Heavy Stuff

I've been thinking about this subject for a long time. "Long time" is relative, but in this case, my thoughts go back to at least the beginning of the Current Unpleasantness, i.e., Spring of 2003. Number One Son and I discussed the subject at some length as I was trying to form an opinion I could live with, an opinion that meshed with my sensibilities, my morality, and my desire for us to win this war we're in.

The subject is torture.

There's certainly no lack of discussion on this subject. Some of the best exchanges are occuring in the comments at Protein Wisdom, and to a lesser extent at Steve Green's place. I'll not link to Kos, even though I've read a lot of threads on the subject in that cesspool. There's no debate there, it's all "Rethuglicans" and the like. Typical. But, I digress.

It seems, to me, the biggest issue is defining "torture." Webster says, in part:

transitive verb: to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
noun: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Webster only speaks of physical pain. But let's take it a little further. The UN Convention Against Torture says, once again, in part:

Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

We've now introduced mental pain or suffering into the equation. Let's go further still.

In 1978 in the European Court of Human Rights trial "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" the facts were not in dispute and the court published the following in their judgement:
These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques, were not used in any cases other than the fourteen so indicated above. It emerges from the Commission's establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of:
(a) wall-standing: forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a "stress position", described by those who underwent it as being "spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers";
(b) hooding: putting a black or navy coloured bag over the detainees' heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation;
(c) subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise;
(d) deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep;
(e) deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations.
It referred to the above as "the five techniques" and ruled:
167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ...
168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of [the European Convention on Human Rights] Article 3 (art. 3).

Big disconnect between items 167 and 168. Nonetheless, I'll interpret the above as meaning our current interrogation practices would land our interrogators and their chain of command in prison if they could be brought to trial in the International Criminal Court. (Aside: I think it's a good thing we didn't sign on, but that's another story. The Brits may live to regret signing the ICC treaty. See the ICC link.)

So much for precedent and legalities. The question still remains: what to do? I don't like the McCain Amendment. Why? The definition:

(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me this definition rules out coercive techniques of interrogation, as detailed in one of my quotes, above. Further, some detainees have alleged they were "tortured" by being wrapped in an Israeli flag, or smeared with fake menstrual blood. How far do we go before we're completely "stuck on stupid?"

Our enemy does not fear torture. Al Qaeda training manuals specifically instruct enemy combatants that we do not use torture, yet on the other hand, they also instruct captives to make false claims they were tortured. I believe there should be sufficient doubt in the minds of our enemies as to what sort of treatment they will, or will not, be subjected to while in captivity. The McCain Amendment removes all such doubt. This is NOT a good thing.

So this is where I come down. I oppose the practice of "rendering." (Take the linked article with a grain of salt.) I oppose torture, and I'll use the "I know it when I see it" definition. I don't ever want to see formal "torture warrants" issued by my government. I support the use of coercive interrogation techniques. I'll leave the codification of acceptable interrogation techniques to legal minds and the Congress. I'll be watching this issue closely. And I will be heard.