Torture part II

This post continues the series I began previously on torture.

What is torture?

The United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) gives a definition in Article 1.1:

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.

This is a start, but still it is pretty vague. What constitutes “severe pain or suffering”? Some people would label sleep deprivation as “severe pain and suffering,” while others scoff at such a notion. The point is that definition leaves much to be desired. Perhaps, at the end of the day, it boils down to the stereotypical definition of pornography–”I know it when I see it.”

I myself might not know exactly where the line is, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make key distinctions at all. As Albert Mohler points out, sleep deprivation and a slap in the face belong in another category entirely than being tied to a rack or having jumper cables attached to one’s nipples.

Mohler goes on:

Under certain circumstances, most morally sensitive persons would surely allow interrogators to yell at prisoners and to use psychological intimidation, sleep deprivation, and the removal of creature comforts for purposes of obtaining vital information. In increasingly serious cases, most would likely allow some use of pharmaceuticals and more intensive and manipulative psychological techniques. In the most extreme of conceivable cases, most would also allow the use of far more serious mechanisms of coercion – even what we would all agree should be labeled as torture.

A “Ticking Time Bomb”

I agree. Krauthammer supplies one of these cases, the famous “ticking time bomb” scenario. It has been mulled over time and time again, but just in case you haven’t heard, the thought experiment supposes that agents of the state hold a terrorist who knows about a hidden device that, if it goes off, will kill and harm countless individuals. Krauthammer argues that in this scenario, the use of extreme coercive measures would be justified not as a matter of punishment but only for the purpose of obtaining life saving information.

In this case, Krauthammer says, saving lives trumps government restraint, for the former is the greater good.

One critique that has been brought against this is “how realistic is the thought experiment?” Sounds fine for a “24″ season arc, but what about real life? In real life, it isn’t that clear cut. Do we have the right guy? How sure are we that he has the needed information? Is allowing extreme coercion in this instance, especially if sanctioned and codified by the state, put us on a greasy slope towards more heinous practices? As Christopher Hitchens notes,

Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.

Though I think he overstates things, his point is well taken: once fallen human beings get on a horse, it’s hard to get off. Our propensity for self-justification and breathtaking blindness looms large.

I am sympathetic to the slippery slope point made by Hitchens, and I agree that often things are not clear cut (how sure are we that this guy has useful intel?).

In the next post, I will continue to examine the issue of torture.  You can see that post by clicking on the proper trackback link in the comments section.