A Lighthearted Romp Through Our National Identity and Ethics

Dick "Vader" Cheney has been going on Fox news to talk smack to the Obama administration and basically everything they're doing. As he said himself, this shouldn't really surprise anyone. However, the fun stuff about torture is what we're talking about today. Recently, Obama released a bunch of Bush-era memos that detailed the torture program. Now, we could argue about whether or not this was a good idea ("Transparency to possible crimes against humanity" vs. "Emboldening our enemies"), but I'm interested in the deeper question: Cheney has said that there are specific documents, intelligence reports or whatever, that show a direct connection between their programs and information gained that has helped to deter or protect against terrorist attacks. Based on some quotes below, and the dodginess with which administration officials have been dealing with questions based on it, I'm inclined to believe him that these memos are real.

See, this is what happens when you aren't careful with your arguments. The argument against harsh interrogation has typically been "We shouldn't torture because torture doesn't work, the information is unreliable and probably untrue." But of course, that's the wrong argument. It should have been "We shouldn't torture because torture is fundamentally evil, and in order to maintain moral superiority over terrorists we must refrain from torture." Which immediately begs the question: Under any and all circumstances? Is that really "morally right?"

The moral objection doesn't really fly, especially when you're talking to someone who lost someone to a terrorist attack. The issue here is that a demonstrable hypothesis is set up, and you have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you are correct. What if, indeed, there WAS valuable information that was uncovered as a DIRECT RESULT of torture, and NO OTHER MEANS were possible to extract that information? In other words, what if torture DOES work? Does that make it okay to torture people?

That's not a hypothetical anyone wants to consider, which is why the argument became "torture doesn't work." You circumvent the discussion by providing something for pragmatists to grab onto, and for the moral objectivists to tack onto their teary lamentations. In addition to all the psychic, social, and spiritual harm it does to our country, our torture programs don't even work, so let's get rid of them already.

But the flipside is this: let's say "torture is evil, and therefore forbidden" becomes the rule. Well, if "torture works" is a fact, you invite the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario, which necessitates torturing another human in order to save lives. And let's face it: This is Amurrika, those are terrorists, so beat them with wrenches until they tell us where the bomb is. I would wager that the polls are off, and that most of America is okay with a torture program. Fueled in equal parts vengeance, rage, grief, and holy righteousness, all brought to bear on the inhuman and the foreign and dangerous enemy of the state. Even if you remove racism and xenophobia and nationalism from the equation, it's difficult to have sympathy for people who seek to kill innocents.

Asked another way: Who, in this day and age, would hesitate to waterboard Heinrich Hiemmler? Even if it was just for shits-n'-giggles and there was no strategic advantage? We all would. Of course. So what makes him different from the terrorists today? What is so different about the hypothetical torture of Adolf Hitler and the actual torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

It's a tough question. And consider this, from CNN:

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," the Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, told colleagues in the two-page memo April 16.

But then:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in the prepared statement. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Blair added that he supported the release of the Bush memos, as well as Obama's decision to officially ban the interrogations. "We do not need these techniques to keep American safe," he said.

Trust me, Admiral Blair: Once you say "high value information came from [these] interrogations," nobody is listening. Our countrymen don't deal well with statements like "there is no way of knowing," which to them equates to "we tortured and it worked."

The REAL bottom line is this: The argument revolving around torture must rise above one of utility. It cannot come down to "Torture works" or "Torture doesn't work," because to be honest, when it's done with the expertise that the American military has, I think it does work. The argument must be this: LOTS of things "work" that we don't do. We don't do saturation bombing. We don't do germ and biological warfare. We don't do napalm. We don't do slash and burn. We don't do death squads. All of these things get the motherfucking job DONE, and with a lot less effort than the house-to-house urban fighting that we've been doing. The reason we don't do them is because they are atrocities, we've learned from Vietnam and we are trying to adhere to the ethic we're setting up.

That ethic is what we, as the supposed defenders of freedom and justice and equity, must keep sacred. Our morality should be what keeps us from torturing, because it's what makes "us" better than "them."

So, that's what I was thinking about this afternoon. Sorry that my posts all have to do with politics or some other serious topic. I promise my next post will be about boobies. Big ones.