AFF's Doublethink

Kevin B. O'Reilly — April 16, 2009 at 8:50 pm

So glad the libertarian/conservative alliance is broad enough to allow for reasonable disagreement on whether it’s OK to torture people.

So, yeah, you’re deleted from my Google Reader. Jackasses.

Sonny Bunch — April 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Look, Kevin, I think actual torture is a bad thing (note my closing paragraph). But I think the regime drawn up in those memos falls well short of actual torture. Seriously: the worst thing people are pointing to in the memos is that they approve telling a terrorist that a caterpillar is a Black Widow. Note: the memos don’t say putting a Black Widow in a box is okay. If you can’t see the difference between the two, I’m not sure what to say…

Will — April 17, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Leaving aside the issue of whether the techniques listed in the memos constitute torture (I’ll grant that some of the methods – face slapping, for example – don’t seem all that objectionable), this crude utilitarian logic of “saving ten people justifies doing whatever the hell we want to one” scares me to death. I suspect that if you applied similar logic to other contexts – criminal interrogation, for example – most people would be rightly horrified.

Sonny Bunch — April 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm

I agree, cold utilitarianism can be frightening. But I think one of the interesting things about these memos is that they explicitly DO NOT condone doing whatever the hell we want to. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Bagram — the beatings, the deaths, the broken bones, the dog collars — none of that is allowed by these memos. What happened at those sites were criminal acts and have been punished as such. That was not the interrogation regime constructed in the Bybee memo.

I’m trying to order my thoughts for a longer post, but there are a couple of things in tension, I think. The first is whether or not what is outlined in those memos constitutes “torture.” The second is whether or not Geneva applies to “enemy combatants” (or whatever the preferred phrase is now). And the third is whether what actually happened in the real world bears enough of a resemblance to what was outlined in the memos to draw any conclusions on culpability at the highest levels. The third point is the most important to keep in mind while listening to the usual suspects rage about “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” and the rest. (There’s a side issue about why these techniques were deemed necessary in the first place and the unique nature of the threat posed by al Qaeda and its training at counterinterrogation techniques, something Heather Mac Donald outlined in The City Journal three or four years back, but I’m not sure quite where it fits in. Hence this comment instead of a full-on post.)

Mikeybackwards — April 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Sonny,

I would like to refer you to this critique of your position posted by Andrew Sullivan (note: this is by a reader of his, not his own reasoning).

From a utilitarian perspective, I think the entire regimen of torture, enhanced interrogation techniques, or harsh questioning (chose the euphemism of your choice) is a non-starter. We have not been given anything to support the contention by those who authorized (and thus have a motive to lie in order to justify their authorization of this regimen) that this has resulted in any meaningful intelligence or helped to keep us safer (while there have been multiple articles citing former Bush officials that the opposite is actually true). Now we have people from the conservatives who what to pooh-pooh this as nothing more than serious frat-style hazing that is supposedly reducing hardened murderers and committed terrorists to tears?

If this is so innocuous, it is not going to be effective. And if it is so innocuous, why did we try and convict others? If it were so innocent and harmless why have so many detainees died in American Custody?

You can’t have it both ways – it can’t simultaneously be something innocent and harmless and yet something that will force someone intent on masterminding the murder of thousands to break within minutes. You are arguing a contradictory position that smacks of apologia and denial of reality.

It is time for the ‘right’ to wake up to the fact that they are trying to rationalize the United States becoming the barbarous monsters what we say our enemies are.

Mikeybackwards — April 18, 2009 at 1:53 pm

huh, for some reason the link did not post correctly. The critique I referred to is found at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-wages-of-torture.html

Sonny Bunch — April 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Looking at these interrogations solely through the lens of efficacy, Mukasey and Hayden point to intelligence gained in the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html

And Heather Mac Donald explained why things like face slapping and yelling was necessary to break through the facade of smug safety the hardcases were able to maintain due to the knowledge that Americans wouldn’t push boundaries:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html

When you ask “If it were so innocent and harmless why have so many detainees died in American Custody” you’re conflating two issues that shouldn’t be: the memos as drawn up and misbehavior that arose from not following said memos. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Abu Ghraib was a crime. But this needs to be repeated as well: What happened at Abu Ghraib wasn’t what was discussed in those memos. Nothing in the Bybee memos would lead to a prisoner dying.

Will — April 18, 2009 at 6:27 pm

OK, I was going to keep my powder dry until a subsequent post, but doesn’t this statement:

“. . . you’re conflating two issues that shouldn’t be: the memos as drawn up and misbehavior that arose from not following said memos.”

suggest some sort of causal relationship? 100 detainee deaths is a pretty high number . . .

Sonny Bunch — April 18, 2009 at 7:14 pm

One of the things I don’t know — and I’m not saying this rhetorically, I actually don’t know — is how many of those deaths were a result of interrogations and how many simply happened while they were in American custody. Leaving that aside, what I’d say is this: go back and read that Bybee memo and show me a single thing that would cause death if performed as specified in the memo.

Now, perhaps it’s possible that the new interrogation guidelines created an atmosphere where things were more likely to get out of control (indeed, it seems more than “possible” at this point). But the guidelines themselves — the regime drawn up by the administration as outlined in the Bybee memo — are relatively innocuous, and certainly not replete with murderous intent.

Rick Beagle — April 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Sonny,

I have read your comments quite thoroughly, and it crosses my mind that you have avoided one simple question. To whit, if these actions were honorable, and did not violate international and domestic laws, why hide them?

While I agree that these memo do not unto themselves provide a smoking gun, they do refute comments from the Bush Administration on this issue and suggests -quite clearly- that these were but a tip of a very large iceberg.

In support of my claim, please consider that we already know the outcome of these “torture memos” from Abu Ghraib and Bagram pictures. Since these abuses have already been submitted into evidence, we can plainly see that there is a gap of information between these documents and the results that occurred. Meaning that our disgust is going to grow, and our honor is going to be further stained before this matter is concluded.

Peace.
Rick Beable

Sonny Bunch — April 19, 2009 at 11:58 am

Rick: I don’t have any real problem with the memos being released, to be honest with you. There’s nothing new in them, nothing we didn’t know already. I don’t think there’s a gap in the information so much as a gap in the implementation…poor training in the techniques or the implementation of reasonable guidlines by some bad apples could easily explain the discrepancy between what was approved of and what happened.

I mean, look: My Lai happened and was a clear contravention of standard rules of engagement. But just because My Lai happened, we don’t say the military’s rules of engagement themselves are war crimes, do we? Of course not. Abu Ghraib and Bagram fall under that same category: an aberration, not the rule.

Tel — April 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm

You know, way back in Sunday School, they taught us that the Deadly Sins aren’t particular actions, they’re attitudes.

I think that goes for torture just as well. We could spend years splitting hairs about just how many knocks to the head constitutes sufficient trauma, or just how terrified a person has to be before the psychological damage amounts to suffering. I think the larger problem here is that people were trying to find ways to be *just* cruel enough that their actions wouldn’t be illegal.