with the "flag pole" argument. That's interesting. I'm sure this thread will be long gone before I've completely absorbed it. Thank you.

However, preliminarily, I would respond that torture is fundamentally different from trespassing. Not that my aversion to torture is necessarily an absolute; indeed, if I thought that torturing someone would save one of my family members, I'd have that special someone on a rack in a heartbeat. But that doesn't mean it should be made policy, or that the practice should be enshrined in policy or that government personnel should engage in the practice or that America should ignore the Geneva Conventions.

Also, and I apologize if I'm projecting something on to you, I suspect that rather than being a consequentialist libertarian instead of a principled one, you're probably, like a lot of us, both a consequentialist libertarian and a principled one. Our principles are, at least, partially informed by the consequences of our actions. Perhaps you just tend to be more consequentialist than principled? Surely we can't honestly judge the morality of our actions without considering the results.

[David]

We should also remember that Dershowitz is all over the map on the torture issue, not just on the legitimacy of the Geneva Conventions:

"ROTH: Yes, that's the ticking-bomb scenario, which everybody loves to put forward as an excuse for torture. Israel tried that. Under the guise of just looking at the narrow exception of where the ticking-bomb is there and you could save the poor schoolchildren whose bus was about to be exploded some place. They ended up torturing on the theory that -- well, it may not be the terrorist, but it's somebody who knows the terrorist or it's somebody who might have information leading to the terrorist.
They ended up torturing say 90 percent of the Palestinian security detainees they had until finally the Israeli supreme court had to say this kind of rare exception isn't working. It's an exception that's destroying the rule. We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, "Well, the U.S. is doing it, we're going to start doing it as well."

DERSHOWITZ: And I think that we're much, much better off admitting what we're doing or not doing it at all. I agree with you, it will much better if we never did it. But if we're going to do it and subcontract and find ways of circumventing, it's much better to do what Israel did. They were the only country in the world ever directly to confront the issue, and it led to a supreme court decision, as you say, outlawing torture, and yet Israel has been criticized all over the world for confronting the issue directly. Candor and accountability in a democracy is very important. Hypocrisy has no place." (my emphasis)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

And

"Well, I don't myself approve of torture. But I am arguing that every democracy ? the Netherlands, England, France, Germany, every democracy, the US, Israel ? will engage in torture, and my requirement would be that if you are going to do it, you have to give advance approval, you have to show the justification, you have to explain the sources of your information, you have show it's the last resort, and you have to allow the judge to impose limits on what you're allowed to do. For instance, in Jordan, they torture the relatives of terrorists; we would not permit that in a democratic country under any circumstances, the torturing of innocent relatives. But a guilty terrorist, being subjected to painful but non-permanent injury, might be permitted. These are the kinds of distinctions and limitations that civilised society ought to be discussing." (my emphasis)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3044.htm

[Jason Ligon]

A few notes about the ticking time bomb:

1) The purpose of the thought experiment isn't to explore practical police measures, it is to explore whether there is a utilitarian limit to the principle in question.

2) If one is going to argue that torture is always and forever useless in terms of providing information, that is fine and relevant, but I would note that is also a pragmatic argument. When a friend of mine (USAF Capt.) went through the Capture phase of training, they told him that between the hose, the sleep deprivation, being forced to stand for long periods, dietary modifications (I believe they leave protein out of your diet for a while), and abusive interrogation techniques, you WILL talk eventually.

3) Note in the scenario I specified that you can do 'whatever you need to do' or not.

4) Arguing that this is unlikely so you don't need to think about it strikes me as evading hard questions, and not even especially accurate. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime with a non-zero conviction rate. Anyone caught for conspiracy is leaned on to turn in the other participants. Make the murder weapon an airliner or a dirty bomb, and you more or less have my scenario.

This reminds me of the 'flag pole' argument that convinced me I am a consequentialist libertarian rather than a principled one. You fall out your 15th story window and grab a flag pole that belongs to the guy down stairs on your way down. He says, 'Get off my property.' Surely you aren't some unprincipled cad who doesn't believe in property rights, so you let go, right? Isn't it better to die than to live in a world where people can willy-nilly violate the property rights of others ...

[Mike H.]

The purpose of the thought experiment isn't to explore practical police measures, it is to explore whether there is a utilitarian limit to the principle in question.

Exactly.

I'll go ahead and run out on a limb on this one: In the ticking time bomb scenario, I'd gladly set aside any personal moral convictions I might have and do whatever it took to get information. However, simply because I'd support the use of any means necessary in this instance does not mean that I must support the torture at AG. It's a matter of degree, and as a reasonable person, I'd argue that matters of degree are entirely and completely relevant to the overall discussion.

[David]

All ye libertarians out there need to think carefully about giving the state the power to torture.

Why, when the torture issue comes up, so few libertarians talk about the dangers of state abuse of the power?

We could give heaps of historical examples of the corruption/abuse of torture provisions (by the French, say, in their colonial wars).

[MALAK]

Several points to stir the pot with:

The Geneva convention binds only those nations who are signatories to it's accords.

The conventions only apply to regular forces (ie armies, navies, etc.) with separate accords for civilians.

Irregular forces (ie troops out of uniform, saboteurs, terrorists) are NOT covered.

and finally this:

The job of any military force is to win. PERIOD! In the face of this objective, all else is mere chaff in the breeze.