This past weekend I had a series of rather intense arguments with my ignorantly conservative relatives. One of those deals where I won, but they thought they won. I now realize what I should have known to more effectively combat blind pro-administration arguments: their arguments are based on moving from point to point. None of these points will hold up under strict scrutiny, so it is important to change the subject. By not effectively recognizing this, I missed an opportunity to easily win. So for future reference, I'm creating a list of pro-torture arguments that conservatives use, and how to combat them.
The argument that almost all anti-torture people use goes something as follows: American exceptionalism, if it exists, is not a God given right. It results because of our appreciation of freedom, our strict observation the rule of law and our belief in the principle that all people should be treated well. We hold these as universal principles, and see it as our duty to bring them to people who are not free. Torture is something we oppose because it violates both the rule of law (via civil liberties) and the principle that people should be treated humanely. Ergo, torturing prisoners is irreconcilable with our justifications for American exceptionalism. A pro-torture person will attempt to bring several arguments against this:
1) Torture has helped to get life saving information from detainees
The beauty of principle is that it tolerates no exception*. We cannot allow the mentality that the ends justify the means, especially when our most hallowed principles are at stake.
2) They're the terrorists; we're the good guys. They're trying to kill us. Gitmo/Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to Saddam.
Remember, our status as the "good guys" is entirely dependent on holding ourselves to a higher standard. This is the premise of American exceptionalism. As soon as you compare the United States to the terrorists, then you defeat this premise. We can't cave to this kind of relativism. The US should categorically reject torture on the basis of principle. Terrorist is as terrorist does; terrorists torture, not Americans fighting for freedom.
3) There hasn't been that much torture, and those who've done it have been court martialed/held accountable.
The scandal isn't necessarily that there has been torture. It's that the torture has been condoned by the administration, through their repeal of the the Geneva conventions. Furthermore, Bush has been unable to come out and condemn torture on the basis of principle, or demand accountability in our treatment of prisoners. There has been no review of our standards for treating prisoners during the war on terror.
4) The Nuclear Option: You don't support our troops/you hate America/you support the terrorists
This one is the most egregiously stupid, and at this point, the anti-torture party has pretty won the debate. Obviously, one of the principles we all hold dear is the freedom of political speech. That's one of the most important things our troops are fighting for, and that's what makes America America, and differentiates us from the terrorists. Furthermore, it's terrible to invoke "the troops," or "America" in defense of torture. It is ridiculous to assert that some dissent within the American people is going to affect the effectiveness of the Army, especially when the Army's real problem is lack of soldiers and proper equipment.
Well, that should pretty much cover all the pro-torture talking points. Note that when you put 'em together you get the following argument: torture has done some good things, but we don't do it as much or as bad as the terrorists, and when it happens we certainly don't condone it, we court martial them. The point is SUPPORT THE TROOPS! This string is so full of cognitive dissonance and contradiction, it's crazy.
The use of shifting talking points that don't hold up is common among dogmatic administration apologists. I will compile similar lists for some other issues.
*Thanks to the Washington Post editorial on flag desecration amendment.
3 Kommentare:
On pro-torture argument number one, an addional response is that the achievement of these "ends" is very dubious. Torturing for the sake of information is ridiculously unreliable. Sometimes, maybe, someone who has life-saving information will speak up under duress, but this doesn't mean that all information gleaned from torture is useful. Indeed, an innocent suspect's only way to make the pain stop is to speak up, regardless of his actual knowledge. The end result is that lots of information is obtained, but there's no way to distinguish the good leads from the bad.
In response to the "support the troops" banter, it needs to be pointed out that by taking a strong stance against torture we are ARE supporting the troops. If we do not abide by international conventions which negatively sanction torture, then these conventions are less legitimate and torture becomes more likely to be practiced on our troops in the future.
That being said, I still wouldn't rule out torture entirely, I just think it ought be more transparent. If it can be demonstrated that all other means have been employed, and it is likely that a combatant will reveal information undress duress, then a judge should issue a torture warrant, or something to that effect. Of course there should be humane standards for what we allow. The only way to set these standards, though, is to have the process occur in a transparent manner.
ben...
I think it's a good question to ask what interrogation techniques are appropriate. "Torture" is purely a term, make of it as you will. Nobody's going to say that detainees should have things exactly as they want. It wouldn't seem to be torture to interrogate somebody late at night, but keeping them awake for hours on end is probably torture. So it's important to be pragmatic instead of categorical in our definitions. However, I believe the spirit of our treatment should always be humane, however we want to interpret that term.
That said, there have been homicides in US custody, which cannot be tolerated and needs to be investigated.
Kommentar veröffentlichen