The Torture Apologist's Fallacy

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post has a column called "Torture's Unanswerable Questions, Torture's Ugly Debate", in which he employs the self-Socratic method to subtly argue against prosecuting America's war criminals. He introduces us to the issue of torture and the debate around it as follows:

"Call him a terrorist or a suicide bomber or anything else you want, but understand that he is willing -- no, anxious -- to give his life for his cause. Call him also a captive, and know that he works with others as part of a team, like the Sept. 11 hijackers, all of whom died, willingly. Ishmael is someone I invented, but he is not a far-fetched creation. You and I know he exists, has existed and will exist again. He is the enemy."

Let's just call "Ishmael" a suspected criminal or convicted criminal, because that is what a suspected terrorist or a convicted terrorist is, regardless of their ethnic background or religious views. It is precisely this way of introducing the so-called unanswerable questions about torture that shows Cohen's true leanings.

"Ishmael" could easily be called Terry Nichols or Scott Roeder or any number of extremists, who work within a larger movement or alone and who are all ready to kill and even die for their cause. "Ishmael" is not someone who needs to be invented unless the person inventing him thinks that terrorists only come from one ethnic background.

Mr. Cohen then goes onto to demonstrate exactly why beltway journalists have so entirely polluted the torture issue:

"This business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter. It is further complicated by questions about its efficacy: Does it sometimes work? Does it never work? Is it always immoral? What about torture that saves lives? What if it saves many lives? What if one of those lives is your child's?"

You see, the "business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter." Yes, so very complicated, that until the Bush administration, the legal definition of torture was well understood and not so easily manipulated. What Cohen is claiming to be his own inner struggle with this very complicated issue is really his very subtle illustration of the choice he has already made.

Or as he puts it: "I am torn between my desire for absolute security and my abhorrence of torture. The one thing I know is that ideology does not provide an answer."

Before I delve into why Cohen's "I am torn" farce is just that, a farce, I would first like to offer him a word of advice for his own sanity. I urge Mr. Cohen to give up his quest for "absolute security." There is no such thing. There are countless ways by which the elements, criminals, fate, disease, and so forth can attack any one of us and at any time. Not until we are fully dead and buried are we ever truly safe and even then, only our rotting bodies can be afforded that luxury as we know not what lies after death for our souls.

Or as William Shakespeare so eloquently wrote in Julius Caesar:

"Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once."

And we are after all now seeing what the acts of cowards like Dick Cheney have produced, are we not?

The Assumptions

The torture apologists straw-man is entirely built around certain assumptions, the argument crafted to focus on questions of urgency and safety -- rather than questions at the very root at why we have the rule of law to begin with. So before one can ask if torture works, such as Cohen does in his inner battle for answers, they must first assume the following -- guilt, intention, and knowledge:

1. The assumption that the officer arresting someone is absolutely never wrong and always acting within the law -- police officers, FBI agents, CIA officers, prosecutors and everyone in between are never, ever wrong or ever corrupt. Moreover, considered from another perspective, someone arrested in connection with a crime -- even convicted of a crime -- is always guilty.

You must first assume guilt before you can even begin to ask if torture actually works. Otherwise if the police or FBI or CIA, etc., got it wrong -- as in Murat Kurnaz's case -- and arrested/detained someone based on flimsy evidence or worse, to deliver a suspect for political reasons, then we are guilty of torturing innocent people instead of saving Americana lives. The question of whether torture works or not becomes a moot point. Here is another example of an innocent person we tortured, Khalid El-Masri.

2. The assumption that a thought will always lead to an act. According to this assumption, wishing someone dead is the same thing as killing that person. Believing someone or something is evil is the same thing as destroying that evil through violent means. Hating what America stands for equals blowing America up. Believing abortions to be the work of the devil and evil, as Roeder did, equals committing murder and acts of terrorism.

You must first assume that the person who is being tortured is in custody for valid reasons based on real evidence before you can even begin to venture into asking if torture actually works or not. Otherwise, if we are torturing someone for simply having a particular belief, then we are entering into thought-crime territory that puts all of us in danger.

3. The assumption that a person who is a member of a group, be it ethnic, religious, political, etc., will know all the plans of that group. All Muslims living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., for example, were involved in or were aware of plans to attack the US. All members of the pro-life movement support violence in order to stop abortions, the way Roeder did.

