The Practical Realist

There has been much fuss over the recent memos from the Bush administration that appear to authorize the torture of terror suspects. While I’m perfectly willing to admit that the techniques used sounded unpleasant, I also heard quite a few safeguards deliberately written in so as to prevent any lasting harm to the interviewee. What I have not yet heard is whether anyone died from this torture or suffered permanent physical damage. Honestly, the techniques seemed designed not to even cause much pain. Slapping stings for a moment or two, and I know having water up your nose is incredibly uncomfortable, but as torture techniques go, they all seem rather tame. Forced nudity? Uncomfortable positions? Sleep deprivation? I can understand why John Yoo at the Justice Department thought these techniques fell short of actual torture.

Perhaps I’ve simply been desensitized by the media, but when I think of torture, I think of hot pokers being shoved into sensitive areas, the use of dental equipment without anesthetic, or stretching someone out on a rack. I don’t think of being forced to hold still in a painful position or of being slapped in the face.

The problem, as I see it, is that the definition of torture is far too subjective. Is causing any pain while questioning someone really torture? Is any level of fear-inducement unacceptable? Here is what the Geneva Convention on torture actually says:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Obviously, we have to keep our international treaty obligations, but what exactly are those obligations? Do you know where the line between severe pain or suffering and moderate pain or suffering lies?

I also understand the argument that if we torture, eventually our soldiers will be captured and tortured as well. But against Al Qaeda I have little reason to believe that any captured American soldier would not be tortured, regardless of how we treat our own captives, so in asymmetric warfare that particular argument loses some of its weight.

If the Geneva convention on torture is to have any legal authority, then it needs to include precise language delineating the difference between torture and non-torture. If we did torture, then we have got to have prosecutions. And if we didn’t, then we need to move on and leave this painful chapter in the past.