05th Jan 2010
Torture: what about your son? your brother?
Not the only – not even the primary – reason that I oppose torture in all cases is the potential for torturing the innocent. Strike that – not the potential, but the inevitability of torturing the innocent.
The U.S. has already done this. I view it as imperative to continue to speak out, to make the argument as often as necessary until the battle for “hearts and minds” is won.
Here’s an interesting angle on the “torture of the innocents” scenario. A commenter on Andrew Sullivan writes of a very compelling, real concern for [her] brother:
My little brother is currently stationed in Iraq with the US Army. (This is true)
(…)My little brother was stationed at Ft Hood, where a terrorist attack by a soldier has already occurred (true)
While at Ft Hood, mostly because he was bored, my little brother attends classes on the Koran. (true)
Now the scenario:
One of the soldiers in my little brother’s unit, lets call him Glenn, is actually working for the enemy and attacks and kills some fellow soldiers. Glenn is caught and there are concerns he knows of more attacks. They bring in a CIA interrogation unit that is known to torture suspected terrorists. During torture, to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, Glenn informs on my little brother, who is innocent.
My little brother calls home scared – he is confined to base and has been ordered to report to the interrogation unit in 2 hours and he knows he will be tortured.
What do I tell him?
Then I read another interesting post on the topic by Eric at Obsidian Wings, regarding the fact that the father of the attempted underpants bomber, Abdulmutallab, reported him to the U.S. government. That’s a very brave, honorable thing to do, turning in one’s own son. Would he have done the same if he thought that there was a great likelihood that his son would be mistreated in U.S. custody?
The U.S. is trying to garner cooperation, both domestically and abroad, from Muslims and other innocent bystanders in connection with reporting criminal jihadists in their midst. Intelligence and law enforcement are the most effective means of countererrorism, and in connection therewith, cooperation from the underlying population is invaluable.
However, in order to maximize on that cooperation, the United States must maintain the moral high ground, and stick to its principles. It must warrant sympathy, and command respect if it wants to convince citizens to turn-in would be criminals in their midst – an uncomfortable deed under any circumstances. But a United States that tortures, abandons due process, profiles Muslims indiscriminately and pursues a wildly belligerent foreign policy will have the opposite effect.
Not the only – not even the primary – reason that I oppose torture in all cases is the potential for torturing the innocent. Strike that – not the potential, but the inevitability of torturing the innocent.
The U.S. has already done this. I view it as imperative to continue to speak out, to make the argument as often as necessary until the battle for “hearts and minds” is won.
Here’s an interesting angle on the “torture of the innocents” scenario. A commenter on Andrew Sullivan writes of a very compelling, real concern for [her] brother:
My little brother is currently stationed in Iraq with the US Army. (This is true)
(…)My little brother was stationed at Ft Hood, where a terrorist attack by a soldier has already occurred (true)
While at Ft Hood, mostly because he was bored, my little brother attends classes on the Koran. (true)Now the scenario:
One of the soldiers in my little brother’s unit, lets call him Glenn, is actually working for the enemy and attacks and kills some fellow soldiers. Glenn is caught and there are concerns he knows of more attacks. They bring in a CIA interrogation unit that is known to torture suspected terrorists. During torture, to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, Glenn informs on my little brother, who is innocent.
My little brother calls home scared – he is confined to base and has been ordered to report to the interrogation unit in 2 hours and he knows he will be tortured.
What do I tell him?
Then I read another interesting post on the topic by Eric at Obsidian Wings, regarding the fact that the father of the attempted underpants bomber, Abdulmutallab, reported him to the U.S. government. That’s a very brave, honorable thing to do, turning in one’s own son. Would he have done the same if he thought that there was a great likelihood that his son would be mistreated in U.S. custody?
The U.S. is trying to garner cooperation, both domestically and abroad, from Muslims and other innocent bystanders in connection with reporting criminal jihadists in their midst. Intelligence and law enforcement are the most effective means of countererrorism, and in connection therewith, cooperation from the underlying population is invaluable.
However, in order to maximize on that cooperation, the United States must maintain the moral high ground, and stick to its principles. It must warrant sympathy, and command respect if it wants to convince citizens to turn-in would be criminals in their midst – an uncomfortable deed under any circumstances. But a United States that tortures, abandons due process, profiles Muslims indiscriminately and pursues a wildly belligerent foreign policy will have the opposite effect.
Posted in Human Rights, torture | View Comments