Kim's back, and he's bad as ever. (I mean that in a good way.) Especially here -- and I agree with him too.
Which brings me to torture. I promised a post earlier on the subject, didn't I? This post on Letter from Gotham got me thinking. No, I can't say as I have many qualms at the thought of torture used on the sort of thugs we are fighting. For one thing, we have been shown by the actions of these self-proclaimed Warriors of Allah, or Champions of the Arabs, or whatever they think of themselves, that their concept of honor is restricted to themselves alone; it is not extended to us, the worthless infidels that we are. All of what Kim du Toit calls the Marquis of Queensberry-type rules that we are attempting to adhere to (the "Geneva Conventions" and so on) mean absolutely nothing to this enemy that thinks it's a fine battle tactic to hide behind women and children.
The argument against torture and so on -- against "going too far" -- hinges on what the people proposing it claim to be our own self-respect. I think that's a lot of hooey. I know I could certainly not respect myself if I treated some terrorist scum in my power civilly in order to find out some urgent info, which could not be gotten out of him with any sweet persuasion or respectful coaxing, only to learn later -- after whatever plan he refused to divulge had come to pass, causing the deaths of others -- that he was laughing all the time at my Western weakness. That notion that we mustn't "give in" to our "dark side" and become "just like them" is nothing more than the desire to keep our beautiful souls pristine in order to impress our peers -- the same fault we accuse the peacenuggets of cultivating.
But let us consider such a thing as torture. Like anything, it must be done right. In other words, even going outside the boundaries has rules. For one thing, it must not become yet another dreary bureaucratic industry, with rape rooms in the Baathist manner, and professional torturers who need to get a license just like insurance salesmen, and courses (that you can take at home in your spare time!), and companies dedicated to the manufacture of "multi-use" electrodes and cattle prods ("Acme Electrical Appliance, Inc., Serving Three Needs: Agricultural, Sexual, and Political Since 2005!"), and so on.
Rather, It's all a matter of passion -- and style. I am all for the interrogator suddenly going apeshit on a terrorist. It should be timed right, of course. It should take the terrorist completely by surprise. He should be made to believe that his whole world is going mad. One more thing; men should not torture women. There's a sex-bias, buried-chivalry/twisted misogyny dichotomy that will mess things up. If it's a female terrorist, let another woman -- or women, we do the ganging up thing real well -- at her.
And needless to say there will be none of this rape stuff. Rape is so crass, not to mention it takes a certain amount of planning that destroys the necessary spontaneity. Remember: style. A really accomplished torturer shouldn't even have to break a kneecap -- shouldn't have to even lay a finger on the torturee.
(If this doesn't scare away the arbiters of the Republic of Nice from my website I don't know what will.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at April 3, 2003 04:25 AMFor one thing, it must not become yet another dreary bureaucratic industry, with rape rooms in the Baathist manner, and professional torturers who need to get a license just like insurance salesmen . . .
Have you ever read Gene Wolfe's four-part Book of the New Sun? The lead character, Severian, is an apprentice (later a journeyman) in the Order of the Seekers for Truth and Penitence. In other words, a professional torturer. And, exactly as you describe, there is a bureaucracy, with orders from on high for "excruciations" and executions. It's a pretty interesting occupation in which to place one's hero, especially because he performs his duties with diligence.
Posted by: Phil at April 3, 2003 at 12:29 PMI've tried to read it, but something put me off -- maybe his writing style, that's usually what gets me. I don't really remember, though -- it's been some time.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 3, 2003 at 12:34 PMTerry Pratchett's got some interesting ideas about 'torture' in "Night Watch", involving a gag, a bottle of ginger beer, and a good sound-effects man.
There's also the effects of ginger on oxen. Erk. It doesn't bear thinking about...
J.
Posted by: JLawson at April 3, 2003 at 03:30 PMTorture as generally understood is a blunt instrument. There are better ways of extracting more accurate information from people, usually involving disorientation and chemicals ("truth serum"), given that people will react to torture by either saying anything to make it stop, or simply shutting down and not responding at all. Given this fact, torture is immoral because it serves no purpose that could not be better served by something else. Part of the reason coerced confessions are not admissable as evidence is not merely that we think it's nasty, but because, as with other bases for exclusion, we think its unreliable.
Your last sentence gives away that you have do have compunctions about actual torture (thank G-d), and thus define the term far more loosely than commonly understood: there doesn't have to be permananent damage, but if there's no physical pain involved, it's not torture.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at April 3, 2003 at 05:09 PMPsychological pressure is much nastier, for most folks, than torture.
The Brits had a technique whereby a female interrogator would have the Military Police strip down a prisoner, and sort of hog tie him, standing up, with spread legs, hands tied to ankles. Then she'd walk around insulting his manhood. That must be mortifying for a moslem...
Something that works for hardcases coming from countries which abuse their own populations is a pressure technique straight from the police procedural dramas - threats to make it known that the prisoner is cooperating. The idea is that if the word leaked out, the prisoner's family would be killed.
Posted by: Omnibus Bill at April 3, 2003 at 05:42 PM