I believe “torture” is overused in this country, and in areas controlled by this country.

By “torture”, I mean the word, not necessarily the action.

I’ve been putting in my two cents’ worth on this subject for a while, and I think it’s time I state, for the record, where I stand on the subject.  For the record, torture is bad. Torture is not a nice thing to do to people.  Torture should not be condoned except as a last resort.

That being said, I’ve seen a great deal of hysteria on the subject of torture.  I was first drawn in to discussing the topic by the statements of a trained interrogator for the Army.  He said, flat out, “torture doesn’t work.”

With those three words, he lost any credibility he may have had in my eyes.  The problem is, torture does work.  Everyone knows this.

Let’s ignore “traditional” uses of torture, such as punishment, control of behavior, and even letting off steam for the captors.  Let’s take the claim as meaning, “torture doesn’t work at obtaining information.”  This is also false.  This story in the New York Times and the interview I transcribed here both give accounts where torture did, in fact “work”.  That is, the prisoners who were tortured gave up useful information in time to do something with it.

If that’s not “working”, then we need a new  definition of “work”.

The opponents of torture, even in its mildest forms, continue to state as dogma that it doesn’t work.  It would be one thing if they took a more nuanced position.  I could understand, “torture doesn’t work as well as other techniques we use”, or “effective as torture may be, it causes more damage to society than the information is ever worth”.  The first is a statement that could possibly be true.  The second is a value judgment the kind everyone is entitled to.  But to state, as an unqualified statement of doctrine, that torture doesn’t work, is to insult my intelligence.

And I don’t put up with insults very graciously.

Now, I’m not discounting any of the “kinder, gentler” methods.  I’m perfectly willing to accept the testimony of people like retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington (in this interview with Hugh Hewitt) that these soft methods work. I also recall an article, years ago, about a policeman’s accidental discovery. He didn’t have any chairs for a prisoner in the interrogation room, so he gave the prisoner the chair he would have used, and stood during the interrogation.  It turned out that he got more information from the prisoner when he was seated in a comfy chair.  It seems when you relax your body, you’re more likely to relax your defenses.

However, to make the case, as some do, that because these methods work, torture doesn’t — you might as well tell me that because you can get where you need to on a bicycle, cars don’t work.

Again, if you want my support, don’t insult my intelligence.

Finally, here’s where we get to the title of this post.  Opponents of torture have been known to define “torture” in ways that make no sense.  They wind up labeling “torture” any number of things you or I would never consider “torture”.  As an example, here’s a definition offered by an Army interrogator:

Here is my definition. You will (because you have already) disagree.

It’s very simple.

Any physical or mental coercion.

Full stop. Any.

So the cold room, out of bounds.

The standing up for hours, out of bounds.

Feeding him food against his religion, out of bounds

Slapping him around,just a little, out of bounds

Telling him his family will never know where he is, out of bounds.

Not feeding him as the troops of the detaining power, out of bounds.

It is just that simple.

And it has the advantage of being both morally right, and working.

According to this definition, the process of making a plea-bargain arrangement with a prisoner is “torture”.  So is sending a kid to bed without supper, or even telling him “no TV until your homework is done.”

If this definition doesn’t insult your intelligence, maybe you should check and make sure you have some.

So my position on torture is,  it’s not nice.  In fact, it’s evil. If you’re going to resort to it, you’d better be using it to avert some greater evil.  Period.

It’s interesting to see the disdain, and even the outright hostility to the “ticking time bomb” scenario on the part of opponents of torture.  I think the reason for this is the same as the dogmatic statement that “torture doesn’t work.”  If we look at the scenario, we wind up weighing evils to see if we can tell which is greater and which is lesser.  Opponents of torture are absolutists.  They can’t bear the thought that there might be things that are a greater evil, so they refuse to consider the possibility.  And by decreeing that torture doesn’t work, they hope to remove any threat that such an evaluation might ever have to be made.

It’s a pity that facts keep getting in the way.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...