Torture and Bad Faith, ctd.
A lengthy e-mail exchange with a reader who took issue with the tone of this post and some others made it clear to me that I ought to state my position on the relevant issues a bit more clearly (and calmly). In no particular order, then:
(1) I do think it’s possible for people of good faith to have reasonable disagreements over whether the legal advice provided in the OLC memos could have been offered in good faith, and indeed over whether it was as shoddy as many have claimed.
(2) I also think it’s similarly possible for such people to have such disagreements over whether the specific tactics approved in those memos, carried out as the memos stipulated, constituted torture. The same does not go, though, for the question of whether the tactics constituted cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, at least in the moral sense – it may be, though I would be surprised to find out, that these latter terms have a much narrower definition under the relevant national and international laws.
(3) I find it much harder, though, to think that there can be reasonable and good-faith disagreements over whether the sorts of tactics that the OLC memos approved were ones that would have a tendency to encourage torture and otherwise abusive and illegal behaviors down the line. There perhaps can, however, be some such disagreements over whether the right response to this tendency would be an outright banning of the tactics in question (which is my position), as opposed to the imposition of careful oversight of and clear legal consequences for those who were employing them.
(4) I absolutely don’t think it’s possible for people of good faith to have reasonable disagreements over whether what was in fact done by agents of the US government to significant numbers of detainees amounted to torture. It was really this point that I was driving at in the post in question, where I was trying to argue for the disjunction: either you have looked at the accounts of what we did and concluded it wasn’t torture, in which case you’re arguing in bad faith; or you’ve ignored the accounts, in which case your ignorance is culpable. Or, of course, you may have looked at the accounts and concluded that we did torture, in which case nothing short of head-splitting outrage is appropriate. And it’s only against the background of such outrage, I was further suggesting, that debates about the niceties of (1)-(3) above and (4)-(6) below can seriously be carried out, as opposed to functioning – as I think they often do – as attempts to keep people distracted from the underlying moral horrors.
(5) Granting (4), and granting the systematic and widespread nature of the abuses that have been revealed, I find it very hard to see how people of good faith can reasonably believe that responsibility for those abuses lies only with low-level agents and officers; it seems clear that a broader policy of torture was coordinated, even if – as seems unlikely to me, but see (1) and (2) above – the OLC memos weren’t intended to provide legal cover for it.
(6) Granting (5), I find it similarly hard to see how there can be reasonable and good-faith disagreements over whether there should be an investigation aimed at uncovering the relevant sources of authority and then punishing them as the law permits. And just as the Nuremburg Defense does not exempt the torturers themselves for responsibility from what they did, so appeals to legal cover or the circumstances they face does not exempt those who gave or ordered the giving of the orders.
(7) I do, however, think it is possible for there to be such disagreements over exactly what form such an investigation should take: whether a special prosecutor, or a truth commission, or a congressional committee, etc. The truth needs to be uncovered and the responsible parties prosecuted, but not without unnecessarily destroying innocent reputations or careers along the way.
Finally: It’s worth emphasizing that, as Mark Thompson has movingly written, all of this is about love for this country, and not – as so many have absurdly suggested – any sort of “hatred” for it. While I wouldn’t style myself an exceptionalist in the vein that Mark describes, it remains that I’m an American, and have as such a great love for this country. And it is precisely this love that leaves me so sickened by what we have done, and so committed to bringing to justice those who have committed such evil in our name. Sometimes it’s only by really, truly hating the sin that one can really, truly love the sinner.
* Edited to insert the new point (3) above – JS.
Filed under: government/law, morality, patriotism, torture
“It was really this point that I was driving at in the post in question, where I was trying to argue for the disjunction: either you have looked at the accounts of what we did and concluded it wasn’t torture, in which case you’re arguing in bad faith; or you’ve ignored the accounts, in which case your ignorance is culpable. Or, of course, you may have looked at the accounts and concluded that we did torture, in which case nothing short of head-splitting outrage is appropriate.”
Well, let’s not overlook the obvious: some people have real jobs and and other things that occupy their time and attention.
Yes, well bloggers and blog-readers are my primary audience, and that excuse doesn’t really apply there. But I would also add that failing to find out about the truth concerning your government’s alleged secret torture regime is a pretty serious sin of omission in a well-connected mass democracy like ours.
I find it hard to believe that a Westerner with access to a computer – at home and at work – isn’t able to take a cursory glance at the torture debate and figure out what’s been and is going on. Apathy isn’t really an acceptable excuse either.
Well, having better things to do isn’t necessarily the same thing as apathy.
