Torture vs. Torture
Tor·ture n.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
3. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony
4. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
The BBC is upset about what it's calling religious torture being perpetrated in the US against the few hundred terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay. The 'torture' is described as having to wear shorts and having women in tight t-shirts anlingeriere prance around in front of you and pressing themselves against you.
Here's a description of what torture is when it comes from the middle east: Having acid tripped on your skin, being cut or drilled by power tools, having limbs or digits forcefully and slowly removed by the use of knives or vices, being killed by chemical weapons, being hung from the ceiling by your arms. And here are some pictures, and stories from Iraqis who experienced real torture first hand.
Forcing someone to endure something difficult within their cultural context does not constitute torture. Torture involves violence and visceral suffering - excruciating pain - that goes beyond forcing someone to endure temptation. Interrogation is not fun - that's the entire purpose - and it's meant to make people feel extremely uncomfortable, but what the United States is reported as forcing prisoners to undergo does not constitute agony. To say that the US interrogation techniques listed are anything like Saddam's is absolutely ludicrous. It's irresponsible journalism on the part of the BBC and it's upsettingly wrong. StandingoutintheCold had a post recently about torture along the same lines, if you're interested.
The bigger danger in this sort of idiotic, sensationalist mis-reporting is that it discredits all accounts of torture perpetrated by the US and dangerously weakens our notion of what torture is. It's helping to build a smoke screen behind which really upsetting offenses might be taking place. If the US is engaging in torture on the level of Saddam, we need to know about it and we should be very, very upset. To call relatively innocuous situations like these "torture" is to cry wolf at a puppy when real wolves may be about.
posted by RJ @ 8:05 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
We need to understand that actions can be of different degrees and yet still be of the same kind. To compare acid dripping and sexual provocation are absolutely not the of the same degree and nobody is claiming that. That has never been a question and so the sensationalism on the part of the Right to demonstrate the difference with graphic images is a mute point. The real issue is whether or not they are of the same kind (i.e. if they are in the same category of actions).
“Forcing someone to endure something difficult within their cultural context does not constitute torture. Torture involves violence and visceral suffering - excruciating pain - that goes beyond forcing someone to endure temptation.”
What I think redhurt is underestimating is how psychologically damaging this treatment is to a devout, non-Western Muslim. This is not “difficult” for them, it is humiliating to the point of being identity-crushing for them. For them, this has nothing to do with temptation (as it would for a Christian for instance) – the mere presence of those women in a position of power/authority/infectious uncleanliness, destroys their sense of Muslim identity and human value. Remember that “torture” and “agony” both have mental components to them. The only non-religious analogy I can make is that, for these men, being intergated in this way is akin to the psychological damage done to an American woman after being gang raped (minus the physical damage of course). I cannot emphasize enough how destructive this sort of thing is to these people. It is agonizing to them because of their cultural assumptions and, for that reason, is torture.
Although I agree mostly with j.morgan, what destroys me, what just renders me crushed, is the way the Democrats handle this whole thing. I have the actual votes somewhere in my blog, but the war passed something like 98-2 in the Senate and 300-200 in the House. Every single politician who voted for the war knew the consequences--the insurgency; the "torture," etc. So for Democrats to come out NOW and complain, as Durbin does? I just...don't even understand it. It alienates half the country, and the other half (me) just loses faith even more in their ability to A) get anything done B) do things or C) pass any legislation. So if it makes you feel any better, redhurt, while the Republicans are bloodthirsty imperialists, the Democrats are soulless, empty shells of nothingness.
Redhurt, I noticed that the BBC article you linked to was posted in February. The US military has conducted a number of investigations into the abuse allegations and hasn't found any evidence of physical abuse, sexual threats or Koran desecration. The military rules of conduct in Gitmo are extremely strict and are rigerously enforced.
j. morgan is correct that the purpose of using women in the interogation has nothing to do with temptation, and everything to do with the humiliation of being in a position of weakness relative to a woman with authority. And if that humiliation is enough to extract actionable intelligence I'm all for it.
I don't know how to respond to j. morgan's last paragraph. In my mind I can only look at that statement as hyperbole in the worst sort of taste. But at the same time it really sounds like j. morgan was serious.
I guess my question for you j. morgan is this: Is the worst thing that one country does always morally equivalent to the worst thing that any other country does in your mind?
I'm not sure if I worded that question properly but I can't think of a better way at the moment.
February?!? Man, that's a good point - I didn't notice that at all.
J. Morgan: I absolutely agree that physical torture and this sort of religious "torture" are of different degrees but of the same kind, and that's expressly my point: the word "torture" implies a degree of assault not present in the tactics being addressed by this article.
Showing images of real torture isn't necessarily sensationalist (although it could certainly be used as such, it wasn't on this blog) - it's an attempt to clearly display the degrees of harassment, humiliation and coercion that separate US interrogation tactics from obvious and true torture.
The Right is not upset about calling US interrogation tactics painful - it just isn't of the same degree required to be called torture.
Virtutis: I don't completely accept reports done by the US military for public consumption about their terror tactics. I very seriously doubt that nothing of this sort has ever gone on, but I'm also not upset that it has. I'm upset that worse might be occuring that's not being taken seriously because of garbage like this.
Virtutis, I would like to respond to your post:
1)Where is the line in terms of lasting psychological damage that an integration tactic can cause to a detainee before you would consider it torture?
2)My final paragraph of my first post was neither hyperbole or in bad taste. While it is not a perfect analogy, it is about all I can think of that equals the level of lasting psychological damage in our own cultural context. I do not think that the rape of a woman and the interrogation of a non-Western Muslim detainee with sexually-overt female officers are morally analogous, but that they are similar in the type and degree of damage they do to the psyche of the respective victims.
