A Contrary View On Torture

Gregory Djerejian has an interesting compendium of links on the torture issue. He points to Anne Applebaum’s excellent op-ed in the Washington Post against the use of torture by American forces. As she writes:

By nominating Gonzales to his Cabinet, the president has demonstrated not only that he is undisturbed by these aberrations, but that he still doesn’t understand the nature of the international conflict which he says he is fighting. Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology that people will die for. To fight it, the United States needs not just to show off its fancy weapons systems but also to prove to the Islamic world that democratic values, in some moderate Islamic form, will give them better lives. The Cold War ended because Eastern Europeans were clamoring to join the West; the war on terrorism will be over when moderate Muslims abandon the radicals and join us. They will not do so if our system promotes people who support legal arguments for human rights abuse.

The president’s opponents — Democrats, the ACLU, People for the American Way — are lining up to oppose Gonzales. But there are Republicans who ought to understand the deeper issues at stake as well. I am thinking of Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who was the moving force behind the recent passage of the North Korean Human Rights Act. I am also thinking of Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has been an eloquent spokesman on behalf of the victims of religious persecution around the world. Other influential critics of international human rights abuses include Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, whose presence in Kiev last month had an enormous, uplifting impact on Ukrainian human rights demonstrators; Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has given his time to promote human rights even in obscure, unfashionable places such as Kazakhstan and Belarus; Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has called for linking of trade agreements to human rights; and Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, a member of the Judiciary Committee (which will pose questions to Gonzales) and a politician who can speak knowledgeably about human rights issues in Russia, China and the Middle East.

Now, Anne Applebaum is hardly weak-willed on the issue of terrorism — her book on the Soviet gulags should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand the horrendous nature of totalitarianism — nor is she a raving Bush-hater.

I rest my support for light torture (certainly not the kind of brutalization alleged by Mamdouh Habib in Egypt) on strictly utilitarian grounds. The abuses of Abu Ghraib were unconscionable, unnecessary, and those responsible should be locked away for a long time. However, I recognize that using “truth serums” or light psychological pressure can produce results that will take terrorists off the streets and save lives. Taking those tools away hampers our ability to fight this war. I believe that Gonzales was quite correct in pointing out that there’s no point to the Geneva Conventions if those forces that completely disregard them are treated in the same was as those who do. The Conventions aren’t based on a legalistic relationship — they’re not law in the sense of a prohibition of an activity, they’re a contract. If one side holds up its end, the other side is obligated to do so as well. If one side disregards the terms of the Conventions, and is willing to murder as many civilians as they can en masse, the other should not be bound to treat them with a level of respect greater than that which they have earned. Those who commit terrorist acts place themselves outside the realm of civil society and the social contract. While we should and must do as Applebaum insists and maintain the highest standard of legal and ethical behavior, we have to acknowledge the shades of gray that exist between safeguarding one’s citizenry and upholding a moral concept to an absolute.

Djerejian also very astutely suggests that the Gonzales issue be separated out from the torture issue:

My heart yells out in agreement with Applebaum; my brain gives me pause for a couple reasons. One, Arab states have so often been involved in grotesque torture that Abu Ghraib, while not exactly a vote-getter for us or Ayad, has not resonated as much in the Arab world as one might think–so that the tactical setback vis-a-vis our conflict with radical Islam (in relation to the torture scandals) is not as dramatic as Applebaum portrays. And the accountability, while not having gone high enough in the chain of command (Karpinski’d should become a new word–short-hand for ass-covering higher ups–as in, ‘He got Karpinski’d–she took the bullet for him!) has differentiated American democracy from Arab autocracies in terms of the reaction to the scandal. This, to a fashion, has been noted in the region. Second, I am a pragmatist. I know and feel Gonzalez is going to get the nod. To pillory him and make his hearings an anti-torture crusade, spearheaded by everyone from the ACLU to a few rogue Republican senators–and then still have him confirmed, well, it will accomplish little. What is needed is a dispassionate hearing that neverthless delves deeply into the issues raised by, for instance, the August ’02 memo. But this torture story is so much bigger than Alberto Gonzalez. Trust me. Let’s not make his (non)confirmation a referendum on whether organ failure has to occur for something to be called torture.

That is indeed sound advice. Gonzale’s legal record, outside the torture memos, is exemplary. He is a solid public servant, has the support of such Democrats as Ken Salazar and Henry Cisneros, and will defend the law as the job requires. There is nothing wrong with having a national discussion on how far we should go in fighting terrorism — that is something that need to happen. However, the Democrats are attempting to use this issue for partisan political purposes when it deserves better treatment.

If Democrats want to show they’re serious about torture and not about political advantage, have them call a bipartisan panel. Conduct the hearings outside the public eye and seal the results for a few months to prevent the kind of political grandstanding that marred the September 11 Commission reports. Allow this panel to investigate the allegations of torture, who allowed those breaches to occur, and how to prevent them in the future. Let them determine if the value of our current interrogation practices justify their current form. Take away the tawdry aspects of politics and let wiser heads prevail.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are unlikely to do that. They want public spectacle, which is why the very serious issue of terrorism won’t get the kind of hearing it needs. Indeed, Applebaum is correct, there are many on the other side of the aisle who can be convinced to instigate real reforms where necessary — but making this into a partisan issue might kill those reforms. The Democratic strategy is ultimately self-defeating, which is why even those who oppose coercision in interrogations should be demanding they reconsider.