Two articles from the past on torture (mine, of course)

[Jack Rabbit]

Several threads on related subjects have prompted me to dig up a couple of articles from last year concerning the use of torture.

Your comments, even critical ones, are invited and encouraged.

The first was inspired by an exchange in the I/P forum with a poster who is no longer with us. It dwells on the folly of torture as a interrogation technique by taking on the views of Alan Dershowitz, a reluctant advocate of this crime against humanity.

The second was a direct head-and-gut reaction to the exposure of the official use of torture by the US at Abu Ghraib. In this article, a bit ahead of the curve, I suggest that Mr. Bush should be held resposnible. It did not seem possible to me that such behavior could take place in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo without his explicit approval. My views on this remain unaltered and I believe an international tribunal should be convened to determine whether he should answer for these crimes.


Form Democratic Underground
Dated March 11, 2004

Why Torture Doesn`t Work:
A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary.

Torture is regarded by progressive civil libertarians as an abomination that every civilized nation should outlaw. Modern international humanitarian law categorically prohibits its use. The Rome Statute classifies torture as a crime against humanity, the Third Geneva Convention (1949; Aritcles 3, 17, 87 and 130) prohibits its use against prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949; Articles 3, 32 and 147) probhits it against civilians in situations of armed conflict. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948; Article 5) states unequivocally, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Gloss is put on these declarations concerning torture by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the United States is a party . . . .

Dershowitz is regarded by many as a progressive civil libertarian. That he should part company with others on a matter that many feel defines progressivism has outraged more than a few. However, when one such as Dershowitz suggests that we cast aside much of what we hold dear, perhaps we should give him a hearing.

Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001) outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives over prosecuting and punishing the criminal.

From Democratic Undergorund
Dated May 11, 2004

Who is Responsible?
By Jack Rabbit

In light of the revelations of abuse of Iraqi detainees by American soldiers and civilians at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, many have called for the resignation or firing of Donald Rumsfeld and others. The outrage has been bi-partisan and should be. No matter how one felt about the wisdom and morality of invading Iraq, the barbarism that took place in Abu Ghraib cannot be defended. This is an affair that brings dishonor and disgrace to Americans.

To merely call for the resignation or firing of the Defense Secretary misses the point. He is responsible, but not simply because he failed to oversee the problem or inform either Congress or the President in a timely manner. The buck no more stops with Donald Rumsfeld than it stops with Lynndie England.

The scandal at Abu Ghraib prison is deeper than one prison in Iraq. To dismiss this as nothing more than a "few bad apples" acting like drunken pledges at a frat house party insults anybody's intelligence. Major General Anotonio Taguba's report on Abu Ghraib cites "systemic" abuse of detainees and faults several field-grade officers, including a Brigadier General, along with several senior NCOs and some civilian contractors (called OGAs or employees of Other US Government Agencies in the report) for flagrant violations of army regulations and the Third Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and other detainees.

Read more.

[Lithos]

1. To focus on one singular portion of this

The claims of "need" for National Security as this is probably the vaguest portion of the pro-torture side.

What constitutes need? Who decides? Dershowitz hints at allowing non-lethal means when human life is at stake and time is of the essence. The most common example cited is that of a nuclear or WMD attack by terrorists on a US city.

But in practice, the US has opted to perform torture on people who did not meet even the self-proclaimed criteria of immediate national need. Many of the detainees in Guantanamo were tortured MONTHS after their initial detention. None of the people held at Abu-Ghraib did not affect US national security - 90% of them were actually innocent of any wrongdoing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But why the desire to use torture given that it is proven that torture is counter-productive to the need to yield useful information almost 100% of the time? A person who doesn't know anything is liable to create a fiction to stop the torture, while a person who does will depending on their commitment either fail because the person knows they only have to hold out for 48 hours or so, or to say anything or will purposefully lie. Some examples from history which support this include the French in Algeria, the Israeli's back in the 1980's and the Vietnamese in the 1960's.

The use of torture is counter-productive in trying to obtain evidence you can trust in this emergency so if there is a "need", torture is the last method you would want to use as it is so undependable.

But once torture is used, it becomes a weapon which can easily be used against you. The standard has been slipped. It allows the enemy to claim justification against your own troops. It also makes it easier for the government to justify the use of force in more civil cases.

Democracy is an ideal not assaulted by physical weapons, but by assaults on individual liberties. While a Democracy can survive physical attacks, it cannot long survive against attacks against the civil liberties of people by things such as torture.