Socrates Now! Cutting Through The Torturer's Dilemma

“...the duty of citizens is to define the real truth of our lives and our societies. If such determination is not embodied in our political vision, we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.” Harold Pinter, Nobel prize-winning playwright.

Leaving out the Iran-Contra scandal under President Reagan, three recent U.S. Presidents have been caught telling whoppers. Think back to that smarmy image of a broken Nixon looking straight into the television camera and saying, “I am not a crook.” Then recall President Clinton pouting and biting his lip as he says, “I did not have sex with that woman.” (The surprising part of that statement is that he seemed to forget Monica’s name.) The third biggie-sized misspeak comes from our current President. Hunched over, that adolescent smirk planted on his face, he says, “We do not torture.”

Demonstrating for the first time in a long time that they can still track the scent of an important story, journalists have been hounding this administration for many weeks, asking for a straight answer about the U.S. policy on torture. The president, God bless his heart, has stayed on message. However, contradicting his words is a Defense Department memo dated March 17, 2004. It expresses frustration with a terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The memo suggested that the prisoner be sent to an unspecified country that uses torture to increase the chances of extracting information from him. U.S. government lawyers have not disputed the intent expressed in this memo. In addition, the C.I.A insists that it can neither confirm nor deny the rendering of prisoners to secret prisons. Never mind that the flights that carried out these missions are on public record. In the meantime, our Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is doing her best to change the debate about torture from one of morality to that of semantics. She is out to re-define torture with that special spin that only the White House can offer.

I am not saying we shouldn’t have vigorous debates over the issue. There is a long history of legalized torture in our judicial institutions, and the line between what we call punishment and what we think of as torture was easily erased. It was once legal to torture the witnesses of a crime to make sure they were providing an “honest” account. The first step in this torture was psychological. Prisoners and witnesses alike were given a guided tour through the chambers of horror. If this proved insufficient incentive for true confessions, then they might have their hands tied behind their backs, a rope tied to their arms. Their bodies would then be suspended in the air and dropped suddenly. With their shoulders now popped out of their sockets, they were interrogated once again. More often than not the “actual truth” was discovered at this point in the legal proceedings.

Of course, the issue of torturing terrorists is related to warfare, not crime. The very act of labeling these people terrorists strips them of normal legal protections, placing them in the custody of the military and our Commander in Chief. (Why do we call him Chief?) This is the main reason that this administration went to such lengths to define the category of terrorist. And this is also why the debate over what rights these people actually have continues in our legal system through such agencies as the A.C.L.U. The ways in which we define a person informs us as to how we might treat him or her, and how much license we might take with someone now one step removed from being regarded as a human being. All countries dehumanize the enemy during war, and some groups such as Blacks, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, aliens, and heretics have been dehumanized when it has served other political purposes.

Beyond the semantics of the issue lie a few basic moral arguments both for and against the use of torture. The position our administration has taken can be summed up in what is called the Utilitarian perspective. In this view, it is morally justifiable to sacrifice a few in order to save the many. This is sometimes referred to as Spock’s Code.

We have all heard variations of this argument in the public discussions. Suppose, for example, that a terrorist had information about a dirty bomb that was set to go off in a major U.S. city within 24 hours. Would torturing that terrorist be justified, even if there were only a slight chance of extracting the information needed to save tens of thousands of Americans? Most of us, the leaders of this administration included, would say Yes. The trade-off is worth it.

Our 33rd president, Harry Truman, found himself in a similar moral dilemma when he had to decide whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. The prevailing argument in favor of doing so was that lives would be saved. More lives would be lost in the invasion of Japan—both Japanese and American—than would be if we irradiated the general population. It was obvious that dropping the bomb would violate the U.S. position regarding the killing of innocents, including women and children. When asked afterwards how he felt about his decision, our Commander in Chief said he “slept like a baby.”

