Rebranding torture

From The New York Times' Steven Lee Myers, "Veto of Bill on C.I.A. Tactics Affirms Bush's Legacy":

Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the agency from using interrogation methods like waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning and that has been the subject of intense criticism at home and abroad. Many such techniques are prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies. ...

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would have limited all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army field manual on interrogation, which prohibits physical force against prisoners.

The debate has left the C.I.A. at odds with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies, whose officials have testified that harsh interrogation methods are either unnecessary or counterproductive. The agency’s director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, issued a statement to employees after Mr. Bush’s veto defending the program as legal, saying that the Army field manual did not “exhaust the universe of lawful interrogation techniques.”

Myers' article suggests that the war of words over torture is being won by President Bush and Gen. Hayden and other torture advocates. They've succeeded in introducing the newspeak necessary to make the unthinkable thinkable, and to ensure that opponents of torture -- of God damned torture -- are perceived as soft, weak and flaccid. Just look at Myers' opening paragraph:

President Bush on Saturday further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers, using his veto to shut down a Congressional effort to limit the Central Intelligence Agency's latitude to subject terrorism suspects to harsh interrogation techniques.

Myers isn't reporting there, he's writing a resume and trying to jam in as many power words as he can to project strength. I doubt he realizes this. He probably just thinks he's simply reporting the facts of the matter -- you know, just printing what he's been told. How could that be wrong?

As a result of this newspeak, Myers uses a phrase common to most such articles, even though it didn't exist just a few years ago, referring to "interrogation methods like waterboarding."

"Waterboarding" is the new, re-branded name for what used to be called "water torture." You can see why the new term was necessary for proponents of the technique who wanted to argue that it's something other than torture.

Torture itself has been rebranded, of course, as "harsh interrogation techniques."

This sort of rebranding is only possible with the cooperation of journalists like Myers and his editors. Something like the following conversation has been happening in newsrooms across America:

REPORTER: The president vetoed Congress' ban on torture.

EDITOR: We can't call it "torture."

REPORTER: Why not?

EDITOR: Because the government says that torture isn't torture.

REPORTER: But these are established terms -- legal terms set down in the Geneva ...

EDITOR: It's controversial.

REPORTER: It was ratified as American law in 1955.

EDITOR: Yeah, well, now it's controversial. And we try to avoid controversy. So we don't say "torture" anymore.

REPORTER: So what do we say?

EDITOR: The government wants us to say "harsh interrogation techniques."

REPORTER: But isn't that controversial too? I mean, if some people still want to call torture "torture," then isn't calling it something else also controv ...

EDITOR: The government has asked us to call it that. We do what the government wants. That way, no controversy.

REPORTER: So if the government comes out and tells us that the rack isn't torture, we would just stop referring ...

EDITOR: Stretchboarding.

REPORTER: What?

EDITOR: We don't refer to it as "the rack" anymore. The government has asked us to call it "stretchboarding." Saying "the rack" would be controversial.

Makes me so proud to be a part of the free press.

Rebranding torture as "harsh interrogation techniques" doesn't alter the fundamental fact that such harsh techniques do nothing to keep a free people safe. They are useful for one and only one purpose, the purpose for which they were designed: extracting false confessions.

The torture debate is thus in an even more extreme category than the debate over other civil liberties which the Bush administration has argued are incompatible with keeping America safe. The standard rationale for convincing the complacent and timid to go along with such limitations on their rights and freedoms is always to say, "Hey, if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about." But innocence is, by definition, no protection against those eager and willing to extract false confessions. When arguing against the need for warrants for wiretapping, the Bush administration has suggested that we must change our laws to make us less free but more safe. When arguing that they should be allowed to ignore the prohibition against torture with impunity, the Bush administration is suggesting that we must change our laws to make us less free and less safe.

I really, really do not understand why that is viewed by anyone as a compelling argument.

Update: Media Bloodhound has more to say on Myers' NY Times article.