3)I didn’t exactly understand your question, but I think the answer is no. The worst acts of the US (rape and slaughter of the Native Americans, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc.) are not “as bad” as the worst acts of, say, the USSR or Nazi Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. But this was my contention all along: two acts can be different in degree (killing 6 million+ Jews as opposed to torturing 200+ Muslims) and still be of the same kind (that is, both are cruel acts of torture and crimes against humanity). Simply because one form of torture is more morally objectionable than another form of torture doesn’t mean that both aren’t torture. So no, the United States is certainly not Nazi Germany of the USSR – not even close. And that is why I think Durbin is an assclown.
To qualify, however, I would say that the US, while probably the most ethically responsible nation in history, also has among the highest standards in history. Like I have said before, the moral outrage with which citizens should address injustices and cruelties is directly proportional to the ethical standards of that society. So, if this were 4th Century B.C. Babylon, we would probably not think twice about torture our enemies by any means necessary to gain information. But since we live in a free, just, and ethical society at the dawn of the 21st Century, our standards of treatment are much higher and our tolerance for cruelty is much lower. Once you start compromising basic American principles of human dignity – no matter the status of the individual in question - to the end of defending America, you have already conceded that there is nothing left to defend.
Virtutis:
"The US military has conducted a number of investigations into the abuse allegations and hasn't found any evidence of physical abuse, sexual threats or Koran desecration. The military rules of conduct in Gitmo are extremely strict and are rigerously enforced."
Sources?
Virtutis: I think that the disagreement comes from our sources of our standards of torture: you seem to think that it is a matter of public opinion, whereas I think it is a matter of historio-cultural ethics. But, for the sake of argument, what Americans think this is okay? Or, to ask it better, what Americans would think it is was okay if their son was treated this way by the government?
A lawsuit filed in US court in April 2005 alleges that the following occurred against him during a cell search:
"The guards secured his hands behind his back and, while he was so restrained, the guards picked him up and slammed his body and his head into the steel bunk in his cell. They then threw him on the floor and continued to pound his body and bang his head into the floor. The guards picked him up again and banged his head on the toilet in his cell. The guards picked him up again, stuffed Mr Ait Idir’s face in the toilet and repeatedly pressed the flush button. Mr Ait Idir was starting to suffocate, and he feared he would drown. The guards then carried Mr Ait Idir outside the cell and threw him on the ground. His hands still were manacled behind his back. They held him down and pushed a garden hose into his mouth. They opened the spigot. As the water rushed in, Mr Ait Idir began to choke. The water was coming out of his mouth and nose. He could not breathe, and he could not yell to stop or for help. The guards then took the hose out of his mouth and held it approximately 6 to 10 inches in front of his face. He was still being restrained. The water ran full force into his face; he could not breathe."
On another occasion, it is alleged that members of an Immediate Response Force (IRF) at Guantánamo assaulted him:
"While Mr Ait Idir sat on the floor as instructed, the officer sprayed chemical irritant directly into Mr Ait Idir’s face. Two or three guards immediately entered the cell while he was lying on the floor. One forced Mr Ait Idir’s body onto the steel floor of the cell and jumped on his back, using his knees to pound Mr Ait Idir’s body into the floor. The second guard did the same thing. While they had Mr Ait Idir pinned, the guards secured his hands behind his back. He was carried out and thrown onto the crushed stones that surround the cell building. While Mr Ait Idir was lying bound on the stones, an IRF member jumped onto the side of Mr Ait Idir’s head with his full body weight, causing extreme pain. Another IRF member climbed onto Mr Ait Idir’s back, and while on his back, the IRF members twisted his middle finger and thumb on his right hand almost to the point of breaking. Two of his knuckles were dislocated, and he screamed in pain. His middle finger has almost no strength now. He requested and was refused any medical treatment for the permanent injuries inflicted by the guards.
Upon information and belief, as a result of that beating, Mr Aid Idir suffered a stroke. Shortly after that incident, one half of his face became paralyzed. He was in pain. He could not eat normally; food and drink leaked from his non-functioning mouth. Guards teased him because of his condition. Despite visible impairment and his request to go to the hospital, he did not receive medical treatment for ten days."
Oleskey v. US Department of Defense and Department of Justice.as cited by Amnesty Internal http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005
Virtutis:
“Also as a side note, as a foreign combatant he has no right to a trail in federal courts. If this did in fact take place it should result in a military investigation and trail. There is a reason that we have the JAG.”
According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as ruled in Rasul v. Bush, you are totally wrong.
virtutis:
“The big problem I see with that also is that the behavior of the guards really seems like an embellished account of a rational response to violent resistance on the part of Mr Ait Idir. I am almost certain that the military version of events did not include him sitting on the floor like instructed.”
I think that you are making the very flawed assumption that guards were attempting to respond rationally. Secondly, the idea that the military account would be accurate is absurd. This trust for official military statements that you have is completely unfounded (I will point you to the blatant lies that the US military and White House have told in every war since and including WWII at least for PR purposes). What reason would you possibly have to trust the U.S. Military.
As for Amnesty, they are, other than the International Red Cross, the most consistent supporters of human rights world wide. Their reports are the best sourced accounts of human rights conditions around the world ever produced, including their most current report about the U.S. They are above reproach in their sourcing, accuracy, and consistency. You’re claim that you don’t trust them because they are “anti-American” is absurd. What that means is that your judgments about what is accurate or not is directly tied to whether or not that source blindly supports anything America does. That is ridiculous. You are faulting Amnesty because they have been unwavering in their ideological commitments in spite of the U.S. move away from principles. If America is behaving badly, then it is not anti-American to point that out. If it is, then being pro-American is being anti-Truth. I hope that patriotism doesn’t ever blind us that much.
Post a Comment
<< Home