BOB ABERNETHY….Did CIA interrogators go beyond the guidance they had? If so, should they be punished, and should Bush administration officials who authorized the techniques also be punished? We explore the moral issues with Shaun Casey, professor of ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington. Shaun, welcome. Let me take you back to the atmosphere right after 9/11. There was tremendous pressure on the administration to prevent another attack, to do whatever was necessary, to find out whatever they could about whether there was going to be another attack. Didn’t that justify the interrogation techniques that were put into place?
SHAUN CASEY (Professor Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, DC): I would argue that it’s precisely at those moments of crisis that we need to rely on our moral and legal tradition and resist giving up things like respect for the dignity of the human person, and I think that moral tradition argues that no matter who the person is, as a result of that dignity, they shouldn’t be subjected to the kinds of torture we suspect went on.
ABERNETHY: And even if you’re pretty sure you might be able to save several thousand more innocent lives, that would not trump the dignity of the individual prisoner?
PROFESSOR CASEY: What’s interesting even at the time, and now we know for sure, such information did not exist. We did not extract through torture any information that directly led to preventing another similar sort of tragic event. So in essence no, I think we should resist, because we don’t possess that kind of advance knowledge.
ABERNETHY: Apparently the CIA tried hard to keep what was done within the guidelines that existed but that in some cases people did exceed those guidelines. Should they be punished?
PROFESSOR CASEY: Absolutely.
[blockquote]ABERNETHY: And even if you’re pretty sure you might be able to save several thousand more innocent lives, that would not trump the dignity of the individual prisoner?
PROFESSOR CASEY: What’s interesting even at the time, and now we know for sure, such information did not exist. [/blockquote]
He dodged the question.
If posting a platoon as rear guard to the battalion, despite the near certainty that the platoon will be wiped out…is it the right thing to do? How about if the battalion ends up getting wiped out anyway? Did the regimental commander make the right decision? Should he sit in a court of law, miles away and years after the fact, and defend his order for the platoon to stand as the rear guard?
Was firebombing Dresden the right thing to do, despite the horrific civilian casualties? It shortened the war and helped bring the Nazis to their knees.
So…what is the moral thing to do? Is waterboarding an enemy terrorist for information, the same technique we use on our own personnel during SEAR training, immoral if there is a potential that the information could save thousands of civilians? Tens of thousands? A million?
If waterboarding is immoral to do to the enemy…what about when we do it to our own troops during training? Even if it is designed to help them resist the enemy if they are captured? If it is immoral to waterboard our own troops during training…what about sleep deprivation? If these things are moral to do to our own, for the purpose of helping them during war, why is it immoral to do it to an enemy bent on our murder and destruction?
It’s pretty easy for some to sit back in an easy chair, sipping their evening sherry, and pass moral judgement on situations they have never been faced with.
We used to train for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare. A standard part of NBC training was to suit up in protective gear called MOPP gear. Mask, over garment, boots, and gloves designed to protect us from those weapons of mass destruction. When the “all clear” was given, the least necessary person in the squad needed to perform the mission was selected. His weapon was taken away and he was ordered to “crack” his mask…meaning that he had to expose his face and lungs to what ever hazard might still be present. He was to be our human “canary bird in the mine”. Was that moral? Even though it would save the lives of the other 8 – 12 men? What if one of the men saved was your own son?
These are not easy things to determine. The Left seems to have gotten their collective wish. They have indeed turned the Global War on Terror into another Vietnam. They were busy back then doing the same things that they are doing now. The result back then ended up being the fall of South Vietnam and the dominoes of Laos and Cambodia following quickly after. Then came the killing fields…all because of the Case-Church Amendment.
What will be the result of the Left politicising the current conflict?
What happened to Obama’s promise that “we’re not going to look backwards” on these matters? Another promise broken?
Culturally, the United States of America is two countries. That is two cultural ethnicities living side-by-side, much as in Yugoslavia under Tito.
This division became more clear and more defined and apparent within American society between the end of World War Two and the mid-1960s.
Today, it is reflected by the often autocratic behavior of which party wields political power. Right now, its the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
That group, has its own agenda apart from that of the rank-and-file Democrats, it has gained a temporary political ascendancy which seems to dominate all events, but that won’t last. And the attacks on our national security establishment will be greatly reduced in intensity and the damage caused by the left-wing political radicals will be repaired.
It will be repaired because, even though we Americans have two different political ethnicities, the majority of both groups love our country and fear neglectful/incompetent leadership of our national security forces.
libraryjim, Are you suggesting that we are to believe the “one”?
As #1 noted, he dodged the question, and raised a utilitarian argument instead: we shouldn’t have done it because it didn’t have any effect. So, by a similar utilitarian argument, shouldn’t we say there was nothing wrong with these techniques because the subjects didn’t suffer any real harm?
