Not only a crime, a blunder
I recently posted a comment on a post at Oxblog about "coercive examination". I reproduce it below, with grammatical errors removed and links inserted.
There is a reason that, back in the C17th, it was decided in England that torture was not appropriate for the agents of the state to engage in.
It was because of the pervasive effect on said agents and the power of the state. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has written eloquently on this point recently in The Washington Post. Policies have incentive effects: coercive examination has incentive effects on who becomes an agent of the state, what they feel entitled to do, how the rules of the state operate, etc creating a path that we just don't want to go down.
More particularly, it is a stupid way to prosecute the war on terror (not only a crime, a blunder). We cannot impress the world that we can be more brutal than the jihadis, nor should we even try. More humane and effective, that we can do. And feeding the claim that our commitment to free societies, the rule of law, fundamental decency is all hypocrisy that does not apply once our enemies are Muslims is double plus unclever.
As has been pointed out, we made such a big thing about inhuman treatment of prisoners by the Japanese. If it was wrong for them to engage in waterboarding and sleep deprivation, why is it suddenly OK for us to do so? What answer can we give that is not some version of because our enemies are now Muslims?
Basic to the corruption of the modern Left has been the use of beliefs as status markers. That to have the "wrong" opinion is a defect of moral character, leading to a poisoning of anything resembling careful analysis or even genuinely reasoned debate. Much of what passes for patriotism and conservatism in the US at the moment seems to have caught the same disease--so you are only a "real" supporter of the war on terror if you support coercive examination.
Mencham Begin, John McCain, Vladimir Bukovsky. What do they have in common? They had been tortured. They are also all brave men. The language that alleged "patriots" are using to describe supporting the position that torture--no matter what euphemism is used to pass it off as something different--is not what we should do, is disgraceful.
All legal rights can be described as rights for malefactors. But the Anglosphere is the fortunate heir of a long tradition which establishes limited government and a network of supporting legal rights. A tradition that is apparently to be traded in so some folk can parade how committed they are to defeating the jihadis.
There is a reason that, back in the C17th, it was decided in England that torture was not appropriate for the agents of the state to engage in.
It was because of the pervasive effect on said agents and the power of the state. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has written eloquently on this point recently in The Washington Post. Policies have incentive effects: coercive examination has incentive effects on who becomes an agent of the state, what they feel entitled to do, how the rules of the state operate, etc creating a path that we just don't want to go down.
More particularly, it is a stupid way to prosecute the war on terror (not only a crime, a blunder). We cannot impress the world that we can be more brutal than the jihadis, nor should we even try. More humane and effective, that we can do. And feeding the claim that our commitment to free societies, the rule of law, fundamental decency is all hypocrisy that does not apply once our enemies are Muslims is double plus unclever.
As has been pointed out, we made such a big thing about inhuman treatment of prisoners by the Japanese. If it was wrong for them to engage in waterboarding and sleep deprivation, why is it suddenly OK for us to do so? What answer can we give that is not some version of because our enemies are now Muslims?
Basic to the corruption of the modern Left has been the use of beliefs as status markers. That to have the "wrong" opinion is a defect of moral character, leading to a poisoning of anything resembling careful analysis or even genuinely reasoned debate. Much of what passes for patriotism and conservatism in the US at the moment seems to have caught the same disease--so you are only a "real" supporter of the war on terror if you support coercive examination.
Mencham Begin, John McCain, Vladimir Bukovsky. What do they have in common? They had been tortured. They are also all brave men. The language that alleged "patriots" are using to describe supporting the position that torture--no matter what euphemism is used to pass it off as something different--is not what we should do, is disgraceful.
All legal rights can be described as rights for malefactors. But the Anglosphere is the fortunate heir of a long tradition which establishes limited government and a network of supporting legal rights. A tradition that is apparently to be traded in so some folk can parade how committed they are to defeating the jihadis.