Torture, a Potentially Necessary Evil
At Pharyngula, PZ Meyers lets off a blast of anti-torture steam that must have been building up for some time:
Here is all that torture is good for: inspiring fear in a population.
…
When the US government announces it’s support for torture, they aren’t talking about intelligence gathering: they are simply saying “Fear us.” They are taking the first step on the road to tyranny.
The real problem is that fear isn’t a good tool to use in a democratic society. We are supposed to be shareholders in our government; when a process of oppression is endorsed by our legislators and president, we should recognize that they are trying to set themselves apart from the ordinary citizenry, and it’s time to rebel…before the goon squads come to your neighborhood. Anyone who supports torture is a traitor to the democratic form of government, and should be voted out of office, if not impeached.
Not so. A more accurate way to summarize the torture debate is to say that it’s imperative that the U.S. indicate that it will match terrorists at every level of the fight. So yes, on one level it is about inspiring fear, but the fear that’s necessary is that which must be impressed on the hearts of ruthless enemies who terrorize the innocent and prey on the tolerance of better societies than their own.
As such the use of torture is a tool that, while repugnant and often ill-advised, is a necessary evil that may have to be wielded in defense of democracy.
I know that some are going to crawl out of the woodwork and say that this merely serves to lower our nation and its citizens to the level of the terrorists.
Such statements are not true. Individuals and nations alike are entitled to defend themselves against attack. While value judgments about the appropriate intensity of that response can be amusing when penned by a deft, clever hand, one thing should remain clear throughout the discussion: All that is necessary for terrorists to avoid a potentially devastating response of this nation’s security apparatus to their lawless behavior is to lay down their arms, pick up their Koran, and make a proper separation of right and wrong based on their own interpretation of the book rather than relying on the mob-rousing clerics who incite them to the heinous acts they perform.
It goes without saying, of course, that Meyers’ article in opposition to a government tactic would be his death sentence in virtually every one of the nations that spawn Islamic terrorism.
A better use of freedom would be to defend its continued existence at home rather than arguing for the non-existent rights of an implacable, murderous foe whose core values demand the complete extermination of the freedoms that allow articles such as ours to be written free of fear.
h/t memeorandum
"Torture, a Potentially Necessary Evil"
If that’s the headline, and it isn’t already in quotes, I ain’t reading.
I have gone over this in my mind a couple of times and the act isn’t possible to universalize/apply under the golden rule. It’s over for me, and I am not worried about this conviction.
Xel, your last comment was a bit too cryptic for me.
I am not an advocate of torture, but I believe that the idea that “fear us” is the first step on the road to tyranny is idealistic rubbish.
Clearly people who commit crimes, for example, should be in fear of the consequences should they be caught. The elimination of such fears does not make government more humane, it just means that the government stands idly by it should be protecting its citizens from the wrongdoes amongst them.
Similarly in foreign policy the idea of fear is entirely legitimate. A foreign enemy or a domestic or foreign terrorist group should be in fear of the consequences if it tries an attack.
Other weighty phrases of the same cut "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"Any and all regimes, rulers, states and groups that have tortured have said something like what you’re saying. "Yes it’s disagreeable, but we’re only doing it to enemies of the state to prevent bigger disasters!" Inevitably, it gets out of hand, innocent people are tortured and the strict interpretation of who gets and who doesn’t get tortured gets looser and looser, as well as the definition of "threat".
Inevitably as well, time passes and other civilizations or even the same one at a future date looks back in horror and shame at how, yet again, horrific things were done in the name of "peace" and "democracy". History has never looked favorably on civilizations that have tortured, but usually those civilizations had the saving grace that they weren’t democracies, so you could presume that the civilian population would not have consented if given a choice. When a democratic nation decides to torture, the blame, the moral blemish, is on all of us.
But we beat the Germans and the USSR by standing up and fighting back - honorably, not by matching atrocities.
Your last paragraph is why Pharyngula is against torture.
So democracy is for the US borders and the ME be damned.
Rudi, had we lost WWII, Dresden and Nagasaki would certainly be seen as atrocities. History is interpretive and most kind to winners.
So it is with torture. On one level, I find it barbaric but I realize it is a sometimes effective means to save lives and claim victory.
When evaluating torture from a moral view, I have to ask myself if relying on humane methods of interregation is a principle I would be willing to die for. By extension, I would have to ask that others perish also.
No. It’s just far better to win.
This all seems to be without author attribution. Regardless, this commentary should be answered because it seems to be well thought out and objective. Not so.
The author skirts gaping areas of difficulty with torture about its effect on the nation practicing it, its effect upon the soldiers of the practicing nation in retaliation, its effect upon the reputation of the practicing nation and not the least its effect upon morale in the practicing nation. Finally, the author suggests without explanation that answering blow for blow is a necessary part of winning a war, perhaps any war. Not so.
If you look at any competitive game the proficient gamer ignores blows that should not be answered. Many blows if answered take away from the effectiveness of a position, corrupt ones position, sap ones energy. Many blows are simply designed to goad one into a fight that might be left unanswered. A nation’s sense of righteousness should not be underestimated in importance in prosecuting a war. Sexually abusing helpless prisoners, forcing them to publicly strip and masturbate, chaining them naked to cement floors, freezing them, drowning them, humiliating their religion and sacred symbols, their sexuality, their shame of nakedness do nothing to maintain American sense of a righteous war.
The writer seems almost absurdly naive when he says freedom is better used at home. The administration that brings us torture abroad also brings us torture at home with electroshock of US citizens and preemptive warrentless eavesdropping and arrest.
Why is it that the biggest argument supporters of torture can muster is one of psychological warfare, that we need to demoralize the enemy in order to win? Objective accounts of the bombing of London and the carpet bombing and firebombing of German cities determine it had little effect upon the morale of citizenry. But certainly torture does create fear. And where there is fear, there is certainly no chance of making an ally.
Combating enemies intent on sacrificing their lives in suicide raids doesn’t require torturing them, it requires military and police actions that ferret out their numbers and bring them to justice. And it does require not creating large new numbers of extremists, by torturing innocent civilians.
Our torture of foreigners is creating new enemies, intent on doing us harm and hardened against us. Our torture of foreigners will eventually lead to our torture of US citizens as well, because as it is going now, the government says "You are either for us, or against us." American citizens who are not for torture will ultimately be declared enemies of the State. And there will be an inexorable push to employ the harshest means available against them. No, against us. We, the people.
But we beat the Germans and the USSR by standing up and fighting back - honorably, not by matching atrocities.
We beat the Germans precisely by allying with one of the worst thugs to walk the face of the Earth and of the most ruthless, bloody and murderous regimes that have ever existed: "uncle" Joe and the Soviet Union. Yeah, there was a lot of honor there. Oh yeah babe!!! But yeah, torture is sooooooo much worse than THAT! Ah perspective and context…so good to see that it is almost non-existent today.