Comments

[Geds]

EDITOR: Yeah, well, now it's controversial. And we try to avoid controversy. So we don't say "torture" anymore.

This part is so weird to me.

There was a big article in last week's Newsweek about how the press's real bias is for conflict and they'll sex up anything about two sides duking it out because it's interesting. But in the process, the press itself isn't about being involved in the conflict itself by, say, calling people on their B.S.

It was sad, too. The first thing I read in the newspaper yesterday morning was that Jim Oberweis lost yet another campaign in which he attempted to sleaze and spend his way in to office. It seemed like a big win until I looked over at the right-hand column and saw the torture thing.

[SueW]

"Waterboarding" sounds like a friggin' sport. Like surfing or something.

[Praline]

I think Bush and his rhetoricians reckon they've called dibs on the words 'freedom' and 'safety'. They certainly accuse anybody who opposes them of being agin em. To Bush, it's axiomatic that everything he does means freedom and safety.

This is because he doesn't really care what the words mean. He's officially the Good Guy; in this day and age, 'freedom' is one of the things the Good Guys are supposed to endorse. He's the Good Guy, so he's obviously in favour of freedom. If he was an eighteenth-century politician, he'd talk more about property rights; if he was a Communist dictator, he'd talk more about the Revolution or the People; if he was a caveman, he'd probably spend a lot of time talking about being anti-tiger-attacks and pro-good-hunting. 'What do you mean I stole your meat? That's tantamount to saying you want us to use weak spears! Toss him out the cave!'

It all comes down to, 'I'm always right, so do what I say.' The rest is just word-shuffling.

[Stan Taylor]

Fred,

I am afraid that your imaginary conversation is overly optimistic. I suspect that the reporter was not nearly so conscious in his use of that terminology. In which case, yes, Bush is definitely winning the war of rhetoric.

[twig]

Is it funnier that everyone obligingly engages in the same social fantasy, or that people who simply refuse to are seen as shocking revolutionaries?

I just watched 'Network' for the first time. At least I don't have to be depressed that any of this is new.

[Vendor Xeno]

Several months ago I actually fired off a letter to All Things Considered for doing this exact thing. Suddenly what for decades had been casually understood as torture was being relabeled.

If news agencies had done this openly, with explanations, "having reviewed the arguments on both sides about certain techniques which skirt the lines between psychological and destructively physical interrogation techniques, we've decided that previous ideas need to be reopened for public consideration." That's not what they did. As stated here, they decided to avoid printing facts so as to avoid maknig waves. In a sense, we're all Gerogia, refusing to allow the term 'evolution' to be used because it's too controversal.

[David]

waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning

Wow, that actually makes me feel a lot better. I was somehow under the impression that waterboarding was a technique in which restrained prisoners were drowned. But it turns out, I guess, that really they're just restrained and then threatened. That hardly sounds like torture at all! Phew!

...or maybe, I suppose, it would be controversial to actually explicitly say what waterboarding is.... sigh...

[Dan S.]

A Short Lexicon of Torture in the Eighties
BY EDWARD HIRSCH

That’s not a man in pain
but a Brazilian phone—
It won’t be making any outgoing calls.

That’s not a woman sprawling on the floor
But an old-fashioned dance,
like the tango.

Pull up a chair with a knotted rope.
Let’s have a tea party with toast
and hors d’oeuvres.

Let’s take a seat
on the parrot’s perch.
Let’s rock to the Motorola with headphones.

Do you want to bathe
in the porcelain tub?
Do you want to sing to the little hare?

Let’s stroll over to the guest room.
Let’s take a bus ride
to the San Juanica bridge.

Forget the ovens and smokestacks.
Forge the rack and screw,
the tiger’s cage.

We’re celebrating a birthday party
in your honor.
We’re lighting candles on your favorite cake.

We’re taking you to a parade
on a sandy beach.
You’re going down in a submarine.

