I can't count the number of times that I've talked with someone, and we agree-- why yes, of course X is good! Of course, Y is bad and should be avoided, of course Z is a sad fact....
Then the conversation goes deeper, and it turns out that we're defining X, Y and Z in totally different manners, which are contradictory. This is the root of the abortion debate-- what's a person, and what isn't, in a nutshell. When the other person is someone you really like, this is generally a bad thing-- it cannot turn out well without a whole lot of good will and hard work to avoid hurt feelings.
In a nutshell, that's why I haven't posted much about water boarding.
It wasn't torture when my uncles and friends went through it, and I don't see how it would suddenly become torture now that it's been very cautiously applied under controlled conditions against someone that I don't love. If the situation were put in opposite form, I could see a reason for the masses of vitriol that I've had lobbed at me already-- but it wasn't. All the piles of stuff people can toss at me that says, in wordy manners, torture is bad won't change that-- I already agree torture us bad.
Much as when I use to agree with my classmates about a human deserving the basic right to life, it's a problem of definition. You won't get anywhere yelling "murderer!" and "woman hater!" at each other. Neo-neo comes as close as I've seen to having a reasonable post on the topic. With all due respect to the many very smart folks who've written on it, they all tend to make a logical fallacy that I can't remember the name of at the moment-- basically, you define the thing that's being argued, and then from that assumption go on to show why that assumption is right.
"I assume water boarding is torture; because it is torture, then it is bad and should not be done, and anyone who disagrees is evil." (exaggerated for effect, of course) Another form is this: "We shouldn't use water boarding. I don't think it's right. Therefore, it is torture."
This argument usually ends up with the person putting it forward claiming that anything the captive doesn't like is torture, up to and including having no choice of meals. (that one I wish was an exaggeration)
Torture is bad. Nobody should end up like Mr. Chen, and if my guys are doing it, I'll be right there in the front row trying to fix what's wrong. But when our people are being accused of being as bad as taking a power drill to someone's eyes because they kept them in uncomfortable cold rooms, with loud music on little sleep-- and yes, this is usually listed along with water boarding as examples of "torture"-- then I'm waving the BS flag.
That sounds like my military barracks.
Here's a nice short rule of thumb: is there permanent damage?
If the answer is "no" then it's probably not torture.
If you'd like to argue that it is, then argue that-- don't come in with it as an assumed true.
You want to argue that putting a harmless caterpillar on someone, who has been told it's a harmless caterpillar, is torture-- make that argument. Don't assume it is so, and argue from there. It may still be wrong, bad, something that we oughtn't be doing, or something that the policies need to be changed to prevent.
Frankly, my natural sympathies would be on the side of "better safe than sorry" and not doing it, if not for the overwhelming reluctance of anyone to argue the point that's in contention. When something is so widely stated with so little support, it's time to keep your wallet in your pocket and your hand on your wallet. Good folks, trusting folks, honest but misled folks will support such a thing, and that can cause a huge amount of damage.
Oh, and anyone who posts here calling me names, saying the same blessed arguments I've objected to above, etc?
I have delete for a reason.
I will take it when I'm a guest somewhere else, but I will not give irrational rantings a forum here.
19 comments:
It is my belief that the left leadership (political and academic) regularly redefine terms to win debates. They redefine words or phrases or even the pro and con sides of a debate instead of actually using what is already there. And they depend on the uninformed masses to carry their water for them. "Nobody lost an election by underestimating..." And I think this time around there are more people on the right than ever before who are standing up and refusing to allow the left to redefine like they always did before.
Absolutely. Stand up and be counted. Refuse to allow them to redefine the definitions, the positions, the outcomes. Do not allow the definition-shift as they try to move the argument. Like a bulldog (USMC-favorite tattoo), focus in on that target and don't get distracted. If someone tries to redefine, ignore the bovine biproduct following the redefinition and focus in on the redefinition itself. Do not allow the debate to progress until that redefinition is shot down. And that will likely mean the debate will not progress at all.
I believe C.S. Lewis called the tactic of redefining words to win arguments or sway opinions "Verbicide"
John-
Sadly, that's one of the things I'm really good at; to the point that my mom has accused me of argument-by-being-more-stubborn.
BK-
Verbicide... I'm going to have to remember that....
I REALLY need to read more of his essays; that guy was amazing.
Foxfier, you should've been a devil-dog instead of a squid. From what you just said, you'd match up better.
Hehe, I'm not NEARLY tough enough.
