|
Prager calls the left’s bluff on torture
(Note: In this entry, Ken Hechtman replies to Dennis Prager’s questions to the left.)
Dennis Prager asks “Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture.” I think his first point, about Saddam Hussein, is embarrassingly weak—we didn’t invade Iraq to stop torture. But the rest of the column is pretty good and neatly reveals the moral nihilism of the left.
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:
1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did—all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time—even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives—wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida—for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured—could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, “We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections? 8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos—or at least photo re-enactments—of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.
- end of initial entry -
VFR’s Canadian leftist reader Ken Hechtman quotes each of Prager’s points and replies.
Ken Hechtman writes:
1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did—all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
The shredding machine story is war propaganda. It never happened. Not to say that Iraqi prisons were nice places—they weren’t then and aren’t now. Our Iraqis use electric drills on prisoners. For the record, I marched with Iraqi ex-pats in 1988. Show me a neocon who can say the same.
I’ve never been waterboarded, but I was subjected to the Afghan equivalent a couple-three times. I got dog-piled face down in the dirt until I suffocated and blacked out. It’s just as scary as you imagine. But it leaves no permanent damage, which is more than I can say about all my encounters with the Montreal police. [LA replies: As I said at the start, I thought Prager’s first point re Saddam was inappropriate.]
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
We, which is to say the United States, do not need to ask this question. We legislated it in 1952 when the Senate ratified the Geneva Convention. Enemy prisoners are supposed to be held under exactly the same conditions as our troops live down to the last detail.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time—even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives—wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida—for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured—could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
We don’t do it because we don’t do it, because it ain’t who we are. Prager is invoking the famous “ticking bomb” classroom exercise. For one thing it bears little resemblance to torture as actually practiced. Nobody tortures the one guy they know knows something. They torture a hundred guys picked up in a street sweep in the hope that one of them might know somebody who knows somebody who knows something. But even in the context of the “ticking bomb” exercise, the answer is no. We don’t open that door even a crack. [LA replies: Yes. Prager’s point is off, because many of the prisoners at Guantanamo are not high level people but just fighters. What kind of information do we expect to get from them justifying these extended enhanced interrogation / quasi torture procedures?]
[LA adds, May 9: I see I missed a key point. Mr. Hechtman says: “We don’t do it because we don’t do it, because it ain’t who we are.” That is a categorical statement rejecting infliction of pain in any circumstances, even to get information to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. Hechtman’s position remains pure, like those Oxford students in 1934: he will not use force to protect king and country.]
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
I don’t believe for a minute that Yoo and Bybee were giving good-faith legal advice. They were providing cover for illegal actions the government had already decided to do. That said, going after the lawyers isn’t my top priority. I want to go after the guys who were in the room. All the orders and all the legal opinions in the world don’t matter if the guys in the room won’t do the work because they know orders and legal opinions won’t save them. [LA replies: But the fact is that Democratic party does intend to try to prosecute government attorneys for giving legal opinions, as well as government officials for doing things in the national defense they felt were needed. This amounts to criminalizing political differences; and, along with such things as the increasing, open persecution of people who simply publicly express their support in normal marriage, such as the supporters of Prop. 8, such as beauty contestant Carrie Prejean, it is the kind of issue that could lead to civil conflict in this country if your friends on the left don’t look out.]
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
The responsibility is with those who made the unpleasant facts, not those who told them. Let the truth be told, though the heavens fall. [LA replies: This is a weak answer. There are entities, groups, people around the world seeking our harm. Obama released information that is guaranteed to inflame our enemies and justify them in many people’s minds.]
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, “We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
I’m not certain that torture has produced life-saving information, not on the scale of saving “hundred of thousands of lives” anyway. Mike Scheuer is usually one of the people I listen to but I think he’s dead wrong about this. [LA replies: The bottom line is that you, like the entire left, don’t give a damn about defending this country from attacks. The idea of defending any Western country from any harm is simply not part of the left’s mental framework. You don’t see the West as having any right to exist and preserve itself. You see the West solely as serving a leftist globalist agenda.]
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
Yes. No exceptions for Democrats.
8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos—or at least photo re-enactments—of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
Yes. See #5 above.
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
I have not said this. We don’t do the right thing if and when and as long as our enemies do the right thing. We do the right thing because we do the right thing.
But if he can cite the Japanese, I can cite the Germans. As uncivilized as they could be to Jews and Gypsies and anybody else who didn’t hold German prisoners, they went by the book with prisoners from any nation who did. And they got better information out of their prisoners by being civilized.
Something else. A friend of mine, Ehab Lohtayef, negotiated the release of three out of four hostages held by Al Qaeda in Iraq. It was specifically their work documenting torture in Abu Ghraib that got them out alive.
LA writes:
Here is an e-mail I sent to Andrew McCarthy on this issue on May 6:
I haven’t see it myself, but a friend tells me that the PBS program, “Torturing Democracy,” on the interrogation procedures at Guantanamo and in Iraq paints a pretty bad pictures of the treatment of prisoners, many of whom were released ultimately, which shows that the harsh treatment was not justified and the U.S. had nothing on them. Of course this was a completely one-sided, left-wing treatment, my friend tells me, but still, has our side replied to this program?