[see link for original formatting]

[Tonio]

Fred, have any reporters come forward with details of such conversations with their editors? Perhaps the twisted reasoning really comes from the controversy-phobic publisher and the editor is simply toeing the line despite his or her own personal objections.

They are useful for one and only one purpose, the purpose for which they were designed: extracting false confessions.

That's surely the conscious motive. But I strongly suspect that the subconscious motive is simply to dominate others and spread fear.

The Grand Inquisitor's Veto

I've never read The Brothers Karamazov, but the book sounds fascinating.

This is why, the Grand Inquisitor argues, the returned Christ has to die. People can’t handle the freedom. They want to be told what to do and when they are given freedom they only misuse it anyway and doom themselves to suffering...This administration, and we the American people if we let them get away with it, are proving that the Grand Inquisitor is right. We can’t handle the burden of our own core value of freedom. When we torture, we deny the human dignity of the one we torture, the human dignity of the one whose country requires the torture and finally the human dignity of our whole society that authorizes torture.

[not_scottbot]

I'll be very nastily cynical here - those few Americans who cared about the use of torture by the American government outside its borders during the preceding generation are likely to be next up.

Most Americans were utterly undisturbed at their government being involved in torture outside of its borders, helping any number of other governments torture their own citizens. Savak was not a character in Star Trek, people, and Kissinger had Pinochet's number before he became the successful leader of a free market military dictatorship, to cite two well documented cases.

And that lack of concern will be tested, as the hunger of the beast grows. We have already seen tortured suspects of great crimes appear on TV, and the mob growls for their blood. Torture was just part of the righteous punishment they earned is the uncontradicted message of the media.

A punishment ever more likely to be meted out to anyone who dares to question the will for power at the heart of those using fear to sell security. Torture is a tool, one which appears just before a decent society dissolves into a howling hell.

And the truly cynical point - get used to it, all you red blooded Americans, because the only way to keep torturing is to silence those weak enough to believe that torture is evil is by using ever more torture. All in the only cause that matters - power over others. Because only the strong can use torture - the weak are held back, either by the banal truth that the evil of torture has no purpose, or because they believe that torturers are to be opposed, not followed.

[Dan S.]

What gives me (some) hope is that torture isn't always an unstoppable slippery slope - societies can turn away from it; see for example Lisa Silverman's Tortured Subjects: Pain, Truth and the Body in Early Modern France. Yet at best it's a long and difficult process, much of which happens in realms of thought and imagination not easily or predictably manipulated, and there's no real cure, just (as the example of France reminds us) the ever-present possibility of a relapse that must always be guarded against. This administration has done so much damage, set us so far back, and with such a difficult task ahead. But, "It is not up to you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it".

[not_scottbot]

'torture isn't always an unstoppable slippery slope - societies can turn away from it'

I think you are missing the point, at least in a sense - the U.S. did not use torture or the mistreatment of prisoners as part of its declared policy since its founding. Now it is proudly proclaiming that torture is necessary for democracy and freedom to triumph.

This is not a slippery slope argument - the U.S. is torturing, right now, using secret prisons. It is torturing the innocent as well as the guilty (though that distinction is only for clarity, not to justify torture). And of course, societies can change - it is just that the U.S., at least in the broad sense, is changing into a state that tortures, not one that doesn't.

[stinger]

As a veteran, I could practically *throttle* people who support waterboarding. Torture was barely mentioned when I was in the service, just because it was so unthinkable. The Geneva Conventions, the first three anyway, are for the *protection* of U.S. soldiers (of course the GCs are international; I'm mentally addressing Bushco and their ilk here). It's ludicrous to claim you "support the troops" while supporting torture. That just sets up our soldiers for a far greater likelihood of being tortured themselves, if captured.

Curses on them all!

[Jeff Billman]

Something Scott said in a recent post really bothers me: "...the majority supports torture." If this is true-- hell, even if a significant minority actually supports torture-- we're already in a heap of trouble. As not_scottbot points out above, this is not a slippery slope. This is a "clear and present danger".

