[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]
I know a thing or two about inflicting pain. No, no, I wasn’t a junior torture-cadet at Abu Ghraib. I did, however, study Kung Fu for a few years, which isn’t to say I learned about torturing people – martial arts aren’t about that, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know Kung Fu from noodles – but that part of defending oneself involves knowing how to neutralize an opponent quickly and effectively. Sometimes that involves pain, whether through a strike, a joint lock, or a pressure point attack.
I’m not mentioning this out of some of twisted pride, but because President Obama’s candidate for Attorney General came out to declare waterboarding as torture (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/), which is a distinct and welcome contrast from his wishy-washy, ethically slimy predecessors Mukasey and, particularly, Gonzalez. I can’t help but remember, in a free-associative sort of way, the martial arts ethos about taking responsibility for the strength you possess – and when it comes to detainees like the ones in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, clearly the U.S. is the one in a position of strength. And yet, somehow, the notion that waterboarding, or extreme sleep deprivation, the use of dogs, loud music and so on, is subject to debate boggles the mind. Of all the ethical systems I’m aware of, religious or secular, none accept the premise that cruelty is virtuous.
Debating Ends and Means
But as is often the case with issues of national security, it’s easy to fall into the trap of viewing the ends as justifying the means. What does it say about us, though, when the only thing that distinguishes us from our enemies is our goals? And what if our goals aren’t altogether that different? The dictators we condemn for oppressing their populations often cite the rationale of maintaining order and security. Saddam Hussein, sitting on a bubbling cauldron of ethnic and religious differences, may have given Abu Ghraib its initial reputation for torture and captivity, but did he not maintain order? Wasn’t there some element of security that has gone with Hussein’s overthrow?
This isn’t to praise a tyrant, but to consider Sept.11. A vicious attack kills thousands of people. To maintain security, the Bush administration authorized increased surveillance, torture euphemistically named “enhanced” interrogation, and restricted civil rights. Obviously, the U.S. and Saddam Hussein do differ in important ways, but isn’t the similarity in terms of dealing with opponents here a bit too close, too uncomfortable? Guantanamo? Detainees without rights?
It’s not only because torture yields unreliable results given the numerous ways to inflict pain and the very natural response to do just about anything to make it stop – that’s the pragmatic reason to be opposed to torture. When Michael Vick and his involvement in the brutal treatment of dogs for so-called “sport” was revealed, the country erupted into outrage: How dare he abuse these animals? How dare he be so cruel? When the case of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who imprisoned his daughter for 24 years and impregnated her(several times), was made public, we were shocked that anyone could be so monstrously evil? The infliction of pain and suffering goes against our deepest-held moral instincts. So why is it different in the case of how we treat suspected terrorists? Maybe he deserves to be tortured? Are we far less monstrous because our intentions are noble? Or have we allowed fear to compromise our moral integrity? Goals and methods, ends and means, have all become blurred in a moral muck.
If I’m guarded about the Obama presidency, it’s in part because competence and intelligence shouldn’t be a surprise in elected officials. That President Obama meets expectations, at least insofar as these two qualities are concerned, reflects the cynicism of voters accustomed to a really low bar. More shocking, however, is that it was at all necessary for Holder to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture. Suddenly, we can let out a sigh of relief. But what does that say about the Bush legacy? It says that we’ve been morally compromised, that we’ve lost sight of the bigger, human picture. I don’t know if Obama can restore that moral integrity. Then again, it isn’t really up to him, is it?
Frédérik invites you to discuss this week's column and more at his blog (frederik-sisa.blogspot.com).
