Waterboarding has come up a lot in class and I didn't really understand what it was, so I looked it up on wikipedia (where else, right?). Then I followed a link in a footnote to this site. It features a video of a reporter voluntarily being waterboarded and his discussion with a professional interrogator and two faculty members at Harvard. It reminded me of Bruce Hoffman's piece "A Nasty Business" where he talks with a counter-terrorism worker who has engaged in coercive methods of interrogation. The interrogator says that he doesn't feel good or bad about what he's done and that no one really knows what they'd do in a position like that until he or she is actually in the moment.
In this video clip, the interviewed interrogator--Mike Ritz--says he has to make decisions between saving people and punishing alleged terrorists. I found his point interesting about torture: when torture is used and innocent would-be-victims are saved as a result, people are left with two conflicting beliefs (that torture is illegal and bad, and that saving people is good) that they have to reconcile. This video furthers our discussion on Hoffman's piece about torture being horrible but sometimes having good effects. However, unsurprisingly, it doesn't resolve the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I found what the professor from Harvard law said to be very interesting. No, there is no resolution to this subject; but, as he said, there will always be countries performing acts of torture in an effort to fight terrorism. I agree with him, when he says that accountability is necessary, whether through a "torture warrant" signed by the President, or some other means. However it is done, torture should not be used haphazardly; instead, I think it should be a last resort, used only when the individual approving the act is willing to be held accountable for his decision.
Personally as far as a means of obtaining information, it seems like waterboarding is a reasonable means of attempting to glean information from suspects. However, I do have a difficult time reconciling the fact that the Geneva Conventions claim it to be a form of torture against U.S. usage of such a tactic. I understand that sometimes the actions of states can't be viewed on a particular moral ground, especially because the state itself is not a moral thing and it does have a primary responsibility of protecting its people. However, the U.S. has been very different in a lot of this. We try to suggest we are a moral country and it seems like if that is the moral high ground we seek to eschew that is the path we should stick with. It may be a more difficult road, it may be costly in many ways such as the lives of American citizens, however, that seems to be the path that America has sought to take and so it is our duty to lead out that way, hopefully for the betterment of all mankind.
I agree with what everyone has said: it seems that there really is not a definitive answer to torture. Moreover, ethically or morally it seems tough trying to reconcile the urge to save lives on one hand and torturing individuals on the other hand. Personally, I think that I also agree with what Professor Payne said: torture does work (it worked in limited instances for the French in Algiers); however, it only works when the person is guilty. One is sure to run the risk of getting unreliable or incorrect information from a prisoner if that prisoner is innocent or "in the dark". Personally, I think some forms of torture should be used as long as other intelligence can confirm almost unequivocally that the person or individual to be tortured is guilty of being a terrorist and has some knowledge that can help further disrupt the target organization or terrorist movement (i.e. one should not torture a runner for Al Qaeda but one should torture the director of finances for Al Qaeda).
In addition, here is an interesting follow up to the waterboarding thread of this blog response.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=arWJ358tZgU
Go to minute three and start from there.
There is no easy answer to this logically and emotionally charged conundrum. It's true that good ends can be brought about by bad means. Does that justify them? Possibly. It depends on the case. To me water-boarding is torture, however, it is much more excusable to do it to someone who knows how to save thousands of people than to let them die.
Post a Comment