Competency
There was a good article on torture in last Sunday’s issue of the Times.
The article is better than most on the topic. It acknowledges that, given enough time and a skillful interrogator, torture is unnecessary and counter productive.
However, the author makes the assumption that some torture is necessary in time of war. He then explores the possibility of legislating allowable torture, in the hopes of restricting it to the “torture-lite” sometimes used in Israeli prisons. He concludes that this is, at the present, probably impossible.
It’s a solid article, but I think it misses the key point about torture that is missing in most of the debates. Torture has three underlying causes: Criminal Incompetence, Hard Interrogation, and Terror.
Some hypothetical examples:
Criminal Incompetence
Cpl Smith is having a bad day. His best friend was just killed in a roadside bombing. He hates the dirt and the heat. And, right now, he really hates prisoner 321. He starts by punching the prisoner in the jaw, and doesn’t stop until he feels better.
Hard Interrogation
Cpl Jones is having a good day. A week of work is about to pay off. Prisoner 321 has been kept in isolation, deprived of sleep, and kept shackled and shivering in a cold cell. Although Jones has threatened violence, nothing has happened yet. He enters the cell and, without a word, punches the prisoner hard in the jaw. Teeth fly. He waits for the fear to peak. Then, very slowly, he removes a photograph of the prisoner’s wife and daughter from an envelope. He shows it to the prisoner, and then slowly tears the photo apart. The implication is clear. The prisoner tells Jones everything he knows.
Terror
Cpl Baker doesn’t feel much anymore. He’s not entirely sure what prisoner 321 is guilty of. Maybe he insulted an American, was part of an illegal protest, or just was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn’t really matter - the important thing is to make an example out of him. The only way left to win the war is if the civilians fear him more than they fear the insurgents. If prisoner 321 survives, everyone who sees him will know why you don’t fuck with Uncle Sam. Baker doesn’t particularly like his job, but he has his orders. He starts by breaking the prisoner’s jaw.
Most Americans seem to feel that the atrocities in Abu Ghraib are the result of a “few bad apples”. Somehow, the argument goes, a few sadists managed to abuse the system. This is, unfortunately, bollocks.
If you create a system where torture is possible, it is almost inevitable that it will happen. Prisoner abuse inevitably develops in prisons, unless there are strict controls in place to prevent them. Severe abuse happens in American prisoners, even when the guards and convicts share language, culture, and skin color.
Sure, Cpl Smith deserves jail time. However, it was the responsibility of his superiors to ensure controls to prevent him from abusing prisoners. How was he able to get access to the prisoner? Why wasn’t he reported by the other soldiers? Someone in his chain of command is guilty of criminal negligence.
There are people, however, who defend “Hard Interrogation” as necessary. It’s hard to counter that “Ticking Bomb” argument, where there isn’t enough time or resources to use more benign methods. Note that this is utterly different from “Criminal Incompetence”, because the goal is not simple revenge. Even if done carefully and professionally, however, Jones is still commiting a war crime.
Astoundingly few people seem to acknowledge “Terror” as a possible motive. This is odd, given that the vast majority of torture is motivated by the desire to instill terror into a civilian population.
Terror is utterly, completely inexcusable. It’s a crime against humanity on par with genocide. Baker and his apologists deserve to rot in the darkest regions of hell.
Americans seem so confident in the inherent goodness of their country that they are unable to acknowledge that they are capable of committing Terror. Even the Chomsky reading radicals treat the Philippines and Central America as ancient history. Very few seem to seriously entertain the notion that the US is capable of maintaining a reign of terror in Iraq.
Personally, I’m willing to believe that utter incompetence reigns in the White House. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, the consequences are just too terrible to imagine.
But what is the reaction of the rest of the world? How is an Iraqi, who is intimately familiar with Sadaam’s Terror, going to react? Is he really going to accept incompetence as an answer from most powerful military on earth?
The article is better than most on the topic. It acknowledges that, given enough time and a skillful interrogator, torture is unnecessary and counter productive.
However, the author makes the assumption that some torture is necessary in time of war. He then explores the possibility of legislating allowable torture, in the hopes of restricting it to the “torture-lite” sometimes used in Israeli prisons. He concludes that this is, at the present, probably impossible.
It’s a solid article, but I think it misses the key point about torture that is missing in most of the debates. Torture has three underlying causes: Criminal Incompetence, Hard Interrogation, and Terror.
Some hypothetical examples:
Criminal Incompetence
Cpl Smith is having a bad day. His best friend was just killed in a roadside bombing. He hates the dirt and the heat. And, right now, he really hates prisoner 321. He starts by punching the prisoner in the jaw, and doesn’t stop until he feels better.
Hard Interrogation
Cpl Jones is having a good day. A week of work is about to pay off. Prisoner 321 has been kept in isolation, deprived of sleep, and kept shackled and shivering in a cold cell. Although Jones has threatened violence, nothing has happened yet. He enters the cell and, without a word, punches the prisoner hard in the jaw. Teeth fly. He waits for the fear to peak. Then, very slowly, he removes a photograph of the prisoner’s wife and daughter from an envelope. He shows it to the prisoner, and then slowly tears the photo apart. The implication is clear. The prisoner tells Jones everything he knows.
Terror
Cpl Baker doesn’t feel much anymore. He’s not entirely sure what prisoner 321 is guilty of. Maybe he insulted an American, was part of an illegal protest, or just was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn’t really matter - the important thing is to make an example out of him. The only way left to win the war is if the civilians fear him more than they fear the insurgents. If prisoner 321 survives, everyone who sees him will know why you don’t fuck with Uncle Sam. Baker doesn’t particularly like his job, but he has his orders. He starts by breaking the prisoner’s jaw.
Most Americans seem to feel that the atrocities in Abu Ghraib are the result of a “few bad apples”. Somehow, the argument goes, a few sadists managed to abuse the system. This is, unfortunately, bollocks.
If you create a system where torture is possible, it is almost inevitable that it will happen. Prisoner abuse inevitably develops in prisons, unless there are strict controls in place to prevent them. Severe abuse happens in American prisoners, even when the guards and convicts share language, culture, and skin color.
Sure, Cpl Smith deserves jail time. However, it was the responsibility of his superiors to ensure controls to prevent him from abusing prisoners. How was he able to get access to the prisoner? Why wasn’t he reported by the other soldiers? Someone in his chain of command is guilty of criminal negligence.
There are people, however, who defend “Hard Interrogation” as necessary. It’s hard to counter that “Ticking Bomb” argument, where there isn’t enough time or resources to use more benign methods. Note that this is utterly different from “Criminal Incompetence”, because the goal is not simple revenge. Even if done carefully and professionally, however, Jones is still commiting a war crime.
Astoundingly few people seem to acknowledge “Terror” as a possible motive. This is odd, given that the vast majority of torture is motivated by the desire to instill terror into a civilian population.
Terror is utterly, completely inexcusable. It’s a crime against humanity on par with genocide. Baker and his apologists deserve to rot in the darkest regions of hell.
Americans seem so confident in the inherent goodness of their country that they are unable to acknowledge that they are capable of committing Terror. Even the Chomsky reading radicals treat the Philippines and Central America as ancient history. Very few seem to seriously entertain the notion that the US is capable of maintaining a reign of terror in Iraq.
Personally, I’m willing to believe that utter incompetence reigns in the White House. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, the consequences are just too terrible to imagine.
But what is the reaction of the rest of the world? How is an Iraqi, who is intimately familiar with Sadaam’s Terror, going to react? Is he really going to accept incompetence as an answer from most powerful military on earth?