Tortured Justification of Torture

Rafi Aamer Sahib:
The greatest blow that 9/11 has served was to the American values. Torture and hidden torture (see my article ``Extreme Rendition,`` Chowk, February 21, 2005) together with domestic surveillance were categorically unacceptable before 9/11. Now people like Sam Harris are bending backwards to justify them.
Mr. Aamer`s article is timely and enlightening for its accurate analysis. I enjoyed reading the article.
Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill,

Thank you for your encouragement. I think it`s unfortunate that subsequent to 9/11 attacks, all the luminaries of Bush administration said repeatedly that the attacks were attempted at American values and then they started the work to dismantle those very values.

Rafi

Torture, exile, rendering, kidnapping, and targeted assasinations are all those tactics that all colonial powers prior to Us used on conquered people to keep them intimidated into submission. Lets not forget the Guantanamo Bays of British era i.e. dungeons and torture complexes that British built in islands of Malta, Indeman, Marituis, West Indies, and Fiji. Descendents of our freedom fighters who were exiled there still live. However, Malta and Indeman were the true Gitmos with torture, isolation and death. Incarceration into those camps used to be called Kalapaani ki saza. And it has since then become a proverb.

Therefore, the death camps like Gitmo and those outsourced to other countries are here to stay, as long as the basic character of aggression on the other countries will remain. From time to time propaganda machinery relaeases images and news of torture and humiliation, pictures like that of Abu Gharaib and Pul Charkhi to intimidate masses. It is deliberate. If it is not deliberate then can anyone say with utmost certainity that torture cells and death camps in Iraq have been dismanteled in Iraq/ Can anyone say that toture and `extrordinary rendering` that is kidnapping has stopped after they discovered torture cells in European countries? So it is all a part of the game plan. The bigger evil is the aggression on other countries under any pretext. Stop that - no ifs ands or buts - and torture will stop automatically.

right..NOW pakis care about american values..

On one hand American values are bad because the gitmo terrorists are being force fed..

OTOH, pakis want some payola from Uncle Sam because Pakiland arrested a majority of the terrorists who`re now in gitmo..

so which one is it? the payola or the moral high ground..

Scenario of torture as a deterrent to criminal activity is a myth. It is reassuring that Rafi Aamer has argued against justifications for torture provided by Sam Harris. This article is very timely in current socio-political climate.

Let us first look at the very idea of torture. Physical and/or mental pain has been used and is still being used in various societies as a tool for political objectives as well as in criminal justice system. In political situations, it is obviously illegal and is condoned by none, theoretically. Let us put the idea of torture in proper perspective. In Laski’s words,

“Civilization means, above all, an unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain”.

However, prevalent idea is that use of pain is a good measure to get even in cases of crimes. It has also been argued that inflicting pain also helps prevent crimes; hence moral justification for use of pain or in other words torture.

When it comes to inflicting pain as a societal attitude for any of the above reasons, I think religions and secular systems have been incredibly similar as they both resort to using pain (in various forms). Needless to say, religious commandments for inflicting pain (Torture) are for ever contrary to secular understanding, which does have the capacity to adjust to new realities on the basis of available data, at least theoretically.

I am not sure what kind of data was available to Sam Harris that he concluded to justify use of torture for prevention of imaginary crimes. Imaginary crime scenarios are an unending slippery slope that has the capacity to create hellish set-ups for dissenting views in a society. It is also fairly clear that crimes would have been eradicated from human civilization, had the idea of inflicting pian (Punishment or torture) been valid given the long history of use of torture. Even modern data from criminal systems do not support justification for torture provided by Sam Harris. As I said, it is only secular systems that have the capacity to evolve as the human experience grows; I think Rafi Aamer has done a very good job in providing critique of Sam Harris in this article, which hopefully would help Mr. Harris rethink his ideas.

Regards.

pathetic creatures like Harris -- they think that just because we are world self-deluded self- appointed police men -- we can invade foreign lands, enter foreigner`s homes at the dead of the night -- haul their fathers, sons and husbands to Abu Gharib -- and start torturing them left and right by torturing the English Syntax -- and everything will be dandy morally and judicially -- they are in for real suprise -- once they are out of power -- all those chickens are coming home to roost -- the whole Bush cabal is going to jail.....for corruption and crime against humanity.......

...despite their cynical tortured vocabulary.....

This article appears to be a bit long so I only skimmed through it. Frankly, I have not heard of Sam Harris and why should I (or anybody) think like him - we all have our own minds (as well as own hearts and our own senses of right/wrong) to guide us - don`t we?

The bottomlines (from my viewpoint) are

(1) torture is not justified,

(2) tortures (and other forms of human cruelty to other humans) have always been present - even in peace time but especially during the times of war - mercifully, it has only been in form of isolated events in case of this country

(3) people who practice torture must be held accountable through due process, yet

(4) very few will be, because many would be considered the ``good guys``.

#1 Dr. Gill,

I think of the effect of 9/11 on American values less pessimistically than you appear to - I see it more as a temporary setback. The pendulum always tends to swing - and sometimes it may appear to swing too far - but 9/11 was no ordinary event! The stable point has not yet been reached and perhaps it will indeed end up a bit more to the right of where it was pre 9/11. But my faith in the people of this country remains intact - in fact it was strongly reinforced in the aftermath of 9/11 itself - in how the people at large NOT reacted to it - therein lies the true strength of this country!

Just a couple of points:

The ``hypothetical`` ticking bomb scenario is not so hypothetical: the Israelis have apparently prevented several attacks on civilian targets in just this way.

