The Amnesty Report:
Amnesty International is one of those organizations I really want to like, but find I can't take seriously. I want to, because I think they are trying to point to serious issues that we need to address more effectively than we have done. Their recent report claiming widespread US torture is an excellent example of the problems that afflict them.
I'm not an advocate of torture, or inhumane treatment. Far from it: I think the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib crimes should have been executed by firing squad, a position I've held since the story broke. The Geneva Conventions, I believe, are a shield that protects us as much as our enemies -- they shield our souls.
They also permit the summary execution of several classes of persons, including unlawful fighters such as terrorists. They are entitled to have their status lawfully determined first, but after that, they may be shot. So may spies (i.e., fighters who abandon uniforms or other heraldry, to hide themselves among the population they wish to harm -- men like, say, Moussaoui).
Amnesty isn't interested in applying the Conventions as they stand, but in pursuing an agenda that I would describe as, "Opposition to all forms of cruelty at all." That's really sweet and noble, honestly, and I find it a genuinely touching idea. It is not, however, an ideal that can be achieved or that should be pursued in the practical reality in which we live.
It's not just that they can only find 34 suspected cases of criminal deaths, out of tens of thousands of people America has had to detain in the process of fighting two insurgencies on two continents over nearly five years. Amnesty begins its report, "Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations." Right off the bat, we're in trouble: "Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" means that what is widespread isn't "torture," but "torture, or several other things we're going to conflate with torture even though they really aren't torture at all." Things like isolation of prisoners.
Power & Wishful Thinking
By all means, let's have a debate about whether or not we want the US government to engage in waterboarding, or sleep deprivation, or psychological operations against prisoners. Let's have an honest debate about it: Do we want our government doing these things? Of course not. I don't think anyone reading this actually desires to fund a government that practices such techniques.
Do we want to leave our soldiers vulnerable to plots these people may know about, however, simply because we'd rather not have the government deprive them of sleep, or use dogs to frighten (but not hurt) them? Do we want to leave our families vulnerable? Do we want to be able to crack militant rings that could, left intact, lead to the destabilization of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the waste of our dead soldiers' sacrifice, a return to tyranny over the lives of the innocent in those regions? Well, no, we very much don't want that either.
That debate is still very much worth having, and I think we should pursue it in a fuller way than we have managed so far. Unfortunately, we've ended up with the debate disengaging just as it was begun, and most participants retreating into one of three Wishful Thinking camps:
Wishful Thinking Camp #1: I choose to believe that the United States only approves techniques that are morally appropriate to be used whenever they are used.
Wishful Thinking Camp #2: I choose to believe that these various techniques aren't effective or reliable, and so that we suffer no penalty for outright forbidding their use.
Wishful Thinking Camp #3: I choose to believe that our moral purity, should we set aside these distasteful practices, would be persuasive to enough to non-Americans that we would win the GWOT by default.
None of these are useful.
Camp #1: We ought to be genuinely bothered by creating and paying for a government that uses even psychological force to break the will of men. America is about freedom of conscience if it's about anything. You ought to be free to be whom you want: "Drunk or sober, just as he has a mind," as John Wayne put it in The Alamo. It's one thing to kill a man who has elected to be your enemy: you're letting him live out his life just the way he chose.
It's another thing to break his will. If you're not bothered by the idea of masked US government operatives breaking a man's spirit to compel his cooperation, you should be. We may have to do it sometimes, but we ought to be thoughtful and careful about when and how.
Camp #2: The actual evidence runs strongly against the idea that torture is not effective. Froggy described an actual waterboarding operation at his blog; separately, he asserts that it is 100% effective as an interrogation technique. Soldiers of the French government won in Algeirs through a policy described by a French military officer as "systematic torture."
It would be easier if the truth was that torture didn't work. Sadly, it does.
Camp #3: There is no evidence that our enemy can be persuaded by our moral purity, because it does not have the same standards for judging ethics. Aristotle pointed to the problem of comparitive ethics when he spoke of the absolute necessity of a proper upbringing to even understand the terms of the debate. Put more broadly, if you were raised in a distinctly different culture, you won't see the same things as moral or immoral that we do. When I was in China, I was outraged to see how women -- especially pregnant women -- were shoved out of the way by thoughtless, swaggering men. The men were deeply insulted when I would insist on my way of doing things -- they felt it was an insult to all Chinese manhood that I would give my seat on a crowded bus to a pregnant lady, when there were men who could sit down.
By the same token, what some of us interpret as high-mindedness will be interpreted as weakness by our enemies. It will be interpreted as weakness and damnable weakness by those we should care about trying to persuade: the populations being terrorized by the Taliban and al Qaeda in Iraq. They will not be pleased to know that we have been letting terrorists go, the day after another VBIED goes off in a street filled with their children. They will want to know why we didn't torture and kill, if that was what was necessary to protect their families.
On Solutions
In order to flesh out its report, which would be rather short if it stuck to the military cases, Amnesty moves to America's civil prison system. Doubtless this is a genuine problem afflicting America; I have been bothered by it for years. I was a little shocked, however, to see the following item listed as 'practices amounting to torture':
10. Long term isolation in super-maximum security confinement.
Thousands of prisoners, many of them mentally ill, continue to be held in long-term isolation in "super-maximum security" facilities, sometimes referred to as Security Housing Units (SHU Units) or Extended Control Units (ECU).(121) At least 30 states and the federal government operate more than 50 such facilities which include entire prisons or units within prisons.
We are thinking right now about the Moussaoui case. Amnesty, naturally, is opposed to the death penalty. It turns out they are just as opposed to supermax prisons. What shall we do with people like Moussaoui? We are told that we cannot morally kill them, and we cannot morally isolate them.
What, then?
Peggy Noonan's fears were right:
I hope he doesn't get to use his hour a day in general population getting buff and converting prisoners to jihad. I hope he isn't allowed visitors with whom he can do impolite things like plot against our country. I hope he isn't allowed anniversary interviews. I hope his jolly colleagues don't take captives whom they threaten to kill unless Moussaoui is released.
I'm sympathetic to a lot of the problems Amnesty identifies -- the shackling of pregnant women, the moral issues of isolation. What is needed, though, is not an identification of ethically troubling issues. It is some solutions to those issues.
If we cannot kill these men, they will continue to work against us in large ways and in small. If we cannot isolate them, the ways open to them will be larger. If it is immoral to do either, what must we do? Set them free? That creates even larger opportunities for them to harm us, our families, and our nation; and the families and nations we are trying to help stabilize, so that they will not become breeding grounds for future terrorists.
It is enough to say that a man should do nothing wrong, and that he should seek atonement when (because of human nature) he does anyway. It is not enough to say that a nation should do nothing wrong. In national matters we must seek the greatest good among many unavoidable evils, and particularly in war -- a war we did not choose, but which has been prosecuted against us for a generation by Islamist fighters from Iran to Beruit to 9/11, to future battlefields not yet named.
No, I don't like torture either. Nor waterboarding, nor isolation of prisoners, nor the existence of prisons. I'm opposed to all those things, also.
But we do not get to choose whether or not there will be evil in the world. The world hates us; evil is native to it, and to that part of us that belongs to it. All we get to decide is how to try to minimize the evil afflicting us.
You can engage that discussion, or waste your breath.
