Thursday, October 25, 2007
Beauchamp; On Choosing the Lesser of Multiple Evils
With Drudge's big scoop (Drudge link gone, but here's a good round-up) the blogoverse has once again acquired a taste for French cuisine, or at the very least chewing on a fellow with a French surname. Michael Yon, who passed on the first course, takes a nibble this time with his characteristic grace, wit and consideration. For some, though, the calls for forgiveness and a second chance ring hollow without the catharsis of an open confession, a penance required not even by that benchmark of stricture, the Catholic Church. For me, though, the absence of public flagellation is entirely understandable once you consider the often unspoken of player in this drama, his wife.
I do not know the man, and so I will ignore all the bad conjecture that passed for commentary during the first go around and assume he married his wife for many of the same reasons I married mine, chief among these being love. Assuming this, there is no question that having lied to his command, his wife's employer and, possibly, his wife, Pvt. Beauchamp was left with the conundrum of what course he could take to cause the least least damage to both himself and his wife in the future. By being honest with the Army and standing by his 'toon mates he is trying to do right by them and himself. By keeping mum and not throwing her or her employer under the bus he is trying to do right by the woman he loves. It's really no more of a mystery than that.
That his stories were fabrications is as well recognized as the fact that Dan Rather's TANG documents were fake, but that will not keep some from steadfastly persisting in a belief of both. A public confession will no more change their minds than Mary Mapes could have been dissuaded from publishing that embarrassment of a book she wrote. Denial is both cheap and easy. I neither need Beauchamp to prostrate himself upon the alter of truth nor do I need to know how many times my neighbor coveted my ass. I am perfectly content to let both be between the sinner and their personal confessor.
I do not know the man, and so I will ignore all the bad conjecture that passed for commentary during the first go around and assume he married his wife for many of the same reasons I married mine, chief among these being love. Assuming this, there is no question that having lied to his command, his wife's employer and, possibly, his wife, Pvt. Beauchamp was left with the conundrum of what course he could take to cause the least least damage to both himself and his wife in the future. By being honest with the Army and standing by his 'toon mates he is trying to do right by them and himself. By keeping mum and not throwing her or her employer under the bus he is trying to do right by the woman he loves. It's really no more of a mystery than that.
That his stories were fabrications is as well recognized as the fact that Dan Rather's TANG documents were fake, but that will not keep some from steadfastly persisting in a belief of both. A public confession will no more change their minds than Mary Mapes could have been dissuaded from publishing that embarrassment of a book she wrote. Denial is both cheap and easy. I neither need Beauchamp to prostrate himself upon the alter of truth nor do I need to know how many times my neighbor coveted my ass. I am perfectly content to let both be between the sinner and their personal confessor.
Friday, October 05, 2007
One More Chorus of the Torture Blues
I am always amused by how, without exception, all discussions on GWOT, interrogation and torture devolve into a "this is torture - no, this is torture" schoolyard argument. I am also amused how often that argument is entirely devoid, even on blogs with a legal basis, such as Ann Althouse's, of relevent legal reference. I offer my non-lawlerly reading of 18 USC 2340 once again for consideration in clearly demonstrating that none of the acts authorized could possibly be legally considered "torture."
Ann, however, is not questioning the legality of such acts, but rather the propriety. It seems to me that the question of propriety hinges upon some very clear questions:
On the second point, if any of these techniques are used specifically to cause discomfort or pain, then the usage is "bad" and should be subjected to censure. Like any other segment of society, the military does include some sadistic bastards (see "Abu Ghraib" for an example), but I think we generally do a good job of finding and punishing them (again, see "Abu Ghraib" for an example). The fact the a few may misuse these techniques is no more a reason to disallow them than the fact that a few may misuse their weapons is a reason to disarm the soldiery.
