Not sure if it counts as one of those weird coincidences that Life throws at us but I was just reading the late but still great Christopher Hitchens' collection of essays and reviews, called Arguably and came upon his piece for Vanity Fair, from August 2008.
In this essay, Hitchens recalls how he undertook an experience of 'waterboarding', courtesy of some Special Forces veterans. These men had previously completed SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training, part of which included how to resist various forms of torture, one of which was 'waterboarding'.
Hitchens relates that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the so called 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks had supposedly endured 'waterboarding' for two minutes. Hitchens suspected that his own period was much less but hearing that KSM may have survived a much shorter period, he felt somewhat better.
Hitchens talks of the perpetrators of his 'waterboarding' which he clearly considers as torture, in somewhat awed tones.
Hitchens being balanced, goes on to proffer the views of Mr Malcolm Nance, someone involved with SERE since 19997. A man who would never be considered a 'bleeding heart liberal', Mr Nance also considers 'waterboarding' as torture and questions the reliability and value of information so obtained. He also goes on to suggest that because some of these captives that were 'waterborded', were subsequently released, then these have provided the terrorists with a training exercise which perhaps goes some way to explaining its subsequent inefficiency in actually gaining useful information.
Anyway, all of this is to lead up to the dilemma that we face.
The USA and the UK are among nations that condemn torture and punish this whenever we get the opportunity. How then to accept the notion that the intelligence services have been using methods which can only be described as torture, to gain information?
Can the 'ends' - life-saving information on terrorist activities - be justified when the 'means' are based on what we consider to be horrific and criminal acts - torture?
The dilemma is compounded by the type of war that is now being waged. The USA and UK and other 'allies' are fighting an enemy (ISIS, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc., etc.) which doesn't play by the same rules that are applied to them.
Indeed, consider the case of Israel and HAMAS. Israel considers, and all evidence suggests that they are correct, that they are under attack from Gaza by HAMAS. Israel sees their actions as protecting their people - a fundamental requirement of any government. HAMAS though take a more global viewpoint on its duties to its 'people'. To HAMAS, placing rocket launchers in civilian areas, close to schools and hospitals is part and parcel of waging war against Israel. This then presents Israel with a major dilemma. Their dilemma is made worse by a media that either allows itself to be manipulated by HAMAS and fellow terrorist organizations or simply accepts the 'party-line' from the terrorists, without ever questioning them or applying to HAMAS, the same standards with which they judge Israel.
So how can the intelligence services fight the 'war on terror' with 'one hand tied behind their back'? I say that not to specifically condone torture but to put in play the thought that if we are to make progress in this 'war', then we must do so using all available weapons.
It seems to me that we have to endorse some methods, which under normal circumstances, we would abhor, simply because our enemies do not expect us to.
I comfort myself that there are 'checks and balances' within the democratic system to keep the intelligence services under scrutiny. I don't think it is naive to say that while we do have the power of the ballot box, we can control those who would perform these acts on our behalf. Equally, I do not see that we have any choice but to ask these men to act as we want them to but we must not then indict and prosecute them if they do so. That is, we expect politicians to set the 'rules' on our behalf and then so long as the intelligence services stay within those bounds, we cannot apply 'official' laws against them.
Further, it is wrong, on so many levels, for a subsequent administration to seek to re-write rules of engagement, down the road. One doesn't have high expectations of President Obama but his abandoning of his intelligence services, indeed his throwing of them to the liberal 'West-hating' media, is a new low, even for an administration that has already plumbed heretofore unseen depths.
So perhaps I have answered my own dilemma, at least for me. Torture can be acceptable as a means to and end, so long as that process is democratically controlled. What think you?
Oh and by the way, do buy Christopher Hitchens book Arguably. His views don't really conform to a stereotype but they are always thought provoking.
In this essay, Hitchens recalls how he undertook an experience of 'waterboarding', courtesy of some Special Forces veterans. These men had previously completed SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training, part of which included how to resist various forms of torture, one of which was 'waterboarding'.
Hitchens relates that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the so called 'mastermind' of the 9/11 attacks had supposedly endured 'waterboarding' for two minutes. Hitchens suspected that his own period was much less but hearing that KSM may have survived a much shorter period, he felt somewhat better.
Hitchens talks of the perpetrators of his 'waterboarding' which he clearly considers as torture, in somewhat awed tones.
"This group regards itself as out on the front line in defense of a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep. These heroes stay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch. Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution. As they have just tried to demonstrate to me (Hitchens), a man who has been 'waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, 'waterboarding' is more like foreplay. No thumbscrews, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame a diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."
Hitchens being balanced, goes on to proffer the views of Mr Malcolm Nance, someone involved with SERE since 19997. A man who would never be considered a 'bleeding heart liberal', Mr Nance also considers 'waterboarding' as torture and questions the reliability and value of information so obtained. He also goes on to suggest that because some of these captives that were 'waterborded', were subsequently released, then these have provided the terrorists with a training exercise which perhaps goes some way to explaining its subsequent inefficiency in actually gaining useful information.
Anyway, all of this is to lead up to the dilemma that we face.
The USA and the UK are among nations that condemn torture and punish this whenever we get the opportunity. How then to accept the notion that the intelligence services have been using methods which can only be described as torture, to gain information?
Can the 'ends' - life-saving information on terrorist activities - be justified when the 'means' are based on what we consider to be horrific and criminal acts - torture?
The dilemma is compounded by the type of war that is now being waged. The USA and UK and other 'allies' are fighting an enemy (ISIS, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc., etc.) which doesn't play by the same rules that are applied to them.
Indeed, consider the case of Israel and HAMAS. Israel considers, and all evidence suggests that they are correct, that they are under attack from Gaza by HAMAS. Israel sees their actions as protecting their people - a fundamental requirement of any government. HAMAS though take a more global viewpoint on its duties to its 'people'. To HAMAS, placing rocket launchers in civilian areas, close to schools and hospitals is part and parcel of waging war against Israel. This then presents Israel with a major dilemma. Their dilemma is made worse by a media that either allows itself to be manipulated by HAMAS and fellow terrorist organizations or simply accepts the 'party-line' from the terrorists, without ever questioning them or applying to HAMAS, the same standards with which they judge Israel.
So how can the intelligence services fight the 'war on terror' with 'one hand tied behind their back'? I say that not to specifically condone torture but to put in play the thought that if we are to make progress in this 'war', then we must do so using all available weapons.
It seems to me that we have to endorse some methods, which under normal circumstances, we would abhor, simply because our enemies do not expect us to.
I comfort myself that there are 'checks and balances' within the democratic system to keep the intelligence services under scrutiny. I don't think it is naive to say that while we do have the power of the ballot box, we can control those who would perform these acts on our behalf. Equally, I do not see that we have any choice but to ask these men to act as we want them to but we must not then indict and prosecute them if they do so. That is, we expect politicians to set the 'rules' on our behalf and then so long as the intelligence services stay within those bounds, we cannot apply 'official' laws against them.
Further, it is wrong, on so many levels, for a subsequent administration to seek to re-write rules of engagement, down the road. One doesn't have high expectations of President Obama but his abandoning of his intelligence services, indeed his throwing of them to the liberal 'West-hating' media, is a new low, even for an administration that has already plumbed heretofore unseen depths.
So perhaps I have answered my own dilemma, at least for me. Torture can be acceptable as a means to and end, so long as that process is democratically controlled. What think you?
Oh and by the way, do buy Christopher Hitchens book Arguably. His views don't really conform to a stereotype but they are always thought provoking.
No comments:
Post a Comment