For years afterwards President Truman was hounded relentlessly by the Catholic philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe. She argued that his Utilitarian approach was indefensible. “For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder,” she said. To those who objected to her labeling our President a “murderer”, she asked the following question: If you had to choose between boiling to death one infant in order to prevent a disaster to tens of thousands of people, what would you do? I would add some force to the argument and insist that the baby in question is your child. Then what would you do? For Elizabeth the answer was obvious: The infant must be spared. To do otherwise would not be Christian.

In recent months Senator McCain has argued against torture for different reasons. He argues first that information extracted through torture is unreliable. This, he insists, is a matter of common knowledge to military personnel. As a former prisoner of war he also insists that, when his fellow warriors and he were being tortured by the Vietnamese, what sustained them was the knowledge that our country did not condone similar behavior. Our leaders were holding the moral high ground, and this realization helped steel them against the pain of their ordeal. In addition, every soldier recognized that if our country tortures prisoners, other countries will do the same to their prisoners. If we torture, we will be tortured in turn. Simple as that.

I must say that I understand the arguments both for and against the use of torture. For example, I would criticize Senator McCain’s view because he seems concerned primarily about the consequences of torture. Our intent doesn’t seem to matter. We shouldn’t do it, he says, because in the long run it will come back to bite us. As for standing on the moral high ground, I believe much of that turf is cut out beneath you once you have invaded a sovereign country such as Iraq (I won’t bother listing the others).

I also believe that most of my fellow citizens stand in silent agreement with the policy of our current administration. The risk of catastrophic events recurring, events such as those experienced on 9/11, is unacceptable. Torture if you must, we seem to be saying, but please keep it out of our sight. I say this because so many of us have remained so silent for so long.

Oddly enough, there is one argument against torture that screams out through its omission. This involves what I believe to be the innate sanctity of simply being human. You see, I have not heard one public person, journalist, legal expert, or politician, say that torture is wrong because no one person – King, President, or Dictator – has the right to strip away another person’s dignity. In the same sense that our founding fathers held certain truths to be “self-evident”, I would claim that the right to human dignity is also self-evident. No person may be treated as a means to an end, just as Elizabeth Anscombe insisted. I would add the words of the 18th century philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who said that all people must be treated “as an end unto themselves."

I also understand that these are difficult issues, and that black and white answers are woefully insufficient. Ethical issues are not necessarily accessible to the ordinary accounts of reason. However, I would say that that it is reasonable to point out that the current administration has consistently contradicted its own stated philosophy. On numerous occasions our President has chosen to make his religious faith a significant aspect of his political mandate. He decisions are ruled by his God. He is, by his own public declarations, a “faith-based” person.

Historical records demonstrate clearly that nearly every religion has sanctified torture as part of ritualized practices. The sacrifice of human beings, be they slaves or virgins, in order to propitiate the gods has been standard fare in religious orders around the world. (Consider God’s command that Abraham sacrifice his son). This ritualized form of torture has slowly shifted from human to animal sacrifice. Tibetan Buddhists proudly point out how their sacrificial rites have been transformed into pure symbolism, a move, you might say, towards a more civilized attitude. Beyond this, most of us are aware of the systematic use of torture by the Christian Church in the prosecution of heretics.

Today, the Catholic Church adamantly condemns the use of torture for any purpose. This is an absolute policy grounded upon the very high ground of moral certitude. I recall distinctly both the President and the current Pope stating unequivocally that they are not moral relativists. One cannot accept the word of God, and then go about making up arbitrary moral rules. God has his immutable code of conduct, thou shall not kill being at the top of his list.

To date, over 40 suspected terrorists have died during interrogation while in U.S. custody. Those are the few of which we know. What is happening to those prisoners rendered to countries like Turkey and Syria we cannot say, because the administration will not even admit that rendering occurs. Given these facts, how is it possible for our President to call himself a Christian and a servant of the Lord? Is he telling us the truth, or is he simply a hypocrite? In my view, this administration is a house divided against itself, and when each of us silently condones stripping others of their human dignity, our dignity is lost as well.

Socrates Now! is a regular column authored by Mitch Frangadakis, local philosopher who is also found at www.socratesnow.com.