Civil Liberties Check-Up

The Economist is kicking off a multi-week study of civil liberties since 9/11; part one is about justifications for torture. So far it's nothing you haven't read in reason or at Antiwar.com or on libertarian blogs, but it's well expressed:

If the war against terrorism is a war at all, it is like the cold war—one that will last for decades. Although a real threat exists, to let security trump liberty in every case would corrode the civilised world's sense of what it is and wants to be.

When liberals put the case for civil liberties, they sometimes claim that obnoxious measures do not help the fight against terrorism anyway. The Economist is liberal but disagrees. We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But that—with one hand tied behind their back—is precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism.

Being a snooty magazine with a blissful detachment from U.S. politics (I remember cover stories on how Bill Clinton had to resign, on how John McCain would be your 2000 GOP nominee) the Economist has actually been torture-skeptical for a while now.

I assess whether the last six years have proven the Chicken Littles right here.

Comments

[NOT ERIC DONDERO]

PANIC isn't appropriate!!??

[Warren]

the Economist has actually been torture-skeptical for a while now.

Embracing torture is perhaps the most shameful thing I've ever seen my government do. Shame on everyone that excuse it. I regret that Bush and Rumsfeld won't be held accountable (put on trial for war crimes) over it.

[joe]

I read The Gulag Archipelago. I remember the chapter about the force-feeding, how they'd strap the hunger-strikers down and force the tube down their throats, just like at Gitmo.

I thought that, however much we disagreed about other things, rejecting barbarism like that was something that everyone in this country could get behind, something that defined who we were, and who we were not.

I am very disappointed by how many people excuse this behavior. People who claim to be skeptical of government power, but eagerly hind behind the bureaucratic acronymns like "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" or "Stress Positions." The autheor wrote about forcing people to sit or stand or hang in the same position for hours, too.

[Fluffy]

I'd also like to know their basis for the statement that torture "works".

When you concede that torture works but appeal to the better nature of the people who are just aching to torture, you're on a fool's errand. You'll be ignored.

There is precious little evidence that torture "works". If torture works, why did the Soviet Union fall? Why don't tinhorn Third World dictators always win? Shouldn't Zaire have been an extremely stable state, if torture is such a practical policy? The article unselfconsciously references British techniques for dealing with Irish terrorists. Doesn't anyone proofing that article say, "Um, the British never defeated the Irish terrorists and had to reach a political settlement with them in the end"?

[de stijl]

I remember the chapter about the force-feeding, how they'd strap the hunger-strikers down and force the tube down their throats, just like at Gitmo.

Hmm...foie gras...

[mk]

Mitt Romney from the Sep 5th Republican debate

And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second, we have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do.

This guy may end up being the next president. Scary.

[joe]

Torture works.

It got "Curveball" to admit that Saddam has massive WMD stockpiles ready to go.

[Guy Montag]

The ever evolving definition of 'torture' is a much bigger problem than keeping someone awake for a few extra hours, playing music that they don't like or giving them the false impression that they are about to drown. Especially when the people 'against torture' tend to be people who wish harshe measures be used against people they just do not agree with.

[joe]

"a few extra hours"

"turn the air conditioning up"

"slap him around a little bit"

"make him stand still for a while"

"give him the impression that he is about to drown" (perhaps by drawing a picture of a stick figure in the water with "You" and a little arrow pointing to the stick figure?)

The fact that advocates of these practices won't even speak plainly about what they want done to prisoners tells you all you need to know.

[JasonL]

We have to be careful about making this too simple, or else we will find ourselves with no credibility in the discussion.

I'll allow that torturing people to extract information might work in the sense that it might provide accurate information. It is similarly too simple to say that restricting civil liberties in certain ways never increases security. I'm almost certain it does.

Making a solid case against torture requires first that you define it, then express your moral opposition to actions under your definition. I don't think 'I know it when I see it' will work, because people of good faith disagree. What beyond putting someone in a cage of reasonable size is permissible in the search for information?