You must first assume that the person being tortured absolutely has information to provide before you can debate the issue of whether torture works or not. Because if the person being tortured actually knows nothing, then we are at best going to waste our time chasing dead ends and at worst, torturing an innocent person.

4. The assumption that a person in custody -- be it in a domestic prison or in a military facility outside of US borders -- is a monster and is therefore not worthy of human rights protections. But then again, what term would you use to describe someone who tortures innocents? Monster.

One has to assume all of these things first before they can even begin to ask if torture works or not. Because if a person in US custody is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then it does not matter whether or not torture works, does it? We don't torture innocent people, right?

The Answers

So for people like Cohen -- who claims to struggle between saving American lives vs. torture, it seems they have already assumed that the only people being tortured are absolutely guilty; found so on substantial and tangible evidence; and brought to justice not for their beliefs, religious or ethnic background; but done so because of an investigation conducted legally by officers and agents who are not remotely corrupt; and absolutely know when and where American lives will next be lost.

Mr. Cohen, that is no struggle you are having - not when so much assumption is first required on side of the argument in order to give it equal weight with the other side of the argument.

The one thing Mr. Cohen is right about is that " ideology does not provide an answer." That is true. What does, however, provide an answer is the rule of law and the history of such abuses on which the Geneva Conventions and other human rights laws are based.

The answers are already there for us. Torture is illegal, immoral and to be prosecuted. No guess work is needed. No theories are needed or venturing into some hypothetical like "your child's life" is in danger. The Geneva Conventions and other conventions and covenants against torture -- which we are a signatory onto -- already give us the very answers that Mr. Cohen claims to be struggling to find.

Cowards -- like Dick Cheney -- have led us here and other cowards -- like Richard Cohen -- now protect them, while the rest of us watch and wonder how much longer before we are finally reduced to a nation populated entirely with cowards.

Follow Larisa Alexandrovna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larisa_a

Comments

[AlexHidell]

Eric Holder has named John Durham special prosecutor on the CIA torture - interrogation abuse matters. He could investigate, but I doubt it, as he is limited to ten cases according to Jason Leopold's article (link below)

Already Wendy Hilton of the CIA's legal division is stonewalling the delivery of any documents related to torture in a 33 page statement to the press today (Sept. 2, 2009) :

CIA Will Continue to Withhold Key Bush-Era Torture Documents
by Jason Leopold
http://www.truthout.org/category/tags/wendy-hilton

And then there are cases in the past where limiting exposure of documents and testimony damage any real search for truth.

"Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Washington D.C. Circuit Court declined to review the government’s assertions that the allegations of torture from men held in the CIA’s black site prisons — whether truthful or not — would put the nation at risk of grave danger if allowed to be made public."

CIA Can Hide Torture Allegations, Court Rules
Oct. 29, 2008
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/cia-can-hide-to/

Dosadi, the CIA is stonewalling and sandbagging and redacting any and all pertinent informaton. They don't want their illegal policy and practices exposed, even if the rest of the world is fully aware and informed, just as long as US citizens are kept in the dark.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

HuffPost's Pick

From the U.N. Convention on Torture:

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

[Mojoe7]

The presumption that these terrorists have rights is not obligatory. The day that these terrorists planned and executed the 911 attacks they abdicated their human rights. Talk to some of the families who lost loved ones in the attacks on that day and ask them how they feel about the rights of those that committed these acts. I agree that these individuals should not have been "tortured". They should have simply been shot and the issue of torture would be a moot point.

[MajorKong]

Do they at least get a mock trial before the summary execution?

Heck, the Communist Chinese at least give you that much.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

You make the VERY INVALID implied argument that ONLY individuals involved with 9/11 were tortured.

In the words of Congressman Frank, "On what planet have you been spending most of your time?"

[slowtono]

These are not prisoners with RIGHTs. The rights is this I either take you captive or shoot you. Through the eons of war the choice has been shoot you. Thus in future wars take no prisoners may well be the great debate before you. Just shoot them, it's war!

[MajorKong]

I have no problem if you want to classify them as prisoners of war. We have very well defined rules for treating prisoners of war.

The problem is this vague, undefined concept of "enemy combatent" which is neither a POW nor a criminal.

