I've recently found several discussions about waterboarding around. What's most interesting about almost all of the con arguments vis a vis Bush's attempts to legalize it for the purposes of CT interrogations, is that they ignore the purposes. This underlines the fact that they simply do not trush Bush, but it does in fact have little to do with waterboarding itself.
My position on the matter, as usual, is nuanced and complicated, which on the face of things always seems equivocal. But quite frankly there's an easy way to clear up any confusion on the matter, as the black actor asked in 'Hollywood Shuffle', "Does your character..die, in the film?" To that end I'm likely to use the terms like coercive interrogation to distinguish from torture. Discovery of new areas of knowledge always requires one to expand one's vocabulary. Tautologically, torture can be a fate worse than death, coercive interrogation never is. But more specifically, I think as with any sort of violence, the intent and context of the act is central to the question of its morality.
We therefore come to the parlor question, which is the proper context since none of us are likely to be involved in such matters. As regards the image and morality of the military of the United States of America, would you rather give up Torture or Nuclear Weapons?
There are lots of ways I could word this question but I don't think it matters. What matters is that we have both, and they can both be considered weapons. Obviously, the lethality of the nukes are huge and that of the torture is minute. Therefore I ask, upon what grounds is the current noise against torture and coercive interrogation based? Doubtless, it is Abu Graibh, in which a couple dozen detainees were evidently tortured for no good reason at the hands of amateurs who thought it was OK. But in the context of a deadly war, this hill of beans is an offense in the direction of ethics and honor. In short it was an abuse of power.
I think many anti-war protesters would take the position that our entire engagement in Iraq is an abuse of power, in which case they would be much more justified in bringing to light our most lethal battles. But it is harder to hurl such charges at our Nuclear Forces, which have never been abused and deployed only twice. The potential for their abuse is limited because of the policies and procedures employed by the armed forces to insure their judicious use. They are our greatest monsters. They are on a leash.
But as many suggest, our image and credibility in the world has been horribly damaged by GWBush and the Neocons. From that, however, we cannot deduce that the nature of the leashes on our various monster weapons have been categorically altered. It is not the nature of our deployment of forces that protesters decry, but that we deploy them at all. Their argument is at legitimacy of the conflict itself, not the prosecution of the war. For if there's one thing we know, it is that the military learns its lessons. We have not lost a single battle in Iraq except for the hearts and minds of the insurgents who are currently terrorizing their own nation, and many of the innocents now facing that terror.
I'm convinced that the use of nuclear weapons makes absolutely no sense in the context of the GWOT, whereas the use of torture or coercive interrogation makes much more. In any case, I believe that it is the prerogative of the President to have all options at his disposal, including the option to build new heretofore unconsidered weapons. But the morality of the matter lies in what is effectively done to counter the threat and win the war in a way as to sustain a meaningful and lasting peace. In that regard, nukes are out of the question for the Axis of Evil.
But the parlor question is one which eschews much of these details. Rather it is an attempt to put some factor of equivalence in plain view. If I give up one tactical nuclear weapon and allow it to be destroyed, how many people do I get to torture? Similarly, the question can be iterative and cover various other weapons systems.. perhaps even through the entire arsenal? Given our extraordinary military capability, we could talk warships, submarines, tanks, cruise missiles, helicopter gunships..
The US has given up permanently on chemical and biological weapons. We have them, but our leashes on them are more like dungeons. We don't want them to be unleashed under any conditions. There are none appropriate. As well, I don't believe we have any scenarios in mind for neutron weapons which kill people without destroying infrastructure. Our polity seems satisfied with things that go boom, although many of us go queasy around matters of cluster munitions. (BTW, here's a next generation one).
Is torture the new mustard gas? If so, what would take its place? And what of coercive interrogation?
While I'm playing parlor games, here's a very plausible scenario. We capture an enemy combatant who we suspect of being rather close to a terrorist organization. During the course of his capture, he is wounded on purpose. As he undergoes surgery for removal of a bullet, a small passive receiver is implanted as he is sewn back together. He is interrogated and then summarily released. His movements are thereafter tracked. Now I may be wrong, but Red Cross and Red Crescent observers might be required to be present during medical procedures on captives. That would flub that plan...
Recent Comments