Tuesday, December 11, 2007

To Torture, or not to Torture?

“A foolish consistency,” Emerson wrote, is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Emerson’s quote captures the important truth that there’s no single maxim, code, or moral formula for navigating life’s complexities. Sometimes bad actions lead to good outcomes. And good intentions sometimes breed disastrous outcomes. We live in a Shakespearean universe where even morality can be bad.

To torture, or not to torture a terrorist: that is the question. The answer is not as easy as it seems. Proponents of Bush’s harsh interrogation methods have argued that waterboarding suspected al-Qaeda suspects has saved lives, while opponents contend that sanctioning torture erodes America’s soul. Do both points of view have validity?

They do to CIA officer John Kiriakou, who believes that waterboarding Abu Zubaida broke up al-Qaeda plots, provided crucial insight into the terror group’s infrastructure, and indirectly helped lead to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Kahlid Sheik Mohammed.

But Kiriakou – who underwent waterboarding as part of his CIA training – has come to the conclusion that waterboarding is torture and that “Americans are better than that." Or at least they ought to be.

It would be easy to write Kiriakou off as a flip-flopper or man without firm moral convictions. On the contrary, the ability and willingness to hold two diametrically opposing views simultaneously (and to weigh and ponder the merits and demerits of both) is the mark of a rare intelligence. Kiriakou is no simple-minded moralist, an ideologue, or a zealot. His capacity to see both sides of the issue – and to be troubled by an either/or – is exactly the kind of person you’d hope to find tackling these concrete moral decisions.

I say this, as someone who believes the United States should take a firm stand against torture. Brutalizing victims has a way of dehumanizing the victim and the victimizer. If the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation methods were to become institutionalized, then I believe we would run the risk of inculcating a culture of sadism among America’s interrogators. History suggests that this would only fuel a vicious cycle of violence.

There are many other reasons for opposing torture: 1) to protect American service men an women from retaliatory treatment, 2) the fact that most counter terrorism experts tend to discount most information where torture is involved, 3) the culture of lawlessness that seems to flow from flouting traditional and international constraints on torture, and 4) to prevent the erosion of America’s moral authority, credibility, and soft power.

Statecraft is an art, not a science. Machiavelli recognized that sometimes a leader must break the law in order to preserve order or prevent a greater calamity. Occasionally, authorities responsible for public safety may have good reason to believe that torturing a suspect is the only way to get vital information. If an attack is prevented, then that should count as mitigating evidence at a trial that holds them to account. Public safety is important, but so are our ideals. If I were on a jury hearing the case of an agent who tortured someone to prevent an attack I’d have mixed feelings about finding them guilty. But morality is a pretty complex affair.

For an excellent overview of the issue see "Waterboarding Recounted" in the Washington Post."

Sphere: Related Content