If Waterboarding Isn’t Torture…
I’ve spent many of the last few weeks hearing from many self-described conservatives that waterboarding is not torture. Most are offended I would even suggest such a thing. Bush protected this country. Shut up, Jack.
We can all hope that my next question remains hypothetical, but given the harsh realities of war chances are it won’t. It’s also worth asking this now while this debate is still fresh:
If U.S. soldiers are captured and waterboarded by the enemy, like the soldier currently being held by the Taliban, what might we call this? Nothing? I know what we used to call it. Should Al-Quada, Taliban or other members of similar groups even be tried for it if captured? And if so, on what grounds?
Comments?
Share
Filed under: Uncategorized
I think they would try to differentiate it by degree, saying the US operates under the rule of law while Al-Qaida is lawless.
Re: “I think they would try to differentiate it by degree, saying the US operates under the rule of law while Al-Qaida is lawless.”
And what difference does that make to the guy who is being water-boarded?
Dr Bent Sørensen, a former member of the UN’s Committee against Torture, has said that waterboarding does constitute torture according to the UN Convention against Torture because it fulfills all of the criteria defined therein:
http://www.irct.org/news—media/latest-irct-news/show-news.aspx?M=News&PID=617&NewsID=1236.
The challenge within international law, however, is that the UN Convention defines torture only as being perpetrated by a State official or someone acting in an official capacity. This leaves some questions marks regarding insurgent/non-State groups such as Taliban, LRA, Al Qaeda, etc who clearly perpetrate abusive acts that otherwise could be labelled torture. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, your question is an interesting and valid point that doesn’t have a clear answer – perhaps these groups could be tried for crimes against humanity (which include torture, kidnapping, etc).
The belief in American exceptionalism seems to undergird all of this. If America does it, it isn’t torture and can’t be torture. Not such a big jump to “if the President does it, it isn’t illegal and can’t be illegal.” Could next step be, if the Fuhrer does it…well, you know…
I think for arguement’s sake one should think that Al Qaieda would do any number of things to a captured soldier, usually worse (a lot worse) than waterboarding. Beheading him with a knife while videotaping comes to mind. This debate misses the point- it doesn’t matter if it’s torture or not, and it very well may be- but regardless of whether or not we do it, they certainly will. Al-Quaida’s leaders don’t read the Harvard Law Review to peruse the latest jurisprudence on the interpretations of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to see what is approved in the Federal Register.
Of course Al-Qaeda’s leaders “don’t read the Harvard Law Review.” That’s the whole point – specifically that one of the American values worth defending is that we do expect our leaders to follow the law, whether or not our foes do the same. Including laws against torture.
To put it somewhat differently, the question of what Al-Qaeda is willing to do to a captured American soldier is irrelevant to the question of what we ought to be willing to do to captured Al-Qaeda members. It is relevant to pointing out the twisted, ahistorical thinking of the torture apologists, precisely as the original post does.
SteveM, the difference is that he has a greater chance of coming out a live and staying alive in US custody. He knows beyond the waterboarding and psychological techniques of trying to break him he is going to be fed and taken care of.
The Al-Qaeda torture manual is sick and twisted:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
I personally don’t think the US should use waterboarding.
I take your point, and rather agree with your principles.
It is a clever rhetorical trap; nicely done.
However, could not one argue that the use of Waterboarding on a common foot soldier violates two principles: 1) the unjust treatment of a common soldier, and 2) the use of waterboarding?
The emotions you evoke are for the former issue, not really the latter.
If, on the other hand, the Taliban got hold of Dick Cheney (or Biden – though, it is an open question whether any technique at all would be required to get Biden to talk) and needed to use “enhanced interrogation methods” to understand the strategy being employed against them… then it strikes me as a moral equivalent to waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
One can, and you do, argue that one ought never to use waterboarding; but to answer your question, one could condemn the waterboarding of the captured foot soldier on entirely different grounds than torture.
While I applaud your excellent rhetoric, your technique hinges on the emotional play of the common soldier being terrified rather than a real disgust of waterboarding.
So yes, one could condemn the Taliban for “making and example” of a common soldier regardless of the way in which they do it; it sins against justice and violates the conventions of war.