Define "Torture" Before You Condemn It

Torture is a powerful word. Take care when you bandy it about.

If as the New York Times reports, a 2005 Justice Department memo actually endorses "waterboarding" as an interrogation technique, then the memo deserves condemnation on that ground alone. But the other reported conclusions in the memo are not so clear cut -- and the conventional wisdom that the memo endorses "torture" is hyperbole.

Whether we like it or not, the memo is an attempt to do what the Administration has to do: define what interrogation techniques are permissible under the law. And yet, reflecting the knee-jerk reaction to the memo, Rory Kennedy lambastes the Bush administration's definition of torture as "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" that results in significant harm of significant duration, lasting "months or even years."

According to Kennedy, that definition is "unrecognized anywhere else." Actually that definition comes from the Torture Act, which is the US law that codifies our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. The Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton, specifically requires suffering that is "prolonged."

To have credibility, Democrats need to confront the unpleasant specifics of the debate. Like many legal standards (consider the ubiquitous "reasonable" in the law) the concept of "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is not specific enough for interrogators in the field. When the next President takes office, s/he will have to define "torture" and, by default, anything short of torture is going to be permissible. The result will inevitably be that some very harsh interrogation techniques are allowed. This might help explain why Hilary Clinton has carefully refused to rule out specific interrogation techniques -- for which Andrew Sullivan has taken her to task.

So did the Administration get anything right? As noted, the idea that "waterboarding" falls outside the Torture Act is clearly wrong, as Sullivan points out. But the other techniques allegedly endorsed -- head-slapping, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and stress positions -- what about those? To issue a blanket condemnation of such techniques as "torture" dangerously waters down the power of the word. In reality, such judgments have to be made on a case by case determination, depending on the severity, the duration, and whether multiple techniques are used in combination. These aren't pleasant topics, but the Administration's memo should be an invitation to debate, not an excuse to avoid debate altogether.

Comments

[PartyoftheFirstPart]

To those who criticize the Administration for acting outside the law, I agree. But if you want a rule of law rather than men, you have to try to figure out what the law is.

To those who say the Geneva Convention is clear, it isn't. There are many sections of the various conventions that prohibit torture; but nothing that gives a specific definition.

The most specific definition of torture is the one in the Convention on Torture, the very definition that was signed into law by Bill Clinton. "Severe physical or mental pain or suffering.­"

Intimidation is a common method of interrogation (even when questioning your teenage soon about smoking). When does intimidation become torture?

People with intellectual honesty will recognize that there are gray areas when you have a prisoner in a combat theater who might be possessed of life-saving information. But for the rest of us, let's keep the ad hominem attacks going!

[Canukistani]

Ok, I'm willing to take a cut at this within your parameters. I'd suggest as a starting point that if the deeds you do in order to intimidate, since you seem to accept this as a term that doesn't need definition, are things that you would be ashamed to admit then you've crossed the line.

If you will not stand up to public questioning and say that you do these kinds of things, you know you've done something you can't defend and there's no need to pretend otherwise. Defining torture to suit your current needs and then saying you don't do it is not the kind of action that indicates honorable conduct whether it's literally within the law or not.

[Canukistani]

Further, if you want to expand this, you can use the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as I suggested earlier. Clearly if you degrade someone or treat them inhumanely, surely you know what that is, you are also offending, although again, you might not be technically breaking any law. Does that mean that you should be considered moral because you haven't been convicted of breaking a law? I don't think so. This is also, I believe, not an example you want to hold up for the world to follow.

[whistlingfish]

How's this for an acceptable definition? We agree to use whatever methods against our enemies that we will allow them to use against any of our troops they capture in the field. So, for example, if we agree it's okay to waterboard Americans taken captive, then it's a method we can use. Otherwise, it's off-limits.

[PepperzMom]

Better yet...have the lawyer's spouse, son(s) and daughter(s) be subjected to it. If the lawyer says "no way that hurts", gee, I wonder why he'd/she'd say that.

Could it be...but, but, but?

[Malarcus]

On the point above, here's an immature addition to the conversation:

How about any person or lawyer who declares a certain "technique" is not torture be required to have the "technique" tested on them in similar conditions as such "techniques" are typically used? Then we would finally have some experts who can be fully relied upon to give us guidance on what demeaning, humiliating and life-threatening "techniques" are acceptable to be used and which are not.

