In the recent discussion about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, a few people contributed the classic aphorism that “the ends never justify the means” and “torture is always wrong.” That happens to be something I’ve given a great deal of thought to, and I’d like to take that opportunity to discuss that at length.
As a moral principle, the idea that lofty, noble, good goals can never rationalize unethical behavior to achieve them is generally a good one. “The greater good” has been used by the most despicable people to justify their misdeeds. But is it an absolute rule? I think not.
There are times when the good to be achieved must be weighed against the wrong done in achieving it, and a very careful balance must be struck. And here are a few examples.
Alan Dershowitz, noted liberal law professor, puts forth the idea of allowing “torture warrants” when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in captivity has information about an imminent, clear and present danger to innocents and is refusing to cooperate. His example is of a kidnaper who has buried a child with only a few hours worth of air, and says any means necessary should be used to get the information needed to save the child should be used — up to and including torture.
I would add a second example: police arrest members of a terrorist cell planning a bombing, but the actual suicide bomber and bomb have already left for their mission. The terrorists know when and where the bomber will strike, but refuse to tell more, except that “it’ll all be over in three hours.”
In those cases, abiding by the “ends don’t justify the means” argument, innocents will die — but at least the authorities will have clean hands and clean consciences.
Taken to the extreme, I’m reminded of something I think I saw on the old “Batman” TV series. Batman and Robin were chasing a crook, but had to let him get away when he ran across the street. Batman insisted that he and the Boy Wonder proceed to the nearest corner and wait for the “Cross” signal instead of following the jaywalking bad guy.
To me, this smacks of unbridled egotism. Those who say “the ends never justify the means” are saying that they prize the sanctity of their own consciences above all else, including the lives of innocents. “We’re sorry, Mrs. Jones, about your little girl. But at least her death goes to show what fine, upstanding, moral people we police are. I hope that’s some consolation.”
I’m not calling for casting off all the restraints of morality and civilization. I’m not saying that any and all things are permissible “for the greater good” or “to protect the innocent” or “for the children.” But what I am trying to say is that there are times when dearly-held moral scruples must be weighed against the price that honoring them will cost.
And, even more importantly, who will pay that price.
Argh. The first half of that comment got cut off.
Essentially, you’re disonhest Jay Tea and you know it. I have never argued for the closing of GITMO only for the US to start acting like the rule of law is in effect there. Determining someone’s status under the Geneva conventions is not the end of due process for these prisoners. You know that I have posted all over this blog specific passages from the Geneve Conventions that grant the basic protections of due process and humane treatment to anyone in the custody of an occupying power no matter whether they are a sabateur, spy or mercenary or whatever else they might have been fucking doing. You have never once deigned to respond to any of these arguments. Instead you keep posting more excuses for why we should be allowed to torture people.
You are being dishonest to suggest that I haven’t offered specific citations of charters and treaties to which the US is a signatory and which we now appear to be in violation because of our invasion of Iraq and treatment of prisoners.
You are being deliberately obtuse to suggest that following the Geneva Conventions is not a usable idea, as if the time to apply it has come and gone so oh well we can’t go back and undue that. No crying over spilt milk. Who the fuck is suggesting we go back in time? I’m arguing we need to once again start behaving like a country that believes in the rule of law NOW. But no, when I say that I’m being anti-American and uncreative and overly critical. Listen, I’m arguing for the rule of law and you;re arguing for toture. I wish you;d just come out and admit that that’s where we stand. Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?
Here’s a suggestion for you Jay Tea.
Let’s just agree to agree that you support torture and I don’t. Once we’ve got that established we can begin to discuss whcih position is more effective in fighting the war on terror. You say torture will save lives. How do you know that? Can you point to facts and statistics? Cuz I can point to the American judicial system as a pretty system that manages to put people in jail and stop crimes without recourse to torture. You want to go up against that track record with your own facts about the use value of torture?
No, frame, it’s not “Bush’s war.” It’s OUR war. It’s the nation’s war. And one more time I’ll ask you: what SHOULD we do? What is YOUR solution for getting out of this situation? Or are you content to just pull a Pilate and wash your hands of all responsibility? “Oh, it’s terrible, it’s horrible, it’s just awful, I just can’t bring myself to do anything about it but point fingers and hold myself above it all.”
You say I can’t say why these detainees are not covered by the law. You’re asking me to prove a negative. I challenge YOU to cite the law that covers them — every law I’ve found so far specifically excludes them on the basis of their own conduct.
We are fighting a war that would be utterly incomprehensible to the crafters of the Geneva accords. They never crafted policies that apply, because it literally never occurred to them that it would ever be needed. To them, it would have been like passing laws outlawing the drowning of fish.
You keep tossing around the term “illegal,” yet never come up with the specific laws violated. Nor do you ever suggest new laws to deal with these unprecedented circumstances.
Come on, get specific. Do you want them given criminal trials? On what charges? Where’s the court’s jurisdiction? Our laws do NOT apply to foreigners in foreign lands — that’s what the term “sovereignty” means.
These are NOT criminals, these are NOT enemy soldiers, these are NOT mercenaries in the traditional term. They are unaligned, un-uniformed free-lance combatants who follow absolutely no recognized rules of warfare or civilization. There is literally no law, no treaty that covers their behavior.