However, I would take issue with one thing. The distinction implied by the statement, "It is torturing the innocent as well as the guilty" does not only fail as justification for torture (i.e. torturing only the guilty cannot justify the use of torture), it also fails in clarification. Innocence and guilt are foreign concepts to a program of torture. Innocence does not even begin to enter the equation. By implementing torture, a state flaunts its blatant disregard for the process of ascertaining either guilt or innocence, or indeed even presuming one or the other. Thus to say that we are torturing the innocent is a non sequitur, akin to stating that we are torturing the rich and the poor, or both the people who wear black hats and those who wear white. It clarifies nothing, as such status is not relevant to the issue.

[Geds]

The distinction implied by the statement, "It is torturing the innocent as well as the guilty" does not only fail as justification for torture (i.e. torturing only the guilty cannot justify the use of torture), it also fails in clarification.

We've hashed torture out many times around here. The innocent/guilty dichotomy was one of those "Gotcha!" things that was often thrown out by the various Mary Roshes who showed up (and one regular and the occasional semi-regular).

Throwing in a "torturing the innocent" thing is largely a product of thos sorts of arguments. Somebody comes in and says, "But they only do this to the BAD GUYS. Wouldn't you want to make sure the BAD GUYS don't get away with anything?" The first step in dealing with that is knocking the BAD GUYS leg out from under the stool.

The anti-torture folks (at least around here) would tend to say it's bad period, but we've ended up jumping through a lot of rhetorical hoops (often repeatedly). So on some level you might well be objecting to a knee-jerk reaction.

Torture = bad all the time. The pro-torture folks want to chip away at that with various extreme scenarios of terrorists in YOUR HOUSE holding YOUR MOTHER and wouldn't YOU torture them to release your mother? It's just a load of crap that got dumped out and had to be waded through each and every time.

[jamoche]

I think the thing about saying "the innocent and guilty" is that they're both going to confess, so it does no good at what it's purportedly doing - ie, distinguishing between the two.

[jeh]

For far too many the following slogan applies: "W says it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me." Our Dear Leader can't possibly be wrong can he? I mean look at his track record--he's practically golden. [ : ( for America ]

In other news, did anyone else note that now McCain says it's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan. It must be true, since he's caved in to W every single time, especially on torture. And apparently, Hagee has had a big effect on his rhetoric, he's adopting the kind of language used by St. John of the Apocalypse. Can we expect epistles to the seven liberal cities of coastal America?

[Jeff Billman]

All part of the rhetoric, Geds. If we answer the unanswerable point that torture is only applied to the guilty, we open the door to its use as a way to overcome our objections.

This is a common sales tactic as well, particularly among those sales "professionals" who try to sell a shoddy product or service. By getting the consumer to frame his/her objections within the context of the sales script, the sales professional can better overcome the objections:

"I don't like blue cars."
"Okay, let me show you around the lot... Here's a brand new blue Bloggo sedan."
"But Bloggos have a history of unreliability!"
"Oh, don't worry about that... we can order it from the factory in red, and we can get you a coupe instead of a sedan."

It's humorous in the context of car sales. Put in the context of politics, though, it becomes tragic. I don't like that we're being asked to justify torture, and I don't care if it's guilty or innocent, a red car or blue, on a train, in a plane, in a house, or with a mouse.

[Tonio]

Innocence and guilt are foreign concepts to a program of torture. Innocence does not even begin to enter the equation. By implementing torture, a state flaunts its blatant disregard for the process of ascertaining either guilt or innocence, or indeed even presuming one or the other.

I absolutely agree. Would it be fair to suspect torturers and their governments of having the same emotional issues as abusers?

[Geds]

If we answer the unanswerable point that torture is only applied to the guilty, we open the door to its use as a way to overcome our objections.

I disagree.