Torture works. Unfortunately. How do you think the French Paras stopped the FLN bombings in Algiers? Read the book by General Whats-his-name that recounts exactly how the Paras broke the back of the FLN in Algiers.

++++++++++++++++++

Urstruly:

Your gibberings are so pathetic that one can only pity you. Are you seriously suggesting that no non-European has ever tortured anyone else before the advent of European colonialism?

What an idiot.

Urs,

Torture has also been used in Central and Latin America and in the Middle East against progressives and women and inflicted by their conservative male fellow citizens.

Torture is inexcusable.

Writer,

Thanks for the article. I wonder how PEN, a literary organization that champions human rights, will react to this text.

re: 8

If torture ``works`` how do you explain Hamas`s ascendancy to leadership?

Ref #8
fuzair,

I haven’t seen any data referred to by the people who advocate that torture should be allowed in “ticking bomb” scenarios. However, one of the points that I made in the article is that it’s practically impossible to restrict the usage of torture to a specific situation. Once you allow any government to dispense torture in a ticking bomb scenario, you will suddenly see the rise in such situations. You gave Israel’s example and that’s a very relevant one. In 80’s, the Landau Commission gave permission to Israeli interrogation authorities to use “light physical pressure” in ticking bomb scenarios. It has been reported that 85% of the detainees suffered harsh treatments under that provision. Some commentators noted that the ticking bomb scenarios mostly occurred on the weekdays. Over the weekends, when the interrogators were not working, the “bombs” stopped “ticking”.

Following is a quote from Brigadier General David R. Irvine, who taught prisoner interrogation law in Sixth Army Intelligence School for 18 years. (He was reacting to an article advocating torture in Wall Street Journal)

“The Journal assumes that only the worst of the worst will be subjected to torture when it comes to ticking time bombs. Not only is that assumption unfounded, based upon the widespread abuses in Iraq, it was tried and abandoned by the Israelis. Because it is impossible to confirm with advance certainty what any suspect actually knows, ticking bomb torture can be justified in virtually every interrogation. When Israel experimented with ``torture lite,`` supposedly reserved for ticking-bomb circumstances, it was not long before 85 percent of all Palestinian detainees were being given the harshest treatment allowed. The capability to finely calibrate torture has eluded every democratic government which has tried it.”

Re: # 10

I can`t speak for PEN but I guess they gave the award looking at the main theme of the book, which is an examination of religious faith. Sam Harris has, in my opinion, made a very effective case when dealing with the main theme of his book. I find the book lacking when Harris ventures into ``the science of good and evil`` and ``experiments in consciousness`` (the last two chapters of the book)

Rafi

Is Harris actually advocating torture?


From the PEN website

2005 Awardees
Presented by Dorothy Gallagher

Winner:

Sam Harris: The End of Faith (W.W. Norton & Co.)

The End of Faith is a necessary and stirring jeremiad that sets forth with eloquence and logic the rational, scientific, enlightened case against religious belief. It’s a book that is meant to be controversial and to open the eyes of its readers. In it, Harris takes issue with the moderate, politically correct views of secular centrists. Attacking both Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian right of the Bush administration with equal scorn and fervor, he suggests that it’s long past time for secular moderates to take an extreme attitude toward believers: What will happen, he asks, when people with 10th-century beliefs get possession of 21st-century weaponry? Harris analyzes the world with a humanist’s sympathy, but he has no time for those who murder and torture in the name of beliefs based on ancient concepts that are both unbelievable and, more important, unprovable.

This book, with its homely, well-expressed lessons about the threatening illogic of faith, will be welcomed by people whose reason has been painfully clouded in recent times by what Harris thinks of as the dangerous complacency of toleration. An important book that advances the international debate about the world’s future–about the kind of world we hope to inhabit in the next century…if there is to be a next century.

Re: # 14
Saminasha,

Here is a quote from page 198 of the paperback edition of ``The End of Faith``

``I belive that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage.`` He goes on to say that it still may sound unacceptable to many but the reasons for not accepting torture, even after he has supposedly made a conclusive case, are neurological (page 199)

Also, here is a link to his artcle ``In Defense of Torture``

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

An excerpt from the review of Sam Harris` book written by David Niose and published in May-June 2005 issue of ``Humanist``.

``As further proof of Harris` lack of ACLU credentials, he avidly argues in favor of torture. He backs the use of torture, he says, if the likelihood of getting useful information ``is even one chance in a million.`` It isn`t just Harris` support of torture that is unsettling but the ease with which he seems to approve of the tactic. ``Why spare the rod with the suspected terrorists?`` he offhandedly ponders. ``If we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war,`` he declares, without explaining why.

Harris tries to justify his support of torture by claiming that it`s no worse than the already accepted notion of collateral damage (the unintended killing of innocents in warfare, especially in bombings). Analytically, this argument is full of holes that Harris decides not to address. Even leaving aside the fact that torture and collateral damage bear no relation to one another except that they both involve violence toward human beings, Harris` argument breaks down at the elementary two-wrongs-don`t-make-a-right stage.

If one ever needed proof that not all nontheists are Humanists, Harris has provided us with sufficient evidence. In eagerly supporting torture, he never considers the harm done not just to the victim of torture but to the culture that propagates such practices. What kind of a free, democratic society could so casually allow torture? Perhaps it is an overstatement to claim that ``everything changed`` after 9/11, because hopefully our definition of basic decency hasn`t. Any public psyche that has room for torture as an acceptable practice would seem to be about one step away from 1933 Germany. What kind of men and women would be recruited to do the torturing? Are these folks tomorrow`s political leaders? Harris obviously isn`t troubled by such questions.``