J.
I have a counterproposal, frame: why don’t we just agree that you see everything in crystal-clear black and white, and you want to make sure that everything done is done by your impeccably-high moral standards, regardless of the consequences and how many innocent people suffer and die just so you can brag about how clean your hands are — because we both know that you won’t be the one to pay that price. That you are so obsessed with your purity that you don’t give a damn about anything — or anyone — else.
But I have to wonder — why do you care so much about this? By your own words, this isn’t your war, it’s Bush’s. You’ve already washed your hands, so why don’t you just walk away from it? You wouldn’t want to sully yourself with actually DEALING with it, after all.
Go back your your little fairyland, where all the streets are paved with gold and the rivers are chocolate and nobody ever even stubs their toe because they’re all so good and peaceful and loving and stuffed with the milk of human kindness and all things wonderful. The rest of us will continue to live in the real world — we can’t all afford to strap on the blinders and stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it doesn’t exist.
J.
Regarding frameone’s idealized world-view, a while ago, the Chicago Tribune reported that “recent information from Guantanamo has derailed plans for attacks during the Athens Olympics next month and possibly forestalled at least a dozen attacks elsewhere”. I think we could all agree then that if frameone were in charge of managing the detainees the world would still be grieving the deaths, dimemberment, and maimings of many innocents in just the thirteen situations cited above. And probably more.
As we all know there have most likely been other acts of deliberate, cooly planned, terroristic slaughtering of innocents prevented by information obtained from the detainees. But the killing of high-profile innocents would at the Olympics would have been a great victory for those who choose to deliberately and with dedicated purpose kill and maim innocent people of all nations and religions – don’t you agree frameone?
Though imperfect, the system we have is operating under the rule of law. The issue is the interpretation of the rule of law. Whose interpretation do we choose? That of the International Red Cross or that of our elected and appointed leaders? I choose the latter for constitutional reasons. The IRC did not state that torture was being used at gitmo, they stated that in their opinion that what was happening at gitmo was “tantamount to torture”. Strangely, they did not mention the lives saved by those actions that while “tantamount to”, were not torture. We know why they didn’t – and still don’t. Its political with them and their ilk. Its not life and death that matters, but only who wins the political skirmish.
The following is a quote from an analysis of the Geneva Conventions and the gitmo detainees. (I can’t find the citation or link but will post when I do). “The laws of war essentially propose a contract to combatants: if you observe these rules of civilzed warfare, then you will be treated in a civilzed manner. The conditional nature of legitimate combatant status is reflected in the text of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. A common article two of those conventions states that parties to the treaty are under no legal obligation to apply their terms to non-parties who do not themselves abide by the law of armed conflict.”
Do we bestow the same status on Al Qaeda and Taliban as we would Iraq’s former Republican Guard? No. Absolutely not. Members of the RG who followed the rules of the GC are and have been accorded all rights due. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a different matter – by their own choosing. They are not stupid. Most of their leadership are highly educated. With dedicated purpose and malice aforethought they chose, and continue to chose, their courses of action knowing full well that it places them outside the current international laws and accepted rules of combat. Though clearly they are trained to do everything possible (honor has no meaning to them) to take advantage of international and national legal systems under which they may be detained. Some would observe that next to blowing up children, it is one of their most effective tactics. I see that training as a strategic method of enabling them blow up more children and so in effect is even more powerful from their perspective. They can do whatever they want, get caught, flaunt the rule of law to leverage an ignorant portion of the populace, gain a pulpit from which to preach about how awful the systems that captured them are, and in so doing demonstrate clearly to their followers and potential followers just how right they are about us.
All laws and rules of war do not recognize, and in fact are in place to prevent, exactly the kinds of far beyond the pale behavior exhibited by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Let me remind you of what we are at war with in the purest sense. This is Al Qaeda’s own statement as to exactly what they intend to do to Americans:
“”We have the right to kill 4 million Americans — 2 million of them children — and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans’] chemical and biological weapons.”
Islamic terrorist group “Al Qaeda”
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802 ”
Frameone, you explain to us just how the Geneva convention, or any law of any land can *stop* Al Qaeda from achieving the killing and maiming of millions of Americans. Two million of them children.
No vague generalities, no idealistic feel-good fluff. Real concrete actions. You tell us and the rest of America *exactly*, in a step-by-step process how you would *prevent* – not prosecute after the fact – but prevent Al Qaeda from doing what they have clearly stated they are dedicated beyond the point of suicidal acts to achieve. Explain that to us. The burden of proof is on you.
The current system has prevented many deaths and dismemberments at the hands of terrorists. Show us precisely why under your system most if not all of those deaths and dismemberments would be fact right now and the blood of those killed not still be stains on the world. Explain as though you are talking to the Olympians, the attendees, or any that would have been destroyed in the other twelve acts. They, and we, are waiting for your answer.
A clarification to a piece of my last post: The International Red Cross performs a lot of great work. I did not intend to, but did paint the entire organization with a broad brush as to being completely driven by politics. Though I believe their are politically driven elements to the IRC, I do not believe that is true of the entire organization. I apologize for the mis-statement.