I’m personally not too keen on the idea of our government (therefore acting as my agent) using techniques that are arguably “torture.” But I also think that given the circumstances (yes, moral relativism!), there is no justice to be pursued in punishing those who gave or carried out these orders. The stakes were high, the emotions were high, there was reason to believe that information might have been obtained, and precautions were taken to prevent true injury. We might reasonably second-guess these actions if we want to avoid them in the future, but that’s very different from punishing them for those already taken.
And as an aside, wasn’t there some claim that the interrogations actually did yield info that helped to prevent additional attacks? I don’t have a citation handy, but thought I had read that some time ago.
[i]Sick & Tired of Nuance[/i] wrote,
[blockquote]So…what is the moral thing to do? Is waterboarding an enemy terrorist for information, the same technique we use on our own personnel during SEAR training, immoral if there is a potential that the information could save thousands of civilians? Tens of thousands? A million?
If waterboarding is immoral to do to the enemy…what about when we do it to our own troops during training? Even if it is designed to help them resist the enemy if they are captured? If it is immoral to waterboard our own troops during training…what about sleep deprivation? If these things are moral to do to our own, for the purpose of helping them during war, why is it immoral to do it to an enemy bent on our murder and destruction?[/blockquote]
Without entering at all into the question wheter (a) the CIA should have used such methods, or (b) whether anyone should now be prosecuted for doing so, I want to point out a flaw in this reasoning:
When we use procedures like waterboarding in training our own troops and operatives, while they suffer the physical pain of the procedure they nevertheless know that no-one is intending to do them any harm.
When we use procedures like waterboarding on captured enemy troops and operatives, especially ones from cultures where government routinely abuses human rights and harms its own people, they believe the spoken and implied threats of the interrogator and thus suffer not only the physical pain but the de-humanizing mental anguish of the threats.
Big difference, therefore an illegitimate comparison to make.
‘..and thus suffer not only the physical pain but the de-humanizing mental anguish of the threats.’
ALL punishment involves ‘mental anguish’. The issue turns on the definition of torture.
Has anyone here actually read the declassified reports on interrogation? Is his assertion that “nothing was learned true”? I have not read the reports, but commentery in the press, radio, and on TV certainly point to critical information that was obtained and may have thwarted serious terrorist intentions. Is that true, or is that false?
Sitting in a chair with sherry is also a different environment than that which we experienced on Sept 12, 2001.
While Jesus calls us to “love your enemy” he nowhere tells us to give into evil. I wonder what Casey was thinking as the Towers crumbled?
[blockquote]When we use procedures like waterboarding on captured enemy troops and operatives, especially ones from cultures where government routinely abuses human rights and harms its own people, they believe the spoken and implied threats of the interrogator and thus suffer not only the physical pain but the de-humanizing mental anguish of the threats.
Big difference, therefore an illegitimate comparison to make.[/blockquote]
The nature of the technique of waterboarding argues against what you are claiming. Waterboarding, by it’s nature is a repeated procedure that causes temporary oxygen deprivation. The panic that ensues bypasses the higher congnitive processes. Trainees enduring it are not thinking to themselves, “whew, thank goodness this isn’t really real”. They are too busy trying to get oxygen. Their bodies do not know that it is just a training event, and their bodies are in control when the training is occuring. BTW, they are typically cold/wet, sleepy beyond belief, and at the edge of physical exhaustion. That is kind of the point of the training. You might be surprised what America’s finest endure for the priviledge of protecting you.
________________________________________
Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided little information to his interrogators after his capture, according to the CIA Inspector General’s report.
[blockquote]”But after being waterboarded and deprived of sleep for 7 1/2 days he changed his cooperation with his interrogators and began to give them prolific information which helped prevent a 9-11 style attack on Heathrow airport in London, thwart the hijacking and destruction of 12 airliners over the Pacific and an attack on Los Angeles International airport, among others. In addition, the report says, he gave information on as many as 70 al-Qaeda operatives around the world.
Source: http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-08-30-237815.112112_Waterboarding_works.html%5B/blockquote%5D
So, I guess that Heath Row, LAX, 12 airliner hijackings, and 70 al-Qaeda operatives count as “nothing learned”. Gosh, the double-speak and double-think is getting hard to follow.
Sick & Tired……….thx for the info…………I guess that sherry causes mental blackouts too………………..
Why pick a an ethics professor from an institution that has significant ethical deficiencies. Wesley Seminary routinely lets students, both straight and gay, openly co-habitate in their dormitories, which directly contravenes at least two church rules from the Discipline of the United Methodist church. Show me an ethicist from an ethical institution, who has endured significant hardship because of his/her ethics, and I will be more willing to listen. I guess what I am looking for here is a Bonhoeffer model of ethics.
