To drive this point home to the general public, which, in the US is still easily persuaded by Cheney’s point of view that torture is justified if it saves lives, liberal commentators and politicians have called for a special commission to investigate fully the last administration’s record. This, they believe, will clearly show that torturing is counter-productive. Not only does it do great harm to the country’s image and the rule of law, but it is likely to cause more, not less, terrorism.
The intellectual and political merits of such an argument are obvious. The current administration cannot afford to walk into the trap set by Cheney and be held responsible for another possible terrorist attack just because it abolished torture.
But are these really the proper terms on which this debate should be held?
If torture is an absolute wrong, whatever the circumstances, the question of its effectiveness is irrelevant. To hold the debate on those terms threatens to dilute the moral principle.
This leaves the question of why torture should be condemned absolutely, whereas other acts of war, such as bombing, which cause more damage to human life, might be acceptable as inevitable consequences of national defense.
Bombing can, of course, be a war crime if it is used as an act of terror against unarmed people. But military operations that kill or injure civilians often do not automatically qualify as crimes, as long as deliberately inflicting pain or humiliation on a helpless individual — even if he or she is an enemy — is not the aim. In the case of torture, that is the aim, which is why it is different from other acts of war.
A prominent US right-wing commentator recently opined that any attempt to hold the torturers, and their masters in the Bush administration, accountable, would make a mockery “of the efforts of the tough and brave Americans who guard us while we sleep.”
Aside from the fact that torturing people is not the same as combat and requires little bravery, this gets it exactly wrong. After years of torturing people in one of South America’s most savage “dirty wars,” Brazil’s generals decided to stop it because its institutionalized use was undermining the armed forces’ discipline and morale. It was making a mockery of men who should be tough and brave, but instead had become thugs.
Ian Buruma is professor of democracy, human rights and journalism at Bard College, New York.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
RSS