Janet Daley makes some odd assertions regarding torture today in the wake of Cameron’s response to the Bush memoirs on waterboarding. Cameron made two points; one, that it is morally wrong and two, that the information is unreliable. It is with this two pronged approach that Daley takes issue:
So Mr Cameron’s repudiation of Mr Bush rested on two propositions: that a) the British government was unequivocally opposed to torture (of which waterboarding was a form), and that b) torture didn’t produce anything useful. But why, if you maintain the first part as an inviolable principle (“Torture is never acceptable”), should there be any need to argue for the second? What point is there in discussing what Mr Cameron calls the “effectiveness thing” at all?
And again, later on in the piece:
There is a fairly simple logical problem here: if torture is unfailingly immoral, then it would be wrong to employ it even if it did produce information that averted attacks and saved lives. But that, you will appreciate, is a rather more uncomfortable case to have to make to the folks watching television at home. Few security spokesmen or political leaders would want to take to the airwaves with the message: “We are so wedded to our principle that we are prepared to risk the lives of innocent people to maintain it.” But if you categorically reject the use of torture (even its psychological forms) then you must be prepared to say that you would not use it even if it did give you valuable evidence that could prevent mass murder.
I see no logic failure at all. It is always morally reprehensible to use torture and in a sane world, there shouldn’t be any need to argue the second. We don’t however, live in a sane world. There is no excuse for using torture. It is also an observable fact that the information extracted is unreliable and there is no logic failure involved in pointing it out. Ultimately, no matter how well prepared, a torture victim will eventually crack – and they will say whatever is necessary to stop the pain.
I can see no discomfort whatsoever in openly saying that torture is wrong, we don’t do it and we won’t collude in it – even if, by some bizarre stretch of the imagination it might, possibly, stop an attack. Not least, because it probably won’t stop an attack.
There is not and never was a justification for the use of torture during interrogation and those who do it are barbarians. They are no better than the enemy they are trying to defeat.
And, as is the way with these things, the people whose lives had been risked (or, in the worst case, lost) would not have had any say at all in this matter. So what about the human rights dimension here? Who exactly has the right to decide that dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of lives (or, for that matter, just one life) should be sacrificed for an unwavering moral dictum? Is the most basic human right of all – the right to life – to be disregarded when weighed in the balance against the right of a prisoner to be treated humanely?
I’m amazed, really I am, that journalists can even pose this question in the twenty-first century. Who has the right? For crying out loud! Who has the right to decide that violence against the person, murder, theft and so on are unethical? Torture of a suspect is no less morally wrong – and, as Cameron pointed out, the information is unreliable, so therefore, it won’t be saving lives. And, treating the prisoner humanely is what sets us apart, it is part of what we are supposed to be fighting for – not becoming one of them. Let’s turn the question around, who has the right to decide that it is okay to torture a (possibly innocent) suspect?
There is one other point to be made about torture; it assumes that the suspect does actually have relevant information. If the suspect is innocent, it achieves nothing at best and disinformation at worst. The victim will say whatever is necessary to stop the torture, after all. So, in response to this:
But scarcely any help at all when you are faced with a captured terrorist who knows where a bomb is hidden.
If they don’t? What then? Trooper Thomson commenting on the subject offers this:
As Jesse Ventura said (and he had been waterboarded as part of his Navy SEALs training and declared it definitely to be torture) “give me Dick Cheney, a waterboard and one hour, and I’ll get him to confess to the Sharon Tate murders”.
There is no justification for torture. This is a moral absolute and those who claim otherwise are exercising a dubious morality themselves. So in response to Daley’s tagline:
We can’t afford moral certainty about torture
Yes. We. Can.
When Michel Thomas worked for allied intelligence towards the end of WW2, they were amazed at the information he was getting out of captured nazi officers.
His “interrogation” equipment comprised of a couple of comfy chairs to relax in. His conversational technique did the rest.
I wonder how many new recruits AQ picked up after Bush’s discussion of water boarding being legal? probably enough to negate and surpass any supposed benefits.
Here’s a thought, if water boarding is so successful why advertise your successes? real intelligence gathering requires that the enemy don’t now how successful you have been. Furthermore, as I blogged today ref Coventry, why would you not keep quiet because your bigger target is surely the leadership, not a few nut cases who will soon be replaced, even if it means a few civilian deaths in a terror attack?
