Applying Socrates and Machiavelli to Krauthammer

In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Socrates states his belief that no matter what someone else has done to you, you do not have the right to do wrong to them.  Socrates believes that an act needs to be isolated outside of context.  Once this is done, if an act is thought to be a wrong, it is wrong in all situations.  Machiavelli relays a different message in The Prince.  Machiavelli believes that every act should be examined in context.  Certain acts are warranted in some situations and not warranted in others.  These two concepts are a general picture of the debate over whether torture should be made legal or not.  Clearly Socrates would say that torture should not be legal and Machiavelli would allow it to always be an option. In both political thinkers’ time, mass murder was not of the capable magnitude that it is today.  I dare to suggest that a situation such as a “ticking bomb” in today’s world could be posed to Socrates and it would be awfully difficult for him to say that torture is not warranted.  However, I believe that Socrates would say something on the subject similar to what was highlighted in the Krauthammer piece about how our actions reflect our ideals to the rest of the world.  Socrates is not one to tolerate hypocrisy, which is evident in his idea of determining the rightness and wrongness of an act outside of its context.  An America, with all of its ideals and luster, would be a hypocrisy if torture was made legal.  In considering Machiavelli’s words, Krauthammer wishes to protect the love that people have for “America” such as was displayed during WWII.  Machiavelli of course does not find this to be the best option via, “it is better to be feared than loved”.  For much of my days I have understood what Machiavelli means by this, but the subject of torture throws a wrinkle in his statement.  Perhaps he would insist that torture falls outside of guidelines he presents for Princes.  After all he believed that if a prince must do something bad you should do it quickly and quietly, if you do something good, you should make it last as to savor the flavor, or something along those lines.  America may certainly torture quietly but not swiftly.  Torture is an interesting subject when you apply the thought of late philosophers because in most of their time and Krauthammer pointed out, torture was reserved only for slaves.

Should Torture be allowed?

 

Torture is thought to be the breakdown of one’s will, till he or she caves. Torture in the U.S military in recent years is similar to this definition. Prisoners of war are consistently assaulted till they say uncle. The efficaciousness of the method is what bothers me.  I know that if I am being subjected to daily assaults of water boarding, shock and verbal abuse, I will admit to the crime even when I’m innocent, just to make the punishment stop. Granted most of these prisoners are confirmed terrorists, but what about those who were arrested at military checkpoints or those who unknowingly overtake U.S. military convoys?

Krauthammer opposes McCain’s bill to outlaw any form of torture for prisoners of war. He defends it by stating that it makes the U.S. sitting ducks and lives are loss unnecessarily.  He states that torture can be used in two scenarios, like the ticking time bomb example. The chances of this happening are slim and besides most of the Guantanamo detainees have limited knowledge of the main plan that their leaders are planning, they were just misguided accomplices.

I agree that the use of torture on anyone is inhumane but when there is no other choice, it must be used to save lives. But what kind of knowledge does the interrogators gain, are they useful or just forced confessions from the innocent prisoner? Bomb scares in the United States, as of late are often almost carried out until either technology or a citizen discovers it and puts an end to it. Despite the amount of torture and interrogation that takes place, no productive result has been yielded. Sometimes, plain interrogation may have sufficed or the truth serum would have done the trick, torture of other extreme kinds should have only been used for the hardened criminal. The problem then is the containment of its usage. The incident at Abu Ghraib is one of the problems of not being able to contain the methods of torture. There should be guidelines as to when to use it, like when lives can be prevented from being lost, or when seeking out the leader of a terrorist group etc. Using it on a person who failed to stop at a military checkpoint in Iraq or Afghanistan is just wrong.  I think being able to pinpoint when torture should be used would save the reputation of the United States.  Senator McCain’s total abolition is just not possible but accountability might be.

Underlying Cause of Torture

The so-called “war on terror” has brought up many ethical issues, but the torture of prisoners and combatants seems to be the biggest ethical issue and debate concerning this war. In my opinion, the underlying cause of this dispute of whether or not it is appropriate to use torture as a war tactic on prisoners and combatants in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is due to the fact that the United States hasn’t found an effective paradigm in dealing with terrorists.

