Jeff Jarvis says:
Rape is not torture. It is a crime. Beating someone to within an inch of his life is not torture. It is a crime. And those who committed these acts should be treated like cops who assault a prisoner with a bathroom plunger: with trials and same and perp walks and prison.Jeff Jarvis sounds like an apologist for torture. When I read this I think he means that torture is justifiable in some circumstances. As for me, I think that torture is a crime and I know that that it is banned by international law....Let me make this clear: When I say that some of what has been done in Abu Ghraib is a crime not torture, I am saying that it is worse and is clearly punishable as a crime. Torture has many definitions. Crime is defined by statute as are its punishments.
Perhaps this matter of the Nazification of America and the acceptance of torture as a means to an end is the litmus test for American values in this generation. I hope Kerry frames this as a campaign issue and that there is a majority willing to stand up and say "No!"
Frank, I don't see how you get this from what Jeff says. He's not saying that torture is ok if it's not a crime, and I very much doubt that that's what he believes.
Posted by: David Weinberger | May 10, 2004 at 08:01 AM
it's clear that what he is saying makes no sense.
Unless you are trying very hard to not look at the truth. It's NOT just some loose cannon criminals, it goes to the top. This is what they (the Bushies) do and have been doing.
I applaud Frank for pointing it out.
Oh, and the David Brooks article he cites is all white man's burden bullshit.
Posted by: Bruce | May 10, 2004 at 08:19 AM
David,
At Jarvis' blog, like in other unicast efforts such as Instapundit, the action and information is in the comments. Perhaps I'm wrong to allow second order inference to influence my sense of Jarvis' meaning. I should go straight to the source. I didn't, and I'm not sure I'll spend the time. I never read TV Guide and frankly, the Buzz Machine leaves me cold too. Nevertheless, let me quote in its entirety one of the comments to the Jarvis post that I referenced:
"Jeff, by drawing a distinction between torture and criminal acts, you are clearly trying to justify your earlier post, in which you stated that torture is acceptable in some cases.
For your words to have any real meaning you need to:
1. Give some specific examples of acts of torture which you think are acceptable. Otherwise, you can keep saying things like, "Of course, I wasn't referring to criminal acts like rape and murder."
2. Say who you think should be able to decide when torture may be used. (Bush? Rumsfeld? Lynndie England?) Then consider whether you would want your fate, or the fate of your family members, entrusted to them.
As for me, I don't buy it. Torture is never OK.
And I'd be interested in knowing what your sister (the Presbyterian minister) would have to say on this subject.
Posted by Jim B. at May 9, 2004 02:56 PM"
I think, David, that there is a difference between your rhetorical and non-absolutist stance and the perspective that Jarvis has shared. (okay... I'm gonna have to look up the original post... be right back...)
Damn!! It turns out - if I found the right post - that Jarvis was quoting you when you said:
"I am willing to admit that there are circumstances in which torture is permissible, just as I think sometimes we have to kill people. And I'm willing to admit that what we apparently put the Abu Ghraib prisoners through wasn't nearly as bad as the torture that's routine in many other countries.
Is the right willing to admit that: Torture should only be used in the direst of circumstances?"
I have no desire to quarrel with you about this. My perspective is that there are times when we must make efforts to stick to what you might call absolutist rules, like "no torture - ever." Your perspective is - I think - that "torture is awful, hideous, deplorable, ugly, bad as can be... but we can make no absolute rule against it because it's conceivable that it could be employed either for a higher good or in circumstances where one's organic and animal humanity has driven one to break through the civilized codes of ethics and morals that we prefer to live by." Not to put words in your mouth, but that's how I read your post. I don't want to quarrel about it because I think that you respect my simple absolutist attempt to live morally, and I certainly respect your earnest attempt to reveal reality in all its complexity.
Nevertheless, I'm going to quote another Buzz machine comment to illustrate that there are absolutes afoot, absolutes bounded by law:
"From the 1984 Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
The convention defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.” It may be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Punishing the detainee for an act he or another person committed, or intimidating him or someone else for reasons based on discrimination, also come under the legal definition of torture.
This is codified in human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the European, African, and Inter-American Conventions on Human Rights.
Torture is specifically prohibited in armed conflict, whether international or internal, whether used against soldiers who have laid down their arms, civilians, or even common criminals. The prohibition exists in customary law and in treaties. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 makes it clear that “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” as well as “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” are banned under any circumstances. The Hague Regulations of 1907 on customs of war also state in Article 44 that “a belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense.”
Posted by Michael at May 7, 2004 07:41 PM
I agree with your recent postings on impeachment. The Bush mob has turned its collective back on international law, and I think for this reason alone impeachment would be justified.
I don't agree with your recent attempt to "find a middle ground" on torture.
Posted by: fp | May 10, 2004 at 09:05 AM
Middle ground might exist between people but torture is, by nature and definition, always extreme. To try and reconcile people to each other is laudable; to try to reconcile people to torture is pretty noxious.
David, perhaps Abu Ghraib was 'not as bad' as Kunduz (another Special Forces spectacular); perhaps the LRA and Janjaweed of Sudan make the 'softening up' of Iraqis prior to 'interrogation' look pretty tame. Who's to say?
The law is pretty inadequate in this regard and it is left to judges to decide (in terms of the law) sentences often seen as too harsh or too lenient.
Your somewhat emphatic statements make it difficult not to pursue the question in this instance. Is it better to be raped (taking differing cultural norms into account) by a torch or broom, by another male, or gang-banged?
I ask you this because, by trying to reconcile people to the deed (torture) rather than to each other, you seem to be making a case for degrees of the unacceptable.
Frank and Bruce call it pretty straight. Policy and globally accepted norms are being wilfully ignored or subverted to serve the interests of those least likely to be punished. Internationally agreed-to absolutes have been ignored and people's most basic rights have been violated.
Yet the thugs now being court-martialled stand alone. Their commanding officers are sliding into promotions, the business sector, or 'independent reviews'.
Commissions of inquiry into torture in South Africa became a standing joke, one I believe Americans will appreciate in time. Karpinski's superior, Fast (who was in charge of all itelligence extraction at Abu Ghraib), has slipped into the shadows purely because abuses were investigated by a General commanding a lesser rank than she.
Who investigates the Commander in Chief? I believe that is up to the people. That proceedings for George W. Bush's impeachment have not yet been initiated boggles this foreigner's brain.
Moreover, that this flagrant abuse stretches from the president of the United States to those who would excuse it in the street is one of the primary reasons so many of us out here believe it to be systemic, i.e. ingrained in the American way of doing things.
Now, if we can get back to what you initially set out to do, to get people to renounce torture and speak to (rather than past) each other, perhaps there's a chance we will start imagining new and better ways of securing America's future. And, of course, the future of those who feel threatened by the U.S.'s need for security.
Much like 'terror', that 'security' remains pretty ill-defined, its woolliness again serving the interests of those who would manipulate it to serve themselves.
Debate is needed. But agreement on what is acceptable and what is not is needed before such debate can take place.
Posted by: Mike Golby | May 10, 2004 at 05:36 PM