English journalist David Rose asked FBI director Robert Mueller last year if he was aware of any attacks on America that had been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through “enhanced techniques,” Mueller replied: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
Historians will likely judge the putative intelligence gains made by abusive interrogation techniques were easily outweighed by the damage they caused to the United States’ moral standing.
That is certainly the view of Adm. Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, who wrote in April 2009, “These techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefits they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”
Everyone seems to be overlooking some very important points. First and foremost is the fact that unlike every other country in the world, American stands for the principal all people hold certain rights which cannot be taken by any government without due process of law. This was the principal on which our country was founded. Second, we have entered into agreements not to engage in torture, and water boarding has been regarded as torture under those agreements. Third, we have tried and executed the citizens of other countries for engaging in torture, which included water boarding.
If you go down the road you propose, i.e. that a person or entity such as the CIA can be given the authority to act as they deem fit so long as there is the possibility of saving life; then you can rationalize anything. There is always the possibility of saving life. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument supports an end to all international agreements regarding the treatment of prisoners and human rights; and even brings into question the sanctity of our rights as American citizens. Could we place the children of a domestic terrorists in front of a television and begin executing them one at a time until he turns himself in? What if that would save 10 lives?, 100 lives? 1000 lives?, 10,000 lives?, 100,000 lives? When do we hit Sold.
If Iran arrests an American journalist and tortures him until he says, “I am a US spy sent to blow up Iran’s nuclear plants”; how can we object if we would do the same thing to an Iranian we contend came to our country to commit terrorists acts?
One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the EIT (called by some “torture”) does not have as its goal, the direct revelation of information. Very little information comes as a direct result of EIT. The goal of EIT is to break the will of the subject so that information can be obtained.
The problem is that the Left equates sleep deprivation with lack of comfort with psychologicla trickery with stress positions with water boarding (a very rare occurence) with beatings and physical torture – such as our airmen received in South East Asia.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]Is waterboarding an enemy terrorist for information, the same technique we use on our own personnel during SEAR[sic] training, immoral if there is a potential that the information could save thousands of civilians?[/blockquote]
The SERE training was implemented to prepare our soldiers for the practice–of our enemies in the cold war–of using waterboarding or other forms of torture to elicit FALSE CONFESSIONS that would be used as anti-American propaganda. At NO POINT in the development of SERE was it believed or assumed that these techniques had any value for obtaining TRUE statements.
It is no surprise that applying the torture designed to produce false confessions did not end up yielding useful, true information.
Torture is immoral.
[blockquote]Torture is immoral. [/blockquote]
That’s the easy part. The hard part is defining what torture is.
Ok…let me see if I understand this administration:
We’re gonna let Grandma suffer with old age problems—just give her a pain pill, was the exact quote, and old age problems can HURT–man—I’m telling you. She will SUFFER.
But, we can’t pour some water on a killer to make him tell us whom he is gonna kill next.
So, Obama’s plan is to let old folks in America , folks who have been here all their lives, paid taxes, and all…suffer. But we are going to prosecute those who make terrorists suffer.
Who in the world voted for this?
bl
not me!
Reply to # 17.
Great juxtaposition Bob!
Tegularius,
Are you arguing that we should end sleep deprivation and the waterboarding portion of SERE training for our own troops? If these are torture, then how can we continue to practice this on our own people? By the way…gosh, my muscles burned and ached as we did PT every morning at 0500…and gee, that pack’s straps really started cutting into my shoulders…they even left marks…and holy cow, did those blisters on my feet hurt as we were on patrol.
So, what is torture? How do you define it? What is it to be kept in a cell? Is that psychological manipulation and a form of torture? Ask an inmate. Ask an inmate’s family.
Your assertion may be true that: “At NO POINT in the development of SERE was it believed or assumed that these techniques had any value for obtaining TRUE statements.” However, according to the CIA Inspector General, the EIT used by the CIA personnel on enemy combatants (terrorists) DID yield useful and truthful information. You are simply wrong about the fact that useful information was gained and that the information helped to thwart terrorist attacks at Heath Row, LAX, and twelve airliner hijacking as well as revealing 70 al-Qeda.
BTW, DOJ bought of on the CIA’s techniques all along the way…so start lining up the lawyers, too.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/08/25/abc-nbc-resist-vindicating-cheney-hayes-finds-proof-eits-effective
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-08-30-237815.112112_Waterboarding_works.html
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1072448&srvc=home&position=6
Should have been “bought off” not “of”.
Corrected previous typo, “SEAR”.
Should be “highjackings” not “highjacking”.
What I want to know is since when did someone’s dignity become more important that saving human lives. I’d give up my dignity every day, if it would save a life, and I would not treat someone with dignity every day, if it would save another’s life. Sorry, it’s time for adults to take charge again.