RSS
Home
State torture is wrong. Always.
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
To torture or not to torture? That's long been the question, especially in the years following 9/11.
Today Charles Krauthammer pens a column that is infallible until the reader gets all the way to the sixth word. After correctly describing torture as an "impermissible evil," Krauthammer descends into moral bankruptcy as he proceeds to explain when it should be allowed. This is pretty much the warmonger's equivalent of saying, "I think rape is wrong -- you know, unless she won't put out."
If you're looking for an accurate, point-by-point theoretical and factual refutation of Krauthammer's so-called logic, check out Dan Froomkin's response. However, one really only need digest the first paragraph of this intellectual pap in order to see where Krauthammer goes wrong.
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.
"And then take the responsibility." Boy, wouldn't that be a novel concept? The problem with this reasoning is that the state, which establishes and enjoys a monopoly on the use of force, operates with impunity and is wholly unaccountable for immoral transgressions against humanity. (Say, what date is it again that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stand trial for their war crimes?)
As sadistic as torture is, the real problem is the existence of the state itself. Because the state is the ultimate judge of conflict, including conflicts involving itself, it almost always rules in its own favor. Not only are the state's actors legally permitted to act immorally under protection of law, but they are only in exceptional circumstances held responsible for civil and criminal abuses even when they victimize those they don't even intend to target.
To take but one alarming example, former Bush official and retired army colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson recently announced that most detainees locked up at Guantanamo were not only innocent, but that the U.S. government knew this but nevertheless engaged in gross human rights abuses by holding them in the hope that they would provide useful intelligence. According to Wilkerson, 800 men have been incarcerated at Gitmo since 2002, and of the 240 who remain, only two dozen today are considered terrorists. Two dozen!
What Krauthammer and his neoconservative friends apparently disregard is the fact that the state doesn't need to engage in waterboarding to be guilty of torture. Is it not torture to prevent an innocent man from enjoying the company of his family as he rots in a government cage? Is it not torture when police officers electrocute nonviolent motorists for questioning speed limits? Or when domestic terrorists in government uniforms invade your house, terrorize you, slaughter your pets, and hold you hostage on mere suspicion that you've purchased drugs illegally?
When it comes to the state, the sad truth in the matter is that victims of "mere" torture oftentimes are the lucky ones if they actually live to tell their stories. Far too many aren't so fortunate.
In absolute terms, the evil of torture or any other depraved act doesn't actually rest so much with the abuse itself as it does with the perpetrator's potential for punishment. I can barely even type this, but if I watched someone intentionally kill or maim my wife or child, I would probably be able to give you a hundred reasons why I was justified in torturing the hell out of that individual before I ultimately put a bullet through his forehead.
As an advocate of the non-aggression principle, I believe that the initiation (or threat) of physical force or fraud against persons and their property is inherently illegitimate and that the only proper use of force applies to situations involving defense (survival) or retaliation (justice). Even where libertarians disagree when it comes to the perceived morality of taking a life in retaliation for same -- even if my hypothetical actions were morally suspect -- they would nevertheless differ from those of agents acting on behalf of the state because I would act with the understanding that I could be held to account and prosecuted for my actions.
Torture is but one symptom of the overarching evil known as the state.
