Torture is
a concept that evokes incredibly strong feelings. There are times it inspires
patriotic rancor in those who view it as a justifiable response to sub human
enemies who are not worthy of moral consideration. In others it is a deplorable
act that debases our status as a developed nation. I find myself pulled towards
the use of torture when the ends justify the means- for example the highly
unlikely ticking time bomb scenario. But I have to remind myself that torture
is an archaic, barbaric act. I am not entirely dismissing its use, but I
believe that the use of torture damages our reputation and lowers our status as
a reputable global superpower.
Krauthammer
works on the idea that some deserve torture because they have given up their
humanity by engaging in despicable acts. This is an exceptional view that
counts the United States as the benevolent policing hegemon and terrorists as
the riffraff that we must deal with. But it’s important to remember that when
terrorists are considered rational actors when analyzed. Krauthammer writes as
if they lack any ability to reason and have resorted to a subhuman method of
achieving an irrational goal, and this is a fundamental misunderstanding of
what a terrorist really is that fails to justify torture.
Yoo’s
commentary that terrorists are not conventional soldiers and thus do not
receive the benefits of the Geneva Convention is tricky. Why are they
considered less than soldiers? Does one being under the banner of a state
absolve them of the risk of being tortured? United States soldiers have certainly
done things in the past that are morally despicable from an objective
standpoint-indiscriminate burning of villages, torture and humiliation of
prisoners. Does this mean that these soldiers are not conventional and could be
apt to torture? I think that to justify torture through the debasement of
terrorists is a fallacy. It views our role in the world as righteous and the
role of all terrorists as despicable. Sometimes these roles are not so clear
cut.
I agree with your evaluation of Krauthammer's argument- claiming that some people deserve torture because they have "given up" their humanity upon resorting to terrorist methods truly does place an unfathomable amount of power and judgement into the hands of a state. This argument reminds me of a similar claim often used to support the death penalty in the U.S. which states that criminals who perpetrate heinous crimes have "given up" their right to live and deserve to be given the death penalty. However, though you bring up an intriguing argument about how even so-called "conventional" soldiers commit acts of terrorism, in my opinion, there is certainly a distinction between terrorism and state-driven war. In conventional warfare, since soldiers are tied to an easily recognizable state entity, there is more accountability for war crimes and other dishonorable actions and such actions, if committed, are the exception and not the norm. Hardly the same can be said of terrorism which purposely targets enemy civilians as well as the enemy state, and cannot be held accountable for such actions as it is not confined to a particular territory. For this reason, I think countries need to convene and add terrorism to the discussion of "just war", perhaps coming up with a framework within which it can be addressed adequately.
ReplyDelete