According to my friend, treatment shown on the program included shackling people in fetal position for long periods so they urinated and defecated on themselves, hanging them from their wrists (which I doubt was done), putting them naked in freezing cells or very hot cells, shackling their hands and feet to the floor so that they just have to squat there, long sleep deprivation, interrogating them all day and night, putting them on A leash and treating them like a dog, letting naked male prisoners be seen by women (there were female interrogators), and more.
Dimitri K. writes:
I want to answer Mr. Hechtman. His main argument is “I don’t believe.” But this argument goes both ways. I don’t believe that Mr. Hechtman argues with good will and wants to find real answers to the Mr. Prager’s questions. I believe he promotes his partisan agenda. I don’t want to argue or read his opinion any more.
Ken Hechtman replies to LA:
You wrote:
“But the fact is that Democratic party does intend to try to prosecute government attorneys for giving legal opinions, as well as government officials for doing things in the national defense they felt were needed. This amounts to criminalizing political differences; and, along with such things as the increasing, open persecution of people who simply publicly express their support in normal marriage, such as the supporters of Prop. 8, such as beauty contestant Carrie Prejean, it is the kind of issue that could lead to civil conflict in this country if your friends on the left don’t look out.”
I don’t run the Democratic Party. If I did, this country would be a different place, believe that. Torture is only a political difference because we got a climate where everything is a political difference. And that is not healthy. Now, we could go round and round on whose fault that is but come on, we should all be able to get together on “we don’t torture.”
As far as the beauty contestant thing goes, she’s a beauty contestant ferchrissakes! She’s not supposed to be a deep political thinker! Anyway, we got to have our sights on bigger game than that.
LA replies::
You wrote:
“As far as the beauty contestant thing goes, she’s a beauty contestant ferchrissakes! She’s not supposed to be a deep political thinker! Anyway, we got to have our sights on bigger game than that.”
I’m shocked that you would say this. It throws into doubt all your protestations that you care about freedom. We now have an environment where people cannot express their opinion on a basic issue in a public forum, a question they were asked, not even a question they introduced. You don’t see the totalitarian nature of what happened here? “Tell me your position on X. But if you don’t give me the right answer, you’re going to be attacked and smeared from one end of the country to the other.”
What difference would it make if she were a beauty contestant, or a homemaker, or a teacher, or a student, or a writer, or a politician, or anyone? Why is the persecution not serious, because she’s a beauty contestant?
That was the precise point. She was participating in a beauty contest, not running for political office. She was asked a question as part of the contest, she answered in good faith, and found herself targeted by a leftist personal campaign. This doesn’t bother you.
You don’t see the nature of this? You don’t see what’s happening here?
Ken Hechtman replies:
Yes, I see it. I don’t like it. We don’t need it, either. We are winning and the opinions of beauty contestants don’t affect that one way or the other.
I’m not saying persecuting her isn’t serious. It is. And it’s wrong. I’m saying she’s not serious, and as such not worth our time.
LA replies:
Your implication seems to be that if she were serious, then it would be worth your time to target her for personal attack.
May 9
Steve R. writes:
I have to agree with Dimitri K.’s seemingly intolerant pronouncement. I don’t believe a word Ken says, for beneath all his arguments is the simple fact that his ‘religion’ forbids the state from inflicting pain under any circumstances. He informs us that even in the instance of the ‘ticking bomb’ he would not allow the infliction of pain by the state. Thus there is no reason to think that truth or falsity is of any consequence to him in whatever he utters on this matter.
He is like those who present 100 reasons why capital punishment is ineffective, unfair to minorities, a bad model for society, etc.. It is all argued in bad faith. When you ask them if those arguments were not a factor—in other words if it were proven to be effective, made fair to minorities, proven not to be a bad model—they still cannot bring themselves to support the taking of life by the state. Thus their arguments are all a disguise—no matter how rational they appear to be.
LA replies:
But why say you don’t believe a word? It seems to me he is frankly stating his position, as I pointed out in my comment above that I just added:
[LA adds, May 9: I see I missed a key point. Mr. Hechtman says: “We don’t do it because we don’t do it, because it ain’t who we are.” That is a categorical statement rejecting infliction of pain in any circumstances, even to get information to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. Hechtman’s position remains pure, like those Oxford students in 1934: he will not use force to protect king and country.]
Dale F. writes:
Hechtman is wrong about the Third Geneva Convention (governing the treatment of prisoners of war). He is not alone in this, of course. The Convention’s protections apply only to contracting parties—that is, those who have actually ratified the treaty and who abide by it—or to belligerents who have not ratified it but who nonetheless abide by it.
The protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Al Qaeda and other Islamic outlaw groups because those groups are not parties to the Conventions, nor do they abide by them. To treat outlaws as if they were protected by the Conventions is to remove the main incentive for abiding by the Conventions.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 08, 2009 10:00 AM | Send
|