Besides, didn't you ever hear the joke about which service is braver?
In short form:
Air force, Army, Marine and Navy brass are standing around, arguing about whose service is braver.
They end up deciding to try to prove it.
The AF, Army and Marine guys go and order their guys to kill themselves in horrible ways-- jump into a propeller, jump on a landmine, shoot themselves-- and they do, with a yes, sir!
The Navy guy goes to a little seaman on the deck and says "Sailor! Grab that chain, tie it to your waist and jump over the side!"
The seaman looks up and him and replies "F*** you, sir!"
Sounds about right for my family. ^.^
Good on you for honing in on the central point in the disagreement. If we're going to have a reasonable discussion about torture, we need to agree on a definition.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines torture as "something that causes agony or pain: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." That seems like an adequate definition to me, and includes waterboarding and sleep deprivation, as far as I can tell.
The people who have redefined torture are the neocons who have been dragging our armed forces' moral fiber through the dirt for the last few years. (Not that I think the new Democratic administration will be any better.) When we saw Wesley being subjected to excruciating pain in The Princess Bride, we didn't shrug and say, "Eh, it's not causing any permanent physical harm." No, we realized that the intentional infliction of distress was exactly what it appeared to be; it was torture, and it was wrong.
What, exactly, is a neocon?
The only folks I've seen degrading military folks have been rather far left liberals. The same folks who were alright with water boarding when they were getting briefings, but not when it became a useful hammer.
On the point of Westley: it mostly killed him. That's rather permanent. Only the power of wuv, twu wuv, brought him back.
That said, I did say it's a rule of thumb-- if we find a way to make folks feel actual agony and dire suffering without leaving any sort of mark, that would count. For crying out loud, the right form of imprisonment can rise to the level of torture.
I still do not believe that triggering a panic reaction, under highly controlled conditions, with every causation taken to make sure you don't cause psychological damage, rises to the level of "something that causes agony or pain."
The loss of firm, agreed, common meanings for words is one of the sad legacies of deconstructionism (with a dose of relativism on the side) though its roots go much deeper on words like 'justice'.
That pair of ideas is such a strong solvent for any rational dialogue (much less something like the words of the Bible) that even your common-sense test could be jiu-jitsu'ed onto the mat in a second.
I.e., if it's torture only if there is permanent damage, then what constitutes 'permanent'? (We all die eventually and there are crackpot theories for how even the mildest trauma can perpetuate lasting effects) And what is meant by 'damage'? (Even a stressful drive home from work can leave negative memories and possibly psychological 'scars'.)
I go down that road only to demonstrate that a philosophical solvent for meaning that's that strong (and trust me, it pervades the academy these days) makes it virtually impossible to 'win' ANY argument in the sense that someone from, say, the 19th century might have thought about that.
Even the concept of winning and losing has lost its meaning in an age when every kid gets a ribbon for participation and winners in larger societal and economic contests are routinely derided as 'oppressors' by virtue only of their success.
It's a through-the-looking-glass kind of world where we can see but darkly now. Thankfully, someday, we will see face-to-face. All these questions will be resolved and the nonsense language-benders will no longer hold sway.
A thoughtful post, and the analogy with the abortion debate is an apt one.
How about, it isn't torture if, the number of leftists tools who sumbmit themselves to "torture", i.e. videotaping waterboarding, outnumber the actual number of terrorists (2) upon whom said torture was performed.
I cannot swing a dead cat around YouTube without hitting Hitchens, CodePink or the like torturing themselves.
From a purely psychological standpoint, that speaks volumes.
I donno, Foxfier. Seems that the whole intention of waterboarding is to cause some sort of agony to the captive, however "highly controlled" the conditions may be. The idea is to make the captive so darned uncomfortable that they abandon their principles, and release information to their captors in the hopes of some respite from the discomfort. That's the whole point of torture.
From what I've read (the NRO has a good article on it here) the US Army has always been opposed to the practice, and even prosecuted some soldiers who were convicted of it during the war in the Philippines.
The reason I say the neocons have been dragging our armed forces through the mud is that the Bush White House sent our troops into at least one unjust and unnecessary war, and involved them in practices (like waterboarding prisoners) that were beneath them and degraded their station and their vows. Not that the neolibs aren't just as bad in their own way; Clinton was more than happy to use American troops to kill Serbs and Iraqis in his term too.
Which unjust and unneeded war would that be?
Against the Taliban in charge of a country, or against the guy who attacked our military first and was really torturing his people?