"It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." - Senator John McCain

[NoFactsJustTruth]

The 'enhanced interrogations' are actually another 'myth', Larisa.
EVERY time that label's been applied, we can believe it was actually some kind of TORTURE.

Hard core republican'ts and neoCONS hide behind misinterpretations of the Constitution continuously, but where were ANY of their protests when the MCA was trying to destroy habeas corpus? That they LIE about it and then just throw the Rule of Law out the window when it suits their convenience, reveals the anti-social hypocrisy no doubt stemming from their flat-out denial of any 'objectionable' FACTS. Nothing's too obtuse for party and faith...

Great piece, Larisa, it's just starting to get proper discussion and still needs FAR more concrete investigations.

[MajorKong]

In 1978 former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro was kidnapped by Red Brigades terrorists.

Italian security forces wanted to torture a suspect they thought might have information.

General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa replied:

"Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture".

[Brine52]

Foreigners, battlefield combatants, prisoners of war and terrorists do not enjoy the presumption right. Please note that the event of 9/11 was not a criminal or police matter, but an act of war.

[MajorKong]

Was Oklahoma City an act of war?

What nation-state committed an act of war against us on 9/11?

We WANT 9/11 to be an act of war because we're a lot better at war than we are at anti-terrorism.

[kbella]

We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding American soldiers during World War II. If it was illegal then, what makes it any different now?

[marika]

A pity that George Washington is not still around to reply that that argument.

[CellarDoor]

Acts of war are attributed to Nations. Which nation attacked us on 9/11? Did McVay commit an act of war with the Oklahoma bombing? What nation did he represent?

9/11 was a *crime* not an act of war. Terrorism is a strategy, not a people. A "terrorist" is a person who uses criminal *acts* of terrorism to accomplish their goals. The reason is because they do not have a "disclosed" nation to provide them with munitions and equipment and numbers for a conventional army. It has it's origins in 'guerrilla combat tactics' but evolved into being political acts with extreme forms of violence. AFAIK, in the history of "Terrorism", there has never been a nation charged with committing the act as, by definition, it would be an act of war if a nation perpetrated it against another nation.

And you couldn't be more wrong..the Geneva Conventions were established to grant any and all "Foreigners, battlefield combatants, prisoners of war" those exact rights and only recently have certain people twisted the notion of "terrorists" into something not worthy of any investigation of actual guilt versus the presumption of innocence.

Indeed, you contradict yourself by saying that 9/11 was an act of war and yet we can ignore the GC because we weren't attacked by the implied "conventional" army in this "act of war".

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Of which "presumption right" do you specifically refer?

ANY prisoners of war are covered under the Geneva Convention, being ratified as it is, as U.S. Constitutional Law. That the guys in charge ignored the Law - DOES NOT make torture legal.

By Ed Brayton:
"Reagan fought for the passage of the U.N. Convention on Torture and made the U.S. a signatory to it in 1984. And not only did he push for each country to prosecute anyone in their leadership that engages in torture, he specifically called for the use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute leaders in other countries who do so."

[marika]

An absolutely magnificient article, clear precise and defending our humanity, our laws and our sanity.
This desire for "absolute security" is like a negation of death and those who yearn for it are as afraid to live as to die.

[sognimils]

I completely agree with what you've said here. However, you're making the same mistake reasonable people often make: you argue as though you might be discussing this issue with other reasonable people. Unfortunately, you're not. The pro-torture apologists are febrile fear-biters whose limbic systems feed xenophobia and hatred, but starve empathy and compassion -- never mind what might be going on in the potentially cognitive parts of their brains. Making a reasonable case against torture in the hope of disabusing folks who endorse it is tantamount to using reason to persuade a compulsive gambler to walk away from the roulette table. But then, what is the answer? Thank you for trying.

[chriss0114]

the constitution says treaties shall be the supreme law of the land

[FogBelter]

Larisa, as I recall there is a scene in Richard Lester's version of "The Three Musketeers" where M. Bonanceiux is brought by Roshefort to the Bastille for questioning. As Bonanceiux is manacled and hoisted up he shrieks "I'm innocent, I've done nothing!" to which a guard responds:

"You're here, so you must have done something."