[seawolf77]

I feel like I am in 1930's Germany watching these guys destroy everything American in the name of defending us. The fact is you will never be able to prevent it anyway so why should I worry about it or give anything up for it. Fact is I want my old America back even if I have to live in "DANGER". Watch it the boogeyman is coming. Fact is when they say it's OK to torture others i.e. your enemy what they are really saying is it's OK to torture YOU.

[NCGigi]

Waterboarding can cause brain damage by the repeated deprivation of oxygen. It only takes moments for brain cells to begin dying for lack of oxygen.

Head slapping can cause brain damage and damage to the neck vertebrae, and break the jaw. Not to mention that with the hand properly cupped one may rupture the another's ear drum.

These are indeed assaults, and in another context, on the street for instance, would be punishable at law. Frankly, the Geneva Convention is quite clear.

If the purpose of torture is to gather reliable information, then the best argument against torture is that lacks utility. As a means to gather reliable information it is ineffective. One gets a confession, however it is unreliable. A tortured person will eventually say anything to make the pain stop.

If the purpose of torture is to punish someone, anyone, for bad acts, then perhaps it does work in that its use creates some sort of societal catharsis. However, this use is not sufficient to overcome moral and legal objections.

If the purpose of torture is to get one's jollies then it definately works, and like nothing else. This surely is not why the United States of America is participating in, and inducing other nations to torture. Is it?

The question before us is to what use shall the United States of America put torture? There is no defensible use of torture. It is inutile. That is, it is ineffective for its stated purpose: reliable information. Therefore there is no justification for its use. None.

[tlcutter]

If beating someone within an inch of life will save the lives of innocent people, do it more often.

[whistlingfish]

Shall we begin with those risking innocent Iraqi lives, or is it only innocent Americans you are interested in saving?

[WorkingClass]

This is bullshit. People who torture other people should be removed from society. Start by eliminating torture in US jails and prisons.

[PartyoftheFirstPart]

Hello, Adam Freedman here. Glad to have given folks a chance to vent frustration at the Bush Administration. Now, does anyone want to engage on the issue?

So far, only Romeover has offered a standard - that no interrogation of any enemy combatant or terror suspect can *ever* be harsher than the way you would question your teenage son about smoking? Does everyone agree with that?

There's no question that Bush has botched the occupation and the treatment of prisoners. But again: Democrats need to have a coherent position. When Democrats take the White House, *they* will have to define torture.

I doubt whether everyone will agree with Romeover's standard.

Contrary to mgloraine and locanicole, the Geneva Convention does not define "torture," it simply prohibits it without giving a coherent definition. Not even the Convention on Torture, nor Webster's Dictionary, gives us any specifics on what constitutes torture -- they use weasel words that leave the messy details to others. Does anybody think that "severe mental pain" is a self-evident standard? To some, *any* questioning whatsoever is enough to provoke severe mental pain.

Yes, we all agree that torture is wrong, and in most cases it's pretty clear what consititutes torture. But there are gray areas. Giving military and law enforcement people specific guidance is the responsible thing to do. If Justice's 2005 memo is wrong, fine; what I'm asking is: what's the alternative standard?

[Canukistani]

I would suggest that if you're trying to restrict this discussion by saying that torture has not been clearly defined by the Geneva Conventions you are being somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps that is true in the strictest sense, however the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does say in Article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment­."

While I would have to agree that none of these terms are defined precisely enough that no hairs may be split, do we really need to take this to the level of defining what 'is' is before we reach an understanding of the spirit of these agreements? If so there seems to be little point in even having this conversation.

[WorkingClass]

Sorry First Part. We aint playing that shit. We know what torture is and so does the CIA and so do you. The directive is, torture is illegal. If you torture people you go to prison. Before you go to prison you go before a judge and or a jury. The jury does not need a committee to write a hundred pages parsing the word. They know what torture is and they are in the position to judge. This bullshit has gone far enough. When a policeman ties your hands and stabs you twelve times with a taser - that's torture. When a policeman proceeds to sodomize you with a screwdriver - that's torture. Or does it depend on the length of the screwdriver?