If the argument can be reduced to, "Torture good!" and the response to, "Torture bad!" there is no real chance of creating an understanding. Only by listening to the other side and can the gap be bridged, um, theoretically. It also allows the genuinely deluded to be separated from the willing participants.

Say you have someone who honestly believes that only the bad guys get the Gitmo treatment. If you point out the story of, say, the German guy who was imprisoned in Gitmo for four years even though there were several intelligence organizations who knew he was innocent, it was a mistake, and he should be released without any trouble, you've now added a data point against the delusion.

Saying, "They don't just torture the guilty," doesn't give any ground at all. It creates a possible bridge. I don't have to give up on my anti-torture stance to point out that innocent people get caught in the fallout and that could actually create compassion and cause someone to question one of those, "You only have to worry if you're doing something wrong," attitudes.

[not_scottbot]

'Innocence and guilt are foreign concepts to a program of torture'

But not to the system of law and justice being destroyed to allow a system of torture to grow in its shadow.

We are still in a transition, where at least a fig leaf of something beyond the raw abuse of another human is required. An excuse to at least justify sending another human, hooded and manacled, into another cell to be tortured at whatever state of the art has been achieved by a dedicated band of American civil servants, consultants, and concerned citizens.

Orwell simply did his best to create a nightmare in Room 101 - he wasn't paid to work in it, as a still growing number of Americans currently are.

Americans who say they are protecting you from the evil intent of others, Americans who insist that the law is on their side, not anyone else's.

Veneration of constitutional ideas, ones which would inspire even a minority to oppose the majority in their name, was the only bulwark the Founders could create. Flawed as it was (states' rights, anyone?), it remains the only objection to Scott, who fundamentally misunderstands the republic he lives in. The Constitution is there to stop the majority, not enable it.

[Jeff]

Both Bush and McCain have shown that they wish to be judged as war criminals. I wonder if this means aunursa will vote against McCain in the general (probably not -- torture is pretty far down his list of priorities).

[Dan S.]

"This is not a slippery slope argument - the U.S. is torturing, right now, using secret prisons.

I know. I think I must have phrased that comment badly.

[not someone else]

I wonder how much of it isn't blind optimism.

When the people in power are advocating things that would be said to be horrors in the hands of anyone else, it's hard not to hope it isn't really that bad, or to come up with some magical thinking by which it can't apply to you or anyone you care about.

Because the alternative is honestly wondering if maybe one day you'll unintentionally step over the line, or your name will be mixed up with someone else's, or the computer will have a hiccup, and the next morning you'll wake up tied to a chair by a squad of armed guys who've been taught not to believe anything you say.

[Jeff Billman]

If the argument can be reduced to, "Torture good!" and the response to, "Torture bad!" there is no real chance of creating an understanding.

Well... yeah. That's exactly right. But at the same time, I'm not sure what can be gained by understanding the arguments that attempt to justify torture.

I worked for a time in the mental health field. It was not necessary, nor was it even particularly desirable in many cases, to understand the ramblings of those who had some form of mental illness. What was important was to understand their needs, and to understand that they often communicated those needs by voicing things that were nonsensical and/or irrelevant.

Those saying, "Torture good" are voicing their need to prosecute the War on Terror. The answer is not to indulge them on the pink elephants and flying pigs that constitute their stated arguments. The answer is to address their root concern(s), and to help them understand that the issue of torture is not negotiable.

The US does not use torture. That doesn't mean, "conservatives don't like torture", or "liberals don't like torture". It means that this is something we decided a very long time ago we wouldn't be doing, like paying taxes to a monarch across the ocean with no representation in Parliament.

[Anna]

At the risk of sounding pompous, I've been writing a series about the history of torture (I wrote a paper on it for a conference a while ago, and have been translating that out of academic-ese) and how that affects the way that we talk about it today over at TPM. The link goes to the latest post in the series, and prior entries are backlinked from there.