Michael Glennon and John Yoo both argue that the “war on terror” against Al-Qaida presented “unprecedented military challenges” (Yoo, Commentary: Behind the ‘torture memos’). As Yoo mentions, unlike the past opponents of the United States during war, Al-Qaida does not have “regular armed forces, territory or citizens to defend” (Commentary: Behind the ‘torture memos’). This means that the United States could not use its previous techniques in war, such as targeting civilians and resources, like in World War Two, to thwart the opposing threats and forces. The United States therefore cannot deal with terrorist attacks by Al-Qaida through the framework of criminal or war procedures as Glennon stated in his reading. With no precedent on how to deal with terrorists, the United States resorted to torturing prisoners and combatants in hopes of obtaining information.

The torturing of prisoners and combatants in hopes of obtaining information however has had little success, and therefore the United States needs to recognize that a new paradigm needs to be adopted. Instead of adopting a new paradigm as Glennon suggests, such as instating new policies and laws regarding terrorism, the United States has justified its breach of humanitarian rights by resorting to loopholes in international law. This being said, I do not agree with Bush Administration’s point of view in dealing with terrorists by getting around international law. I agree with Sullivan that there should be consequences and laws for those who torture when the ends no longer justify the means, as in the case of the “war on terror”. I believe that since the United States has now established that torture is not an appropriate tactic in dealing with terrorists, we need to move on to another paradigm, and develop a new framework as Glennon suggests. 

The uniqueness of torture

In this section’s readings about torture the thoughts of David Sussman in his article What’s Wrong with Torture? were of particular interest. Sussman states that “there is something morally special about torture that distinguishes it from most other kinds of violence, cruelty, or degrading treatment”(Sussman, pg 190).  Sussman goes on to say that there is something morally wrong because of the core concepts that constitute torture are of a distinctive kind of wrong that is not characteristically found in other forms of extreme violence or coercion. It is because of this special type of wrong that may explain why we find torture to be more morally offensive than other ways of inflicting great physical or psychological harm. I believe that Sussman makes an excellent point because rather you support or oppose the use of torture, we can all agree that there is something very unique about torture that sets it apart from other acts of violence. Another point of interest that Sussman makes is that there are no accidents in torture; for example a soldier can shoot at a person with an attempt to hit their leg but accidently kill the person instead. As Sussman states in torture one cannot say the same; for instance one cannot say that they accidently torture a person. 

One of the things that makes torture so unique is partially because of the relationship that the act causes between the person that causes the pain, and the person that receives the pain. Sussman says that this relationship is “a profoundly asymmetric relation of dependence and vulnerability between the parties. The victim of torture must be unable to shield herself in any significant way, and she must be unable to effectively evade or retaliate against her tormenter…the torture victim must see herself as being unable to put up andy real moral or legal resistance to her tormentor”(Sussman, pg 191, 192). The sense of helplessness can be seen as a part of the torture process as one feels not only the physical pain, but the pain of knowing that there is nothing that one can do to stop it. In presenting ideas such as the unique relationship between the torturer and the tormented, I believe that Sussman has made a persuasive enough argument that we should openly accept that torture is not just another form of violence.  

The Case of Torture: How the 'Ends' Fall Short of Justifying the 'Means'

            The U.S. has often been described as the "leader of the free world", "America the great" and a "beacon of democracy". America's conduct during the War on Terror, including its resort to torture, is serving to severely taint this image, undermine its foreign policy interests and sabotage the cause itself. The utilitarian premise of "ends justify the means" has never been acceptable in our legal forums and within the justice system, and it should thus not be extended to the sensitive context of torture.  To illustrate this point, the following analogy will suffice: when the means of obtaining evidence are deemed unconstitutional, such evidence may be excluded from a trial even if it results in a guilty person going free, perhaps even causing great harm. The "ends justify the means" rationale is, however, what underpins the actions of terrorists who are willing to harm the fundamentals of humanity in order to attain a political objective. Condemning terrorist behavior thus requires that the U.S. reject the aforementioned rationale in moral decision-making. Engaging in torture represents a victory for terrorism, as it has succeeded in causing the U.S. to stoop towards terrorist methods. Sullivan makes a compelling comparison when he states, "What our practical endorsement of torture has done is to remove that clear boundary between the Islamists and the West and make the two equivalent in the Muslim mind. Saddam Hussein used Abu Ghraib to torture innocents; so did the Americans. Yes, what Saddam did was exponentially worse. But, in doing what we did, we blurred the critical, bright line between the Arab past and what we are proposing as the Arab future. We gave Al Qaeda an enormous propaganda coup, as we have done with Guantánamo and Bagram, the "Salt Pit" torture chambers in Afghanistan, and the secret torture sites in Eastern Europe.." America's very conduct during war and the use of torture inarguably and perhaps inevitably strips it of its moral leadership and credibility and renders so-called "democratization and freedom missions" as pure hypocrisy, often isolating any potential and crucial allies. Torture is thus at odds with the fundamental values of our society, and the international community must convene to amend current laws in place and create a new framework within which the unconventional threat of terrorism can be properly addressed. 