[whistlingfish]

I think your insisting that coercive measures must be taken to extract information from subjects is faulty from the outset. Then to suggest that *any* questioning constitutes "severe mental pain" is ludicrous. Insisting that we define the harshest interrogation methods we will allow before we call it torture misses the point. How do you answer those who say torture simply doesn't work? Or those from World War II who insisted they learned more over games of chess and ping pong than in the torture chamber? If those men are right, then of course I agree with Romeover's standard, because harsh interrogation methods won't work.

At least if we adopt Romeover's methods, we can measure others against our benchmarks. We can stand before the rest of humanity and say, "Look, we really *are* different than the Saddam Husseins and the Than Shwes of the world." We might even regain the moral right to insist that they adhere to a higher standard.

[Prolix247]

Party,
As a veteran I totally disagree with your understanding of torture and when and if it should be applied or how it should be defined. By using semantics as a stalking horse this administration has condoned ignoring Geneva. As a Vet I say torture should never occur. By asking to define torture I would say I know it when I see it. It means you are not allowed to harm. It means you are not allowed to starve, It means you are not allowed to deprive.

I will also state that when I was in the Service 86'-91' (Beirut / Gulf 1) we were all well aware of what the Geneva Convention declared as to the treatment of prisoners and what was legal. It stated it on the back of our ID Cards. Those laws were our protection whether real or imagined that WE would be treated with dignity and not subjected to torture. Now all bets are off.

It does not matter that the US created a law outside of the Geneva Convention attempting to obfuscate the meaning of torture. Geneva is the overriding document that is supported by all signatory Nations which the US is one of. All the techniques being used have already been adjudicated by The Hague and all those who used these techniques were found guilty.

I find it totally disingenuous that due to the religious and racial implications of the inhabitants of this natural resource grab that we call Iraq and the War on Terror that we now state that these acts are not torture. I also find it appalling that we are using the same techniques used on the Palestinians. In my opinion that is what it is coming down to. We are mimicking the Israeli’s on how to treat a human of Arabic descent.

The World Court will have the last say on this matter not US Law.

[mgloraine]

You missed my point, which was that regardless of your definition of "torture", the techniques being employed by US interrogators are clearly examples of physical and/or mental coercion, which are plainly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. It doesn't matter whether head-slapping or water-boarding (for example) are considered "torture" in some newly concocted definition of the word, the fact is that they are coercive physical abuses which are against the law.

Contention that the term "torture" is unclear or in need of additional qualification is a tactic to distract attention from the obvious, brutal violation of human rights espoused by this administration.

[gulopartisan]

If officials of the Bush administration were raping 12-year-old children, should we run nattering off to look up the definition of "children"? Apparently.

[kilnwmn]

This administration (regime?), for having an executive who can't even pronounce simple English words, has played more with semantics than any other administra­tion...

If you have to "define" torture, you're already past being civilized and participating in actions beyond humanity..­.

[realpolitic]

Hillary Clinton has said she would follow the Geneva Conventions. She also said there should not be a presidential exception to allow torture in particular cases. The operative word in that sentence is "not." This is a more honest approach to the question of interrogation techniques than Bush's legalisms and evasion.

[bookish]

"Head slapping"? Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

[BadChristian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
*****

Do chess and ping-pong qualify as torture?

[loslobo]

What is the wrong with this country when you have an administration that destroyed the basic principles and all you can argue about is semantics? This administration lies, a lot; they can't come out and say what they are actually doing. Waterboarding and organ failure is compared to sleep depravation and constantly playing Metalica on 10. Anybody remember John Yoo?

“John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat. “

http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html

Maybe you and Billo should split hairs somewhere together.

[ResidentChimp]

Amazingly, an almost cogent discussion. Aside from the fact that waterboarding isn't torture and Andrew Sullivan's opinion is totally worthless, Mr Freedman is correct, we should define torture before we condemn it. But Mr Freedman fails to take into account is the agenda of those like Andrew sullivan. Basically they want to undercut America's position in the World and therefore condemn us without regards to the facts.

[brantl]

Waterboarding is torture, since people are fearful of drowning and even more have drowned from it. Resident chimp is a good name for you, although I expect chimps are more humane than you.