I've been fairly longwinded at TPM, so here I'll restrain myself to saying that Dan S has recommended a very good book indeed, and that if you're interested in torture at all (and not in a morbid way, in a historico-legal sense), you should also consider reading Edward Peters' excellent book, Torture. Conveniently, the Peters book is available in excerpts on Google books, here, and is a fascinating read even if you have no background in the field at all.

[Jeff Billman]

Would it be fair to suspect torturers and their governments of having the same emotional issues as abusers?

Perhaps, Tonio. Does that suspicion bring you to some enlightenment or insight?

[Froborr]

@Tonio: I would tend to guess no. I imagine most torturers go home at the end of the day, tuck their kids in, and relax in front of the TV like most other people. You can rationalize anything as "just part of the job", and it is dangerously easy to condemn those who commit vile acts as Broken Others, But We'd Never Do That.

[Drak Pope]

It's not really a "secret" prison if the only reason it's existence is not widely known is because the media doesn't care enough to ask. I mean, it's one thing if the US government was going out of its way to conceal these things from the public, but when you have the privately-owned, independent media working its butt off pro-bono to make sure that enough misinformation chokes the airways that public discourse on some issues is degenerated to endless, "IF JACK BAUER TORTURED AN AL QAEDA OPERATIVE IN ORDER TO STOP A NUCLEAR BOMB FROM GOING OFF IN AN ORPHANGE, WOULD THAT BE A BAD THING1?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" type of discourse then perhaps it's somewhat disengenuous to place all the blame on Bush or Congress. It's not all their fault that we keep putting people who do things like this in power.

[Izzy]

Geds: Good point. A similar argument--notably, the freakin' disproportionate number of poor people and minorities on Death Row, and the way-too-high incidence of overturned convictions from same--made me practically anti-death-penalty, whereas arguing that even Charles Manson deserves to live wouldn't. (Hard-hearted judgmental bitch that I am.)

There's a lot of value in pointing out that, hey, wait a second, this stuff doesn't just happen to the Bad Guys. I mean, I oppose torture on many grounds, *even* against aforesaid hypothetical Bad Guys. But I can understand how, if people you care about have been hurt and the guy who did it is right there, you'd want to get a little of your own back. In those situations, the best argument isn't "But those guys are people too!" even if they are, but rather pointing out all the practical problems inherent in adopting an official policy that torture is OK.

(Though I still like Vimes's "That's because you're not him." as a counterargument, myself.)

[Tonio]

Dumb question - I frequently run into conservatives who falsely claim that people who condemn U.S. torture are saying "we're just as bad as the terrorists." While I strongly disagree, I have no idea how to rebut that claim, other than to say that I don't want my country practicing torture no matter who else does it. Any suggestions?

[Tonio]

What does it say about America that Jack Bauer has become the new John Wayne in archetypical terms? Both were the types of heroes who were entitled to use whatever force they felt was necessary simply because they were the Good Guys.

[Chris]

Just rehashing what Bellatrys and many others have said here and elsewhere: torture IS terror. If the USA were to win the so-called "War on Terror" by torturing suspects, it would be the biggest rogue state in the world.

If you're going to cast your country as Frodo, you had damn well better not use the Ring against Sauron.

[Chris]

I'd say there are probably at least some abusive people working in torture chambers and enjoying it (some concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany were known sadists, after all), but as Froborr pointed out, it's not a good idea to make that assumption for everyone, because that way lies the trap of "it's not Us, it's Them, and I would never hurt my children or my spouse, I'm just doing this for the safety of my country".

[Froborr]

@Chris: torture IS terror.

I was actually discussing the definition of terrorism with a friend of mine just last night, and we had an argument about whether "non-state actor" should be included.

I would argue that terrorism is an act of large-scale (by which I mean, blowing people up, not throwing a rock at a demonstration) violence on non-legitimate targets perpetrated by a non-state actor out of political motivations. If an Iraqi comes over here and blows himself up at the Pentagon, that's not a terrorist act, because the military headquarters of an occupying army is a legitimate military target. If he does the same thing at, I dunno, CNN headquarters, that's terrorism.