Similarly, spying on citizens isn't as simple as all that. I think most people mean "no unchecked spying on people" as in they want to maintain the FISA court.

There is a world of nuance in there, and while I agree with the sentiment behind making strong moral claims, I'm concerned that an oversimplification of the issues hurts rather than helps.

[thoreau]

I'm willing to believe that there may be cases where torture works, and I don't want to make an anti-torture case completely dependent on a particular cost/benefit ratio. So I'm fine with arguing that "even if" torture works it should still be legal. But I do think we should be careful about how much we concede with that "even if."

Part of the problem I see with torture is that when the guy doesn't spill the info that you want you have no way of knowing whether he's innocent or just holding back. So what do you do? Well, you torture him.

That runs against every notion in our system of justice, the idea that a punishment is self-justifying without any burden of proof for the accuser. "Well, we know we need to torture him more." "How do you know that?" "Because the torture isn't working yet."

If one wanted to justify torture on some consequentialist basis, one would have to be able to show that torturing a guy is indeed likely to yield information that can't be obtained by other means. But making that case would require that you already know quite a bit about the guy you want to torture, and that you know quite a bit about the other avenues of investigation so that you can argue that spending your time on those avenues will be less productive. A person with a lot of information generally has more than one option, and a person with little information cannot make the case for torture.

I blogged about torture and information here:

http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/05/03/6342

Finally, it is sad that we've reached the point where even people who call themselves skeptics of government power think it's OK to replicate the tactics of the KGB.

[de stijl]

Making a solid case against torture requires first that you define it, then express your moral opposition to actions under your definition.

I think the burden rightfully belongs on the the people who are "for" torture.

[thoreau]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if it was done in the Soviet Gulag then we shouldn't do it.

[Pro Libertate]

Um, how about we don't torture people? Or "torture" them? At least make it against the rules, for Zod's sake.

[thoreau]

Um, how about we don't torture people?

But how are the hawks going to sleep at night if they can't rest safe in the knowledge that government employees with minimal standards of evidence are allowed to torture scary brown people?

[Audrey B]

JasonL, I agree with you. I think both sides have become far too emotional and panicky to debate this issue clearly, and need to take a step back and evaluate their arguments and assumptions. Guy Montag, the problem here is that, while maybe the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is not as bad as some say (it's not the treatment of the guilty, but the fact that the innocent have no recourse), the wall of secrecy surrounding the whole operation dose not sit well with me. As the cops are fond of saying, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of?

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau,

They have pills for that now. No flying cars, no, but pills for sleeping, yes.

Being tough does not require brutality. Neither does being strong. We can be powerful and reasonably moral at the same time, and we'll do a whole lot better in the long run retaining some moral high ground.

[joe]

I don't recall there being a great deal of confusion about what is and is not allowed prior to the Bush administration. It is not those opposed to torture who have erroneously muddied the waters, but the pro-torture contengent who have done so, deliberately.

No, I'm not against keeping somebody awake "for a few extra hours." That's not even remotely the issue being discussed. If the waters have become muddied, it is because somebody has made a point of muddying them.

[Brian E]

I would dearly love to see a detailed comparison of the civil liberties damage done by the WoT and the damage done by the WoD. Not to say the former isn't bad, but if anything is worthy of the impassioned hysteria I see from certain quarters it's the latter.

[Pro Libertate]

I wish I could believe this all started with 9/11, but I fear that the Cold War may have had its share of nasty business. Though we may have simply subcontracted torture back then.

[JBinMO]

"I'll allow that torturing people to extract information might work in the sense that it might provide accurate information."

Sorry, but you would be wrong. People say what ever they have to to stop suffering. Ask yourself, would you hesitate to lie to someone making you suffer. I have a good immaginization. I could probably keep people busy for some time.

[de stijl]

Though we may have simply subcontracted torture back then.

And we didn't have a noisy contingent of folks argue that it was necessary, just and right, and that people who disagreed with them were complicit in the downfall of our nation.