That is where we are with this torture issue and the matter of guilt or innocence. Those to be tortured are in custody, so in terms of the interrogators they must have done something. Being a detainee equals guilt to individuals like Cheney or Cohen, but Lawerence Wilkerson dispels that fallacy:

"Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators". "

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/

The truth is innocent people have been swept up, branded terrorists, and sent to interrogation centers to be tortured, This is a breach of both the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions and a crime that must be prosecuted.

[anachoret]

How did we get to a point in America, where this is even being entertained?

Oh, yeah...
We were kept from the information and lied to by the administration, while we were reassured by our watch-dog that America does not torture.

The checks and balances were broken, the watch dog wasn't fit to fetch the paper, much less produce one.

And now, while this administration plays keep away with the information, we are supposed to argue, with a straight face, about whether torture is good or bad on the information that the same watch dog privides for us? And pretend that the publics opinions are actually considered important?
They want the answers they want, whether it's from the public or "Ishmael."
Apparently, "We can't handle the truth." But if we can be made to feel like accomplices, we might not vote for an investigaton.

[AlexHidell]

The 13 reasons I mentioned above on why torture doesn't work are listed here:

Why Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Failed
http://thinkprogress.org/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed/

[ezthere]

There is a huge HUGE difference from an accused , charged citizen of the US , and a captured alleged foreign national who has been detained as a threat to the security of the country

[Dosadi]

Like what? Neither have been found to have committed any crime. In the US a person who is accused and charged was apprehended by officers who had some sort of probable cause (this is important so remember it) but a person who is a captured foreign national is in another category for as we have found that most of the foreign nationals we have in detention were sold to us. They were given over to us for a price. It does not take a genius to realize that we may have a lot of innocent people in our custody. This being said we are obligated to do more dilligence in dealing with these foreign nationals than with a person arrested by the police. We Americans have been tricked into assuming that all of the people we are detaining are bad people. It is impossible for this claim to be true. It can't happen and we know it so why are we constantly calling for the heads of all those detained. We don't know if they are guilty of anything and a confession coerced through torture is worse than no confession at all.

[Lori Bowles]

You are right on that point, but their are laws in place to protect captured prisoners rights.

[marika]

Justice Jackson did not think so when he presided over the Nuremberg trials, but he put law in the name of humanity above all else. Read his closing statement. It is a monument that lays out principales that were buried by the Bush/Cheney administration.

[KallistiMan]

Yes there is a difference.
1. Any accused US citizen or individual on American soil is protected by the constitution and would be handled by law enforcement officers following strict laws/regulations - banning torture.

2. Other individuals in US custody would be under the protection of any treaty signed and ratified by the US. According to the constitution these treaties are the supreme laws of the land. These individuals would be handled by military personnel following the strict laws/regulations of the military, including the UCMJ, banning torture.

This was known to all jurists with experience in international law, including the administrations. Cue Mr. Yoo to invent a legal cover.
1. Put any detainee outside of the reach of the constitution (they swore to uphold) by rendition, Gitmo etc. The legality of that is still in question.
2. Claim that the detainees fall through the cracks in signed and ratified treaties, when no such cracks exist, and invent a new category not in the treaties called Enemy Combatant. This opens up for international war crimes prosecution.
3. Put the detainees under civilian instead of military control, which avoids the constrains of military law/regulations, which prohibits torture.

When you claim there are no laws/regulations you get to invent them yourself! And you decide whats authorized and not. But as people objected when you authorize what in all other laws/regulations is torture, invent a new term Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. They could as easily called it Enhanced Vacation Techniques.

[tundramonkey]

Jose Padilla, among others, were American citizens subjected to torture and treatment under the "unlawful combatant" category.

[DonRoberto]

Interesting --- Cohen says "Ideology does not provide an answer."

Yet ideology seems to have been enough for those who reintroduced torture to American intelligence. As we have heard time and again, there are better, more effective ways of obtaining actionable intelligence than thru torture. The decision makers who chose this course had access to this same information, yet they still chose torture.

As someone once observed in another post: Why waterboard a prisoner 183 times in a single month if he is giving you good intelligence? And if he is *not* giving you good intelligence, why continue to waterboard someone is it is *not* working?

The answer is, because you like it. There can be no other reason for it --- someone in the Executive Branch liked the idea.

[Dosadi]

Typical behavior for wanna-be's. These people were never tough but now have power and want to exert it. Pitiful is what they are. Pitiful.