Violence by state actors against non-legitimate targets is not terrorism, it's war crimes. The distinction is important: in a terrorist act, responsibility for the act is distributed along the entire command chain but the greatest responsibility is at the bottom, with the person who actually commits the act. In a war crime, responsibility is likewise distributed along the entire command chain, but the greatest responsibility lies at the *top*. Hitler deserves more severe punishment than Camp Guard #12, though they both deserve pretty severe punishment unless Camp Guard #12 had truly epic extenuating circumstances.

[Chris]

You're perfectly correct, Froborr.

[Dan S.]

"The distinction is important: in a terrorist act, responsibility for the act is distributed along the entire command chain but the greatest responsibility is at the bottom, with the person who actually commits the act."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why? By virtue of being non-state actors? (The rest of the comment, I'd just echo Chris @5:51).

"If you're going to cast your country as Frodo, you had damn well better not use the Ring against Sauron."

Which of course refers us back to what Fred said a post or two back about " L&J's version of the evil beast will be defeated, ultimately, not by the lamb, but by the good beast. In Left Behind, good triumphs over evil not because it is intrinsically different, but because it is simply more powerful. God has a bigger gun than the devil."
Nor is this a meaningless correspondence for many, I'd guess.

[Lee Ratner]

I would not say that the majority of Americans actively support torture. I better way of putting it is that a majority of Americans really does not care if the American government tortures or not or even if its effective or not. Many Americans love the constitution in abstract but do not get excited about unconstitutional behavior like torture or censorship if they do not like the victim of the unconstitutional action. They may not actively condone torture but they would not actively condemn it either. Its a failure of empathy and the imagination more than anything else. Fear is a big part of it to.

[ako]

Dumb question - I frequently run into conservatives who falsely claim that people who condemn U.S. torture are saying "we're just as bad as the terrorists." While I strongly disagree, I have no idea how to rebut that claim, other than to say that I don't want my country practicing torture no matter who else does it. Any suggestions?

I'd say trying to prevent the US from becoming just as bad as the terrorists isn't the same as accusing Americans of being just as bad. There's a lot of blurred categories in that phrasing; it equates specific governmental employees who torture with the US government, and implicitly (with the 'we'), with all Americans. They're trying to box you into a choice either saying, "Torture isn't that bad because Americans are doing it," or, "Because some Americans have tortured on government orders, every American is exactly as bad some Al-Quaeda torturer." Those aren't the choices. Torture is torture, and it doesn't become better because it's being done for America. But not every American shares the exact same degree of guilt as the worst torturer our government has employed (personally, I don't think we're collectively exonerated either, not even me, but not trying hard enough to stop torture doesn't make me as guilty as someone who orders or perpetrates it).

Sorter version; America is better than Al-Quaeda in as much as we do better things. One torturer doesn't make us instantly just as bad, but the more bad things we do, the closer we are. Trying to stop torture before it gets worse is keeping America from becoming just as bad.

[Jeff]

in a terrorist act, responsibility for the act is distributed along the entire command chain but the greatest responsibility is at the bottom, with the person who actually commits the act.

I suppose one could argue that bin Laden doesn't have the hold on his minions that the President or even the Joint Chief of Staff has on an individual soldier. What of the leaders of Hamas who may have more involvement with, and more control of, suicide bombers? Might the potential bomber face the equivalent of a "court-martial" if he refuses to blow the market?

[Froborr]

Dan S.: My reasoning is more or less as Jeff put it, yes. Also, a person who joins a legitimate military and then receives evil orders is in a very different position than somebody who knowingly joins a terrorist organization, I'd say.

Jeff: HAMAS and Hezbollah are interesting cases, because they provide a lot of the same services as a government in certain regions (not to mention that HAMAS *is* the legitimately elected majority party of Palestine). So I'd say there's definitely a gray area between state and non-state actors.

[Dan S.]

