The Abolition of Torture by Andrew Sullivan and The Truth About Torture by Charles Krauthammer

This article has a lot of valid points against torture, many of which were presented by classmates during Tuesday’s discussion. Some of the points he made that has me still battling with myself is when he talks about the George Washington on page 2, “He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies…Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution.” And from page 5 when he tells us about FDR, “In World War II, American soldiers were often tortured by the Japanese when captured. But FDR refused to reciprocate. Why? Because he knew that, if the beacon of democracy—the United States of America-had succumbed to the hallmark of totalitarianism, then the chance for democratization would be deeply compromised in the wake of victory.” In the second paragraph on page 5, he tells of the impact that the Americans had with the Germans during World War II, which was that they were safe if they saw an American uniform. He continues with, “Ask any German or Japanese of the generation that built democracy in those countries, and they will remind you of American values—not trumpeted by presidents in front of handpicked audiences, but demonstrated by the conduct of the U.S. military during occupation.” These types of points that he makes in the article has leads me to stand by his belief that all torture is wrong. I think his closing paragraph is very good and is something that we all need to think about and consider: “We have to banish from the United States the totalitarian impulse that is integral to every act of torture. We have to ensure that the virus of tyranny is never given an opening to infect the Constitution and replicate into something that corrupts as deeply as it wounds.” And the last sentence is really food for thought with “ If we legalize torture, even under constrained conditions, we will have given up a large part of the idea that is America. We will have lost the war before we have given ourselves the chance to win it.”

I read Sullivan’s article first, and he does make reference to the other article quite a bit in this piece, so maybe I looked to critically at Krauthammer’s article because I already had my mind made up before reading it. While I read it, the discussions from class kept popping into my mind, such as who sets the bar, and how do we know that the information the detainee is giving us is correct? Also, the excerpts that Sheri read to us from Darious Rejali’s book “Torture and Democracy” something to the effect that clean techniques of torture has spread from the democratic to the authoritarian countries, expanding not only in range but in types as well.

Given these points consideration, it was very easy for me to disagree with Krauthammer’s arguments. His contingencies of the “ticking bomb” and “the slower-fuse high-level terrorist (such as KSM)” are both something that the U.S have experienced however, with the wide use of suicide bombers, that clearly is evidence to me that these people have a true devotion to their thoughts and beliefs that they are willing to die for. So with this in mind, it leans me more to the argument against torture because who knows that they are going to tell the truth or not.

On page 5, he says that; “These exceptions to the no-torture rule would not be granted to just any nonmilitary interrogators, or anyone with CIA credentials. They would be reserved for highly specialized agents who are experts and experienced in interrogation, and who are known not to abuse it for the satisfaction of a kind of sick sadomasochism Lynndie England and her cohorts indulged in Abu Ghraib.” He goes on to say that they would have to obtain “written permission” from the highest political authorities, and he explains his plan where there are exceptions to this rule if the time bomb was really ticking, then they could act in their own regard but file a report within 24 hours, knowing that their actions could be held accountable. This leads right into Walzer’s dirty hands theory of (from Walzer’s page 162), “For it suggests that the dilemma of dirty hands in a central feature of political life, that it arises not merely as an occasional crisis in the career of this or that unlucky politician but systematically and frequently.”

He also says on page 5, “Historically, the torture of prisoners has been for a variety of reasons apart from information, most prominently reasons of justice or revenge.” When I read this sentence I just kept thinking, history repeats itself, so what makes him think it wouldn’t repeat itself again.