Key to the question of intent is utility. While the "torture never works" argument is both succint and sanctimonious, it is also unproven and requires the acceptance of unstated assumptions in order to truly be valid. If one truly believes that "torture never works," then one must also believe that those interrogation professionals throughout the ages, including those who are guiding this policy, are either complete idiots in ignoring the collective experience of their profession or merely sadistic bastards who don't care that it is ineffective. This seems to be quite a stretch to me. Likewise, the commonly offered conjecture that you never know the validity of information obtained under torture implies that the interrogator is using a single source with no follow-on verification. In reality, it is very easy to verify if, for example, the information on where an IED is burried is accurate or not. Simply call EOD and have them investigate. To those questioning the validity of information obtained under durress, please consider the following question. If you were a bad guy and knew where an IED/weapons cache/hostage was and felt compelled under simulated drowning to give up information, wouldn't you expect that giving wrong information would result in more of the same? Wouldn't that, by itself, serve as motivation to tell the truth?
Finally, on the third point I agree that using these techniques as a matter of course on any and all individuals detained would be "bad," but the policies themselves and, as far as I can tell, demonstrated practices show this is not the way they are applied. For example, of the former Gitmo detainees that have been repatriated, how many have subsequently offered testimony of such coersive techniques? In fact, a Google of "guantanamo detainee repatriated torture" actually shows page after page of pleas to not repatriate detainees where real torture is practiced.
In summary, if the question is "is it not abhorrent?" then I'd have to say that yes, it is not abhorrent. Perhaps it is a character flaw, but I simply don't find harsh and sometimes severe treatment against specifically selected enemy combatants to obtain important actionable intelligence abhorrent. It is without question regrettable and, depending upon the specifics, it may be bad, but I like my words to have meaning and to ascribe the label "abhorent" in this case robs that useful word of its bite and strength.
Ann, however, is not questioning the legality of such acts, but rather the propriety. It seems to me that the question of propriety hinges upon some very clear questions:
- How inately "bad" are these techniques?
- What is the intent of the using these techniques?
- What degree of discrimination is used in chosing to apply these techniques?
On the second point, if any of these techniques are used specifically to cause discomfort or pain, then the usage is "bad" and should be subjected to censure. Like any other segment of society, the military does include some sadistic bastards (see "Abu Ghraib" for an example), but I think we generally do a good job of finding and punishing them (again, see "Abu Ghraib" for an example). The fact the a few may misuse these techniques is no more a reason to disallow them than the fact that a few may misuse their weapons is a reason to disarm the soldiery.
Key to the question of intent is utility. While the "torture never works" argument is both succint and sanctimonious, it is also unproven and requires the acceptance of unstated assumptions in order to truly be valid. If one truly believes that "torture never works," then one must also believe that those interrogation professionals throughout the ages, including those who are guiding this policy, are either complete idiots in ignoring the collective experience of their profession or merely sadistic bastards who don't care that it is ineffective. This seems to be quite a stretch to me. Likewise, the commonly offered conjecture that you never know the validity of information obtained under torture implies that the interrogator is using a single source with no follow-on verification. In reality, it is very easy to verify if, for example, the information on where an IED is burried is accurate or not. Simply call EOD and have them investigate. To those questioning the validity of information obtained under durress, please consider the following question. If you were a bad guy and knew where an IED/weapons cache/hostage was and felt compelled under simulated drowning to give up information, wouldn't you expect that giving wrong information would result in more of the same? Wouldn't that, by itself, serve as motivation to tell the truth?
Finally, on the third point I agree that using these techniques as a matter of course on any and all individuals detained would be "bad," but the policies themselves and, as far as I can tell, demonstrated practices show this is not the way they are applied. For example, of the former Gitmo detainees that have been repatriated, how many have subsequently offered testimony of such coersive techniques? In fact, a Google of "guantanamo detainee repatriated torture" actually shows page after page of pleas to not repatriate detainees where real torture is practiced.
In summary, if the question is "is it not abhorrent?" then I'd have to say that yes, it is not abhorrent. Perhaps it is a character flaw, but I simply don't find harsh and sometimes severe treatment against specifically selected enemy combatants to obtain important actionable intelligence abhorrent. It is without question regrettable and, depending upon the specifics, it may be bad, but I like my words to have meaning and to ascribe the label "abhorent" in this case robs that useful word of its bite and strength.