Your definition of torture has changed; it was "something that causes agony or pain: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" and is now "so darned uncomfortable that they abandon their principles, and release information to their captors in the hopes of some respite from the discomfort."For a lot of people, just being in jail makes them miserable; the entire point of G. Gordon Liddy's many years in jail was to get him to violate his principals and talk.
Many criminals believe they deserve the things they steal; wouldn't imprisoning them be another example of trying to force someone to act in contrast to their principals?
For that matter, the classic story that ends: you build your pyre, we shall build our gallows; you follow your tradition, and we shall follow ours is a very violent example of forcing people to violate what they believe to be right.
So far as the Army prosecuting soldiers for water boarding, they prosecute them for unlawful detention and shooting people, too. Just because something can be sometimes allowed doesn't mean that every Jack and Jill can do it.
That said, "the water cure" is not water boarding.
I looked up what's involved in the dang-near ancient torture known as the water cure, which was used by various middle age groups and has been mis-identified with the "tormento de toca." (Yay, Wiki-- giving the lies jet-boots.)
The "water cure" involves filling a man with water until it comes out of his mouth, preventing the water from coming out, beating them, and then draining; the "tormento de toca" involved putting gauze in their mouth, sealing off the nose, and then filling the gauze so it went down the back of the victim's throat.
The fellow an NRO's attempt to see the other side is rather lacking; he characterizes one side as holy, and the other as crass or callous-- rather like a high schooler worried about being thought too nice. I wish he'd spent a little more time researching instead of emoting-- I was able to find the text of two different books (from the start of this century) inside of ten minutes.
(side note: my husband informs me that the machine in the Princess Bride was sucking years off of Westley's life-- which strikes me as some amazingly good movie writing, since you can have a PG rating and a horrific torture in one)
Sleeping Beastly, your first comment is an example of redefinition. Webster's dictionary defines torture as the infliction of pain, and then you slide onto the infliction of fear as though that were the same thing. It's not of course.
That is the essential difference between waterboarding and actual torture, which Firefox approaches in her comment about permanent injury. Waterboarding (and the other forms of coercion used by US) do not inflict much pain. They inflict fear, exhaustion, humiliation, disgust --all unpleasant feelings, but none of them is the same as pain. Pain is caused by physical injury to the body. These other forms of distress are mostly (but not entirely) psychological. This puts them in a significantly different category, a difference that everyone clearly understood until it became politically convenient for them not to understand.
Also, you comment that the US army opposed the practice do not support your following conclusion. Just because there were particular elements in the army who opposed the practice, that does not mean that the people who were actually assigned the task had any problem with it.
My last comment didn't make it on here for some reason, so I'll try and rewrite it.
Foxfier,
The unjust war I was referring to was the invasion of Iraq. It didn't seem to fit any of the criteria for a just war, except possibly the third, and the way it's been carried out, I have doubts about that as well. That's a different discussion, in any case.
The definition of torture has not changed; it is still the intentional infliction of pain or agony. My point was not to redefine the nature of torture to mean "anything that makes you behave differently than you would otherwise." That's ridiculous. My point was that people subjected to waterboarding (or other kinds of torture) change their behaviors because the torment is so great. It's effective because it inflicts great agony on its subjects.
As to your other examples (and your claims that my definition of torture might include prisoners who don't like being imprisoned) the point of locking someone up is not to cause them distress, but to protect the rest of society from them. I do think it's wrong to intentionally cause inmates to suffer, but there's nothing wrong with locking them up in the first place, if that's what's needed to protect ordinary people from their... liberated views on property and propriety.
Finally, the "water cure" was a term that described a number of different treatments, but it wasn't the tormento de toca that Root was criticizing. It was waterboarding, although he didn't call it that, as that particular term was not in use until 2004.
Doc Rampage,
I never said word one about fear. Someone who's been waterboarded a hundred times already knows that the procedure isn't deadly, and no doubt has no rational fear that he is being drowned. That doesn't change the fact that he experiences agony each and every time he's waterboarded. Trying to scare someone is cruel in many cases, and I'm opposed to that as well, but I wouldn't call it torture.
Your narrow definition of "pain" doesn't similarly narrow the definition of torture. I'm happy you mentioned Webster's dictionary, as it defines both pain and torture much more broadly than you do.