"The link goes to the latest post in the series,

Very interesting, and directly relevant to the principle/pragmatism debate here. And incidentally, Anna, that's one deeply upset-looking totoro. Can't blame it.

That second post in the series - on Torture, Morality, Classicism, and Rome is a chilling example of torture creep. We've already started to see the beginnings of something similar, not just legally, but also ideologically - I'm thinking of a op-ed&clarification a few months back in the Philly Inquirer, which started off arguing that torturing Abu Zubaydah on national-security/'possibly saving hundreds or thousands of people!1!' grounds was illegal but justifiable, and ended up, a few paragraphs later, citing "a German police captain [who] was able to crack the defiance of a kidnapper who had buried a child alive simply by threatening torture" (and of course, ultimately such threats, to work, have to be credible).

I'm also reminded of the use of torture in early 14th Century France to 'reveal' a joint leper-Jewish-Muslim plot employing chemical weapons (that is, poison), with this imaginary scheme of course resulting in mass persecution and slaughter of both lepers and Jews.

[Reynard]

As a result of this newspeak, Myers uses a phrase common to most such articles, even though it didn't exist just a few years ago, referring to "interrogation methods like waterboarding."

"Waterboarding" is the new, re-branded name for what used to be called "water torture." You can see why the new term was necessary for proponents of the technique who wanted to argue that it's something other than torture.

Torture itself has been rebranded, of course, as "harsh interrogation techniques."

THE NEWSPEAK STYLEBOOK OF ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE DEFINITIONS

"Water torture*" will now be referred to as "Waterboarding".

"The Rack" will now be referred to as "Stretchboarding".

"Stress Positions" will now be referred to as "Enhanced Pilates".

"Shock torture" (Taser or Battery/wire/sponge) will now be referred to as "Non-theraputic Electro-shock therapy".

"Thumbscrews" will now be referred to as "Enhanced phalangeal bone/joint therapy".

"Fingernail pulling" will now be referred to as "Non-cosmetic manicure".

"Flogging" will now be referred to as "Bamboo-stick massage therapy".

*"Chinese Water torture" is to be referred to as "Asian Regulated Moisture therapy".

Feel free to add to the list...

[Reynard]

Posted by Jeff: Might the potential bomber face the equivalent of a "court-martial" if he refuses to blow the market?

I would imagine that the equivalent to a courts-martial in Hamas is a bullet to the brain.

[Jeff]

"Flogging" will now be referred to as "Bamboo-stick massage therapy".

I think flogging is "Leather massgae therapy". Bamboo-stick massge therapy refers to placing slivers of bamboo under the fingernails.

Burning parts of the body is "Quick Tanning Therapy". The Iron Maiden is "Acupuncture Therapy".

[Jeff Billman]

I especially think the concept of "non-theraputic... therapy" is both delightfully and disturbingly ironic. Since we're redefining torture itself as an extralegal lawful interrogation technique, why not delineate therapy into both theraputic and "non-theraputic" classes?

It's doubleplusgood!

[Tonio]

Correction - the Iron Maiden is "Anapestic Aural Therapy."

[hapax]

Oh, come on. We've seen this in these here comment threads. Dousing prisoners with feces, urine, and menstrual blood is merely "causing humiliation and disgust." Shackling them for days at a time, ripping their arms out of their sockets, is simply "stress positions." Forcing plastic tubes down their noses and throats, tearing their esophagi, is "assisted feeding". And desperation suicides as a result of this torture becomes "Manipulative Self-Injurious Behavior."

I don't *think* we've yet re-classified the use of vicious attack dogs as "play time with the pooches," but I'm waiting.

[hapax]

Oh, and Tonio @ 9;34: *snerk*

[Froborr]

Reynard: Not really, no. HAMAS is a pretty bizarre organization at this point, caught in the middle of the transition from terrorists to political party, but at this point they're definitely leaning more in the political party direction, despite every effort of the rest of the world to make them stay terrorists.