How Far is Too Far?

The United States, if not the ‘shining city on a hill,’ is certainly at least a unique superpower. A massive country with a sprawling population and an ideological bastion, the US is loved, hated, and relied on for military support all at the same time. Those enacting foreign policy for the United States do not have the luxury of using past states as templates for how to run this country. The truth is, the problems we face being such a massive state in the 21^st century simply do not compare to states of the past. That being said, we ride a fine line between security and civil liberties-a line that divides the country into those valuing security above all else and those championing the rights of the constituency.

Growing up in a military family and being in university at the same time keeps me a bit torn between the two. While I can’t help but feel a sense of pride for the military industrial complex and our norms of freedom and liberty, it’s still a bit disconcerting to hear about the government bypassing civil rights for the sake of security.

On one hand, I find myself agreeing with Mertus and the idea that there are absolute human rights that are not to be violated, such as that to privacy. However at the same time it is difficult to deny that the United States has to take unique measures when it is fighting a unique battle, and for that particularism holds true.

The line that the US is riding is one with many gray areas. What kind of torture is acceptable? Are some civilian casualties to be expected during drone strikes? These themes of how a superpower is supposed to morally behave have been present throughout the entire course. And how we interpret these themes and behave will have vast consequences for how the United States is perceived by the international community as well as its constituency.

 

Bringing About Success in the War on Terrorism

Terrorism is one of the chief security threats to the United States today and will always remain part of the international realm, unless the United States begins to create a new paradigm to oppose this growing threat.The Glennon and Rodin readings both address issues that are hindering the war against terrorism and a way in which we can go about solving them. The issue that Rodin brings up is how there is no clear definition of terrorism. Therefore, without a “clear and coherent understanding” we cannot develop a suitable response or tactic to fighting the terrorist. With a proper definition of terrorism and acts of terrorism, I believe that it will be easier to develop proper guidelines and strategies to deter these acts of terror. If the United States and other countries continue to define terrorism so vaguely, almost any incident could be considered terrorism and therefore it would be next to impossible to address all of these acts of terrorism.  By narrowing the scope of what should and shouldn’t be defined as terrorism, it would allow for the United States to draft a proper approach to waging a war on terrorism as Glennon advocates in his reading.

Since there is currently no clear definition of terrorism as discussed in the Rodin reading, it is even harder to devise a proper method to successfully deal with terrorism. As Glennon states in his reading, the unclear definition of terrorism also plays a role in how terrorism is not pertinent to the United States’ traditional frameworks of crime and war, even though the United States consistently tries to treat terrorism as such. I agree with Glennon that in order to properly prevent and control terrorism the United States needs to adapt to the changes in acts of terrorism, especially those of Al-Qaeda. This idea is similar to the ones of Machiavelli, in which he states that in order for a state to be successful in dealing with threats, a prince must be flexible and adapt to every situation differently, for it is not good to do one thing at all times.

Since Al-Qaeda seems to be the main terrorist threat to not only the United States, but the Western world as well, the United States government needs to realize that “controlling terrorism while preserving freedom is also about making sensible tradeoffs” (Glennon, 144). This means that while the United States may want to tackle the war on terrorism by itself, it may be more beneficial to cooperate with other nations, whether they are allies or non-allies. This collaboration with other countries is no easy task since all countries have different policies and approaches to tackling the war on terrorism. But if the United States were willing to sacrifice some of their policies in order to reach an agreement with other nations to successfully tackle terrorism together, this new paradigm would allow for a higher probability of the deterring terrorism. Until the issues that are hindering the war on terrorism are addressed, I do not believe that the United States can successfully counteract acts of terrorism, and the threat that terrorism poses on this nation will just continue to escalate.