[dhex]

not to mention we've been outsourcing our torture for a while; giving away jobs that hard working american torturers are willing to do.

We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But that-with one hand tied behind their back-is precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism.

this paragraph convinced me that re-upping my subscription was the right thing to do.

[Pro Libertate]

de stijl,

Ah, but we had Hank the K back then, intimidating lesser lights.

[de stijl]

Pro Libertate,

Yeah, but he was realpolitik pro-torture!

[thoreau]

The question is not whether torture went on in the past. It clearly did. And a lot of it probably happened (and still happens) in your local police station.

The question is whether it will be openly endorsed or not. If it is officially illegal then there's a limit on how much they can do before the "just a few rotten apples" facade becomes impossible to maintain. If it is officially legal, then there is no need for a facade, they can do as much as they like.

I'm not saying that I'm OK with a certain amount of it, as long as they can maintain some sort of deniability. I'm just saying that I want as little as possible, and legalizing it sends us in the wrong direction.

[Captanin Pecard]

There are four lights!

[Lost_In_Translation]

How about this...I don't trust the people using torture to protect me, so maybe I want to take away their ability to torture because I don't trust their ability to NOT use it on me.

Its the same reason I am willing to risk myself by putting restrictions on what police can do to criminals.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I know the above sounds paranoid, but I think certain actions (like torture) can damage a person's moral compass and hurt their ability to judge right from wrong. Hurting other human beings isn't psychologically good for someone.

[Eric the .5b]

I don't think you sound paranoid at all, LiT.

[Eric the .5b]

On the plus side, the majority of Americans are against torture (look under #2), and want the CIA to follow the Geneva Conventions, according to Gallup.

The question is whether the Reds will twig to this point and whether the Blues will manage to accomplish anything about it.

[crimethink]

If torture is going to work at all, you're going to have to go whole hog. You can't just limit it to ticking-bomb scenarios.

When the Egyptians or Saudis or Pakistanis torture someone, it's a long drawn out process. If the torturee gives them information, they've got a chance to check it out to see if it's correct, and if it's not, they can return and up the intensity of the torture as a punishment for false statements.

However, in a ticking bomb scenario, we wouldn't have time to check out information; by the time we knew the information was false, the bomb's already detonated, and the situation that "justified" the torture no longer exists, so we can't go back and punish the wretch.

[negatore]

Tonight's "Liberty Index" will bottom out at about a 2 as scattered roving SWAT teams and sobriety checkpoints will increase the possibility of arrests and harrassment.

Tommorow's "Liberty Index" will rise to about 5 as only token harrassment, eavesdropping and speed traps are expected.

...and in other news, the new RFID chip implantation program is expected with breathless anticipation as we will be so much safer for the police to terrorize, I mean subjugate, totally excellent. (/snark)

[Guy Montag]

Guy Montag, the problem here is that, while maybe the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is not as bad as some say (it's not the treatment of the guilty, but the fact that the innocent have no recourse), the wall of secrecy surrounding the whole operation dose not sit well with me.

Yea, you convinced me. This whole information classification thing is inefficent. Imagine how much more open and free we will be when we begin publishing every troop movement on the intertubes, along with every information source and method. Down with this wall of secrecy! Open sources and methods for all!

I am looking forward to your urging anybody who attacks us to do the same. You know, beyond showing people's heads being cut off.

[thoreau]

Guy Montag-

Be sure to purchase carbon offsets for all the straw you're burning.

[joe]

Guy,

When you do that, it just makes you appear incapable of putting together a serious response. Like you can't hold up your end of the argument.

I mean, why don't you just type "MUSHROOM CLOUD!!! MUSHROOM CLOUD!!! I CAN'T HEAAAAARRRRR YOUUUUUUUU!!!!?"

[ReligionProf]

It is always interesting when people are accused of lack of patriotism for asking whether we are hanging onto the freedoms that America's earliest patriots gave their lives for, or for asking whether we are not, in the name of opposing enemies, becoming very much like the enemies whose values we claim to oppose.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-wrong-with-being-right.html