I think a worthwhile exercise would be pondering why we believe torture to be wrong. Is it wrong simply because damaging a human body is wrong? Or is it wrong in general for one human being to intentionally inflict suffering on another? If you truly believe torture is wrong, why do you believe that, and why does that belief relate to the rack but not the waterboard table?
Obviously, I disagree, but it is a different argument.
It's effective because it inflicts great agony on its subjects.Not necessarily true.
Once again, to the jail analogy: the point of jail is to be so unpleasant that people change their behavior. That's why folks talk about "crime and punishment" instead of "crime and prevention of harm."
The fact that something can and does change someone's actions is not sufficient proof that it causes pain or agony.
Apparently, we disagree on the purpose of jail, as well. On behalf of my view, I offer the classic "victimless crimes" as evidence that prevention of harm isn't the primary reason for jail. Also, the fact that in all but the most dire cases, people are released while they are still a threat-- that is, still able and willing to commit crimes.
Your information on what Root was describing is incorrect; here is a description:
A letter by A. F. Miller, of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment, published in the Omaha World-Herald in May, 1900, told of how Miller's unit uncovered hidden weapons by subjecting a prisoner to what he and others called the "water cure." "Now, this is the way we give them the water cure," he explained. "Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don't give up pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I'll tell you it is a terrible torture."This is clearly the "water cure" described in my prior link, minus beatings. (The tormento de toca was only mentioned because it has like-wise been misidentified as water boarding, not because it is the same as the water cure.)
*growl* I *REALLY* wish I knew why it suddenly is removing paragraph spacings after HTML code; it makes things ugly as heck.
It appears that we do disagree on the purpose of jail, and that may help explain our difference of opinion on waterboarding as well. If it's acceptable to use suffering as an incentive to behavior modification in inmates, perhaps it's acceptable to inflict suffering on prisoners of war to achieve a just military end. I can't really argue against the efficacy of intentionally inflicted suffering, at least in the short term.
I tend to think that truly victimless crimes ought not be crimes at all. I also tend to think that most crimes described as "victimless" do, in fact, have victims aplenty.
It has occurred to me that I inflict suffering on my kids as an incentive to change their behavior too. What makes my actions as a parent different from the practices of the criminal justice department? I'm tempted to say that the difference is due to the fact that my children are children whereas inmates in the jails are adults with full legal personal responsibility. I'm not sure that's an adequate answer, though, so I'm going to give it some more thought before I try to defend my take on jails and intentionally inflicted suffering. I'll let you know when I've thought it through thoroughly, and am satisfied with my position. I'll either stop criticizing corrective punishment, stop administering time-outs to my toddlers, or have a good explanation of the difference.
As for the "water cure" administered in the war in the Philippines, the only historical quotes I can find online seem to confirm what you were saying, so I must have been misinformed. I concede that the water cure for which US soldiers were put on trial was somewhat different from the modern practice of waterboarding. The water cure described in those documents is certainly worse than the modern practice of waterboarding, which is not to say that waterboarding is not still torture- just a somewhat less abhorrent form of torture.
Finally (and feel free to ponder this while I'm pondering the difference between timeouts and punitive incarceration) I am genuinely curious as to the reasoning behind your position on waterboarding and torture in general. Do you think torture is intrinsically evil? If so, why? What is your reasoning for approving of waterboarding and disapproving of (for instance) branding or laceration? Or do you think the ends justify the means when it comes to torture? If we had a terrorist in custody with vital military information and waterboarding wasn't convincing him to share, would it be okay to start chopping off digits or zapping him with a car battery? Why or why not?
You might start with amounts of just authority over folks, too-- I would say "assume that those in jail are more mature" but if that were true, why would they be breaking just laws.....
Do you think torture is intrinsically evil? If so, why? What is your reasoning for approving of water boarding and disapproving of (for instance) branding or laceration? Or do you think the ends justify the means when it comes to torture?
For torture: it's wrong.
It's kinda like murder, but the person survives. (usually)
And that's exactly where the problem lies... and I think it's at the root of similar arguments about the death penalty.
It becomes torture when there is actual agony or dire suffering, or real damage.
Anything normal people do willingly isn't torture. (I don't consider violating religious or cultural norms as torture, just as a horribly bad idea to do with prisoners.)
Basically, it *took* four pages for them to work out how non-harming slaps had to be used to keep them from the edge of torture; I think they did well.
I'm sorry I'm not doing very well at explaining, but my brain isn't working so very well after a long drive, and most of the stuff just *can't* be blanketed-- the obvious stuff is torture: electrocute, burn, etc.
Post a Comment