THE LAST TABOO?

In a rush at the moment, so can't write much, but if you haven't read Andrew Sullivan's response to Charles Krauthammer's argument for the use of torture, it's here. Very interesting piece, although I still think Krauthammer is more  persuasive. (Unless I've misread him, Andrew does at least appear to concede that torture can be an option in extreme circumstances.)  Neo also has a good post on the subject.

MORE: I've just read Andrew's essay a second time. Here's what he has to say about "ticking bombs":

In extremis, a rough parallel can be drawn for a president faced with the kind of horrendous decision on which Krauthammer rests his entire case. What should a president do? The answer is simple: He may have to break the law. In the Krauthammer scenario, a president might well decide that, if the survival of the nation is at stake, he must make an exception. At the same time, he must subject himself--and so must those assigned to conduct the torture--to the consequences of an illegal act. Those guilty of torturing another human being must be punished--or pardoned ex-post-facto.

It's a fine piece, and I hesitate to get into a disagreement with someone who knows more about the philosophical issues. But I do have a few queries.

1. I think Andrew over-estimates world reaction to any US decision to approve torture. Why? Because as far as most foreign opinion-makers are concerned, the death penalty has already compromised America's moral standing. (BTW, I happen to support capital punishment in principle. I don't like the way it often seems to be applied capriciously in the States, but I also don't know of a more fitting punishment for a serial child killer or an Adolf Eichmann.)

2. The WW2 analogy isn't entirely convincing. ("Ask any German or Japanese of the generation that built democracy in those countries, and they will remind you of American values--not trumpeted by presidents in front of handpicked audiences, but demonstrated by the conduct of the U.S. military during occupation.") But WW2 was an example of total warfare at its most indiscriminate. Before German civilians became acquainted with friendly, gum-chewing US soldiers, they first had their cities blasted apart by American and British bombs. (In the recently re-published anonymous diary, A Woman in Berlin, the German author records a conversation about the prospect of being raped by the Russian soldiers converging on the city in 1945. "Just before the Red Army arrives, Frau W jokes in the cellar: "Better a Russki on top than a Yank overhead." ) And we all know the reason American troops didn't have to fight their way through the Japanese mainland.

3. Drawing on 17th century history doesn't help us deal with how to react to a fanatical cult that might seek to obliterate millions in a single attack.

Surprisingly, perhaps, superhawk Victor Davis Hanson has also come out against torture. He makes these points, however:

Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results — either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives. The question, then, for a liberal democracy is not whether torture in certain cases is effective, but whether its value is worth the negative publicity and demoralizing effect on a consensual society...

And he has this to say about the lessons of WW2:

Nor can opponents of torture say that it is entirely foreign to the U.S. military experience, at least from what we know of it even in so-called good wars like World War II. There were American soldiers — sometimes in furor over the loss of comrades, sometimes to obtain critical information — who executed or tortured captured Japanese and German prisoners. Those who did so operated on a de facto "don't ask, don't tell" understanding, occasionally found it effective and were rarely punished by commanding officers. Even so, GIs never descended to the levels of depravity common in the Wehrmacht or the Soviet and Imperial Japanese armies.

Comments

[Steven]

I have spent a lot of time in Germany and I agree with you. German identification with the West was a combination of relentless bombing and humane behavior as a victor.

[Dr Crippen]

Just seen that California, the home of American liberal democracy has just killed another human being (who just happens to be black - again).

Whatever your views on capital punishment, and I hate it, how on God's earth can the medical profesion get involved in this? Because it sure as hell is. The protocol of the so called "humane" lethal injection is complicated and needs medical input. What is going on?