Agreed completey, but the idea that torture doesn’t work is also flawed. Like everything, it depends. I read somewhere that the French Resistance used to abandon their hideouts as soon as one of their number was caught because he would certainly be tortured into revealing its location. And we shouldn’t forget the effectiveness of the rack in getting Guy Fawkes to spill the beans on his mates. But no, it should not be used, ever.
I’m rather pragmatic about it, yes it’s certainly morally reprehensible, but as for its use, well it’s just another interrogation technique. Yes you could use it to make people confess to anything, but that’s not the point, you certainly don’t want them to confess to “anything” after all. You’re after specifics, you don’t just take their word for it either, it has to be cross referenced with other intelligence sources.
So, you judge it by its results, though the way the world is, you never admit to using torture.
Tim Newman:
If the resistance abandoned their hideouts as soon as one of their members was captured then torturing that information out of him wouldn’t have worked would it ?
The ‘ Gunpowder Plot ‘ was quite probably known about in advance, the torture was just an added extra in the punishment, a bit of the drawing and quartering on credit as it were.
If the resistance abandoned their hideouts as soon as one of their members was captured then torturing that information out of him wouldn’t have worked would it ?
As I said above, it depends. Would the Gestapo have been interested in the location of a French Resistance hideout, albeit one which has been recently abandoned? I’m guessing they would.
The only conclusion that I have of Cameron is that he has been taught that he ‘must be right’ when it seems everything that he does proves the opposite.
Of course it is always morally wrong to hurt people at all. It is therefor wrong to torture people.
It is also wrong to do nothing and allow people to get hurt (though it is easier to escape responsibility for a crime of omission)
What needs to be assessed, case by case, is which of the two evils is the lesser.
As to the effectiveness of torture- well I’ve no doubt that anyone could be persuaded by torture to confess to anything- but they could not be forced to provide corroborating evidence if they did not in fact have it. Waterboarding might well have got Dick Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate killings- but he could not be tortured into providing any evidence that he was there at the time, and would probably be ignorant of details of the murders known to the police- therefor if the purpose of the exercise was genuinely to find the killers, he would be exonerated.
So torture can produce valuable leads, but not evidence that will stand on its own. It is therefor useful so long as the interrogators understand this.
It would be nice to live in a world where no-one sought to hurt others- but sadly we don’t. We may either follow christian teaching and turn the other cheek when we are hit, and presumably continue to do so when our fellows are hit (which didn’t do noticeable good to the monks of Jarrow when the vikings came) or we retaliate, which involves us hurting others
Longrider, ta for the link.
Pat,
This argument you advance is not morally relative, so much as nihilistic, shown in your summary: craven passivity or retaliation by means of ‘hurting others’.
Contrary to what you say, violence is not always wrong. The issue is whether it is an act of aggression or self-defence. The distinction is not as you frame it as a lesser of two evils, one active (violence) and one passive (cowardice). It is between moral action and immoral action.
Whatever world you claim can only be sustained through the shrieks of pain in a dirty, blood-stained dungeon does not deserve to be sustained.
Who said anything about doing nothing? There are alternative interrogation techniques that do not involve inflicting pain on the suspect. No one has suggested that the intelligence services do not follow up leads, merely that they do not indulge in torture.
The Dick Cheyney quote was making a simple point – if the suspect is innocent, he will tell you nothing of value. And at what point did it become okay to inflict pain on an innocent person? I must have missed that one. Given that, the information is unreliable. If the suspect is guilty and does have information, he will hold out as long as possible, allowing his co-conspirators time to escape. The French resistance method is not unusual, nor is the idea of small cells, unknown to each other operating on a need to know basis. Consequently, any information will be limited and tainted, given that a torture victim will say anything to stop the pain.
That’s merely the practical objections. I agree with TT here, any society that relies on this method to protect itself, deserves no protection as it is morally corrupt.
No reason for torture? There is if all you care about is that signature on the dotted line.
I most certainly think that torture is wrong. And it can be counter productive. All for the reasons already noted.
But the one aspect that we have not yet considered is this: When you are fighting for your very survival against an enemy who does not/will not (as a matter of military doctrine, clearly set out in their battle manual) observe any of the scruples noted above, does that make any difference?
I suspect it will, as soon as the presently sleeping masses wake up to the fact that we already are under attack for our very survival, that the fifth column is already present amongst us, and that they only take prisoners when the prisoner is useful to them and “feels themselves subdued”.
Not sure, though, what it will take to wake the sleeping masses.