DEFINING TORTURE

By Paul Phaneuf

All Rights Reserved

With the alleged death of bin Laden the dialog about enhanced interrogation
has been reopened. It’s a legitimate question. How does one define
“torture”, and is “enhanced interrogation” a form of torture?

When fighting evil, we do not want to become that which we despise, but
when the lives of innocents are at stake, we must settle the question in our
hearts and minds: just how far are we willing to go and what is the line that
marks the crossover into evil?

I will disclose up front that I am an absolutist when it comes to torture.

True torture is the mark of a barbaric culture and is administered by brutish
humans with twisted minds. Needless to say, our traditional values and
culture stand opposed to torture.

Furthermore, I rarely trust government. The tendency of government is

defined by its unquenchable appetite for power and the Founders built
safeguards into our system because they didn’t trust government either.
Good judgment and trustworthy government are virtually mutually
exclusive. I am always reluctant to give government the benefit of the
doubt.

That being said, we must ask some hard questions that force us to move
beyond the emotionally charged catch words and sloganeering. It is
reasonable to ask: is “enhanced interrogation” a euphemism for torture? Is
it merely lipstick on a pig?

Emotionally charged words are used to transfix and manipulate the populace
all the time. Is “enhanced interrogation” in the same class of Orwellian
newspeak as “climate change” or “addicted to oil”? In my opinion, it is not.

Here is how the U.N. defines torture:

"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, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity."

Other groups have their own definitions which expand or contract what
might fall within the scope of torture, but the U.N.’s definition will suffice for
our purposes.

It’s an interesting definition that must be parsed to consider its full meaning
and implications.

First, it recognizes that torture involves severe pain or suffering, whether

physical or mental that is intentionally inflicted. This is consistent with how
most of us think of torture.

Second, it states that it is torture if the purpose is to obtain information or a

confession from an individual (or apparently using the torture of one
individual to induce some other person to talk). Note that these are three
issues that all deal with intent: obtain information, induce a confession, and
inflict punishment.

Third, it suggests that discrimination is a component of the defining of

torture. That would suggest that if discrimination is not a factor that the
same treatment might or might not be torture. This reeks of political
correctness to me and requires a disinfectant to handle.

Finally, it implies that torture is only torture if inflicted by government. Of

course, that would make the beheading of Daniel Berg nothing more than a
religious service protected under the First Amendment.

This definition is so inadequate that it has to have come out of the mind of a
U.N. pinhead. It is a political definition. It fails to address what happens in
the real world.

Necessarily what follows is a terse examination, but I am confident that

certain ambiguities can be shown to be intentional obfuscations and
distractions. Here are several thoughts for you to evaluate and consider as
you come to your own conclusion. These concepts are deliberately simplistic
to demonstrate particular points.

One

Imagine a scenario where you are confronted by an individual who says that
he and his cohorts have kidnapped your child. He shows you a video of your
child being abused. Now I can only speak for myself, but if that person was
stupid enough to put himself where I can get my hands on him, he will, HE
WILL tell me where my child is.

Use your own imagination, but for me, there are no limits, no prohibitions,
and no restrictions on how or how much pain I will inflict on this monster to
get my child back. I will damage the SOB. I will hurt him. He may never
recover. But I could never kidnap his child and do to that innocent what is
being done to my child to stop him. That line I will not cross.

The question is: is it torturing someone to stop the torture of another? Is it

torture if the pain I am inflicting will end for the kidnapper if he talks and
tells me how I can get my own child back?

Two

John McCain was the victim of torture, as were many POWs like him. The
Japanese tortured American POWs in the death march. It was torture
because it was intended to cause damage and suffering for its own sake.

To torture as punishment can never be justified. To torture for a confession

is unacceptable because the need for a confession implies uncertainty.
Uncertainty is a line in the sand that limits what we may or may not
conscionably do.

Clearly, to make the torture stop, most of us, regardless of our bravado, will
sign anything. In this situation, it makes “enhanced interrogation” of
questionable value. The presence of certainty is necessary to prevent the
descent into barbarism.

But on some occasions (as in the kidnapping example above), “torture” is

the only recourse.

If the individual has knowledge about impending destruction that is or will

cause “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” and that knowledge if
obtained will prevent the suffering, then the perpetrator can end the
“enhanced interrogation” at will by simply providing the information that will
stop the impending carnage.

I believe that it can be argued that in such a situation, the perpetrator is

choosing to suffer for the sake of his objective. That which distinguishes
“enhanced interrogation” from torture is its purpose, a commitment to use
no more force than is necessary, and the fact that the one who is being
interrogated is in control of when it will end (to a degree, depending on the
information sought.)

The idea is that the line must not be crossed into punishment or vengeance.

I am suggesting that the traditional understanding of torture is not correct if

the individual who is being interrogated (tortured) is the initiator, through
his or her own actions, of the torture or “enhanced interrogation” session
because he himself is engaging in or threatening to “torture” others.

Your group has brought in a dirty bomb. The population is about to be

horrendously harmed. The national psyche is already stressed by the
intentions of those who would cause us harm.

In America, four year olds are now fondled and sexually abused before
boarding airplanes (which just proves my point about not trusting the
judgment of government), parents are helpless as they watch; people fear
flying because of the actions of terrorists.

Mental anguish is defined as a form of torture. War is a type of torture. The

radical jihadists are already torturing, have already tortured Americans.

The terrorists are the torturers. They initiated the session. There is no
moral compromise in the decision to be the one who ends it by whatever
means are necessary. I say, under the circumstances described, “enhanced
interrogation” is not torture, it is self defense and is not only morally
acceptable but is in fact morally required.

http://www.PatriotFever.com