Someone with a real job might very well have definitive opinions about the treatment of KSM or torture in general, strong ones even, and still figure there are better outlets for his time and attention. Obviously earning one’s keep is a direct responsibility whereas the prosecution of torture cases is an abstract one for all but a very few people.
But even wrt participation in the public square, there’s other fish to fry. The economy is in serious difficulty. People should be trying to figure out, for themselves and for others what productive employment will look like in the future, likely to be substantially different than it’s been in the past.
Instead so many people have done the same unproductive thing for so long that there’s substantial internal resistance to doing anything else. So there’s a strong psychological need to distract themselves and others, Wizard-of-Oz-style, from their obligations to the community as a whole, by harping on the community’s supposed failings to humanity in general.
Obviously, the torture complaints fit this to a T. I wish I could say I’m not picking on John as I write this. Unfortunately that’s not completely true. But I hasten to note it’s not _just_ him. It’s a common thread of those obsessed with that particular issue (which, after all I’ve written let’s acknowledge is an important one).
[...] Torture and Bad Faith, ctd. « Upturned Earth (tags: torture) [...]
[...] please read all of what John Schwenkler has to say in this definitive post, where he explains the possibility of good faith and the reasons for pursuing [...]
“there’s a strong psychological need to distract themselves and others, Wizard-of-Oz-style, from their obligations to the community as a whole, by harping on the community’s supposed failings to humanity in general.”
I think the US out grew any reasonable conception of “community” long ago.
Your harping on “real jobs” is reminiscent of RS McCains complaints about young whippersnappers. In the communities that are productive in our information economy, people like John are valued. I’m not exactly sure what kind of make work projects they’re doing elsewhere, or what skills those communities should value.
“I think the US out grew any reasonable conception of “community” long ago.”
That could be, but that doesn’t affect my point. Whether it’s the United States or something narrower, there’s _some_ community to which John owes the obligation to earn his keep.
“Your harping on “real jobs” is reminiscent of RS McCains complaints about young whippersnappers.”
Well that’s not a coincidence because a lot of what I’m writing here is motivated by Stacy’s take on the “pundit wars” from mid-September. There’s a couple of places where Stacy’s wrong though, imo. The first is that he picks on Ross too much, but Ross’ writing actually holds up pretty well wrt to the things Stacy complains about. Frankly John is much better target.
Second, Stacy complains about the “whippersnappers” being young when more precisely he really means they lack life experience. But, Stacy is absolutely correct to emphasize life experience as crucial for credibility.
“In the communities that are productive in our information economy, people like John are valued.”
The knowledge economy is in general legit. But as it is John is participating in something closer to a hobby than the knowledge economy, which was much more defensible say, four years ago than it is now.
In Weigel’s biography of John Paul, the young Karol Wojtyla is grateful that his colleagues spare him the harshest work at the limestone quarry. In order for him to fulfill his vocation, allowances had to be made. Now, we are at the opposite extreme. Among other things, there’s the complete lack of awareness that for John (and millions of others) to stay in their niches, the productive economy has to carry them, in a situation where it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the productive economy can’t afford it.
“I’m not exactly sure what kind of make work projects they’re doing elsewhere, or what skills those communities should value.”
“That could be, but that doesn’t affect my point. Whether it’s the United States or something narrower, there’s _some_ community to which John owes the obligation to earn his keep.”
I’d take him. He’s a bit theocratic for my taste but Seattle has two Christian Unis that could use quality profs.
I don’t know where you’re from. Here in Washington we get back fewer federal dollars than places where I suspect you would consider ‘real work’ is done. Our State budget spends more on pot holes in rural areas than on our universities. Academics are not what we can’t afford.
We do lots of bio-tech and computer work here. People with John’s skills are relevant to these endeavors.
“Academics are not what we can’t afford….We do lots of bio-tech and computer work here. People with John’s skills are relevant to these endeavors.”
This is like putting a Rolls Royce, a Honda Accord and a Schwinn in the same category and wondering if we can afford transportation. Analytically speaking, the category doesn’t help much.
It’s very plausible that John has market-valuable skills that he could practice or teach at a university. But if he has, he hasn’t shown them here.
Academia, like any other part of our economy or culture, has beliefs that justifies its existence. As things plod along with the force of inertia, nobody has to sweat those beliefs very hard. Now, we do.
“Academia, like any other part of our economy or culture, has beliefs that justifies its existence. As things plod along with the force of inertia, nobody has to sweat those beliefs very hard. Now, we do.”
Too true. Our local welfare queens are the sports teams and rural counties/exurbs.
Okay, so my tolerance threshold is obviously pretty high, but any more of this sort of thing and I’m going to hit the “ban” button.