The debate on coercive interrogation

I sincerely wish that those arguing about under what conditions or in what form coercive interrogation is permissible would make better arguments. The claim that rigid, systematic adherence to the requirements of Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 will protect our soldiers in the field is specious. We haven’t faced an opponent in the field of battle since signing the conventions who gave a fig about them nor can I envision a prospective adversary to whom the Conventions would mean anything at all. The claim is simply nonsense and those making it should know better. I wish I lived in a world in which adhering to the Geneva Conventions ourselves would protect our soldiers in the field of battle but this is not that world.

Further, I think that the hearts and minds/moral highground argument is weak. In any group of 150,000 people however selected or regulated there will be a certain number of murderers, thieves, rapists, and otherwise abusive criminals. Perfection is simply not possible and anything other than perfection will be exploited by those who have a mind to as proof positive that we’re depraved. The only way and I mean only way we can take and keep the moral highground is with a strict Gandhi-like doctrine of non-violence and non-interference. If then.

I’ve said my piece on the subject of torture and I don’t plan on recapping it: I don’t approve of it and I’m something of an absolutist on the subject—I don’t even accept it under the “ticking bomb” scenario. I even think that there are consequentialist arguments to be made. But these are arguments aren’t them.

8 comments… add one
  • I have to disagree on this, Dave.

    We could easily find ourselves at war with Iran, and while the Mullahs are unlikely to adhere to any convention, the Iranian military still has roots outside of the theocracy. I am not going to vouch for their behavior with future POW’s, but I think it’s wrong to simply assume they’ll behave badly.

    It’s awfully hard to say with any confidence that we’ll find ourselves at war with this nation or that. Ten years before we invaded Panama or Granada no one would have predicted we’d have boots on the ground there. There’s certainly a chance that we’ll have men in Cuba or Venezuela in the future. The future covers a lot of time and a lot of possibilities.

    It is not a bad idea to set a standard and then demand that an opponent meet the same standard even when we don’t think it will work perfectly to ensure reciprocity. I oppose murder not just because I think it will deter bad guys but because by drawing a distinction and by making a demand for moral behavior I can help along the process of advancing civilization.

    The second part of your argument is itself weak. The hearts and minds we hope to win are not necessarily those of our adversaries. We also need to win the hearts and minds of neutrals and keep the faith of our allies. We are not required to be saints (or Ghandi) in order to win hearts and minds in that way, we’re only required to be able to draw a sharp distinction with our opponents.
    “Good” is relative, not absolute. Any fall from absolute grace will of course be used against us by those who wish us ill, but they are not our only audience.

    In the final phases of WW2 we acquired the cream of Nazi Germany’s scientists because, in part, we had a reputation for decency in our treatment of prisoners. And in the years following WW2 we were helped by POW’s who returned home to Italy, Germany and Japan and told tales of fair treatment by the Americans.

  • It is a fact that our soldiers have been abused at the hands of both the Iraqis and the Iranians. While the past is an imperfect predictor of future conduct, it’s better than no predictor at all. Considering our uniformly bad past experience I think that those arguing that we should adhere to the Conventions to ensure our own soldiers are treated properly are obligated to produce some evidence of their claims. They’ve produced none at all.

    Will we find ourselves at war with Belgium or Sweden or Vatican City in the foreseeable future? I suppose anything is possible but I doubt it. I have absolutely zero confidence that any reasonably foreseeable adversary will pay any attention whatsoever to either the Conventions or our adherence to them. As far as I’m concerned this argument is a red herring.

    I also maintain my point about public relations: I don’t think that’s a battle we can win or, at best, it’s moot. There are enough people not favorably disposed to us that any imperfection will be exploited to our disadvantage. The mote in our eye will be distorted until it’s greater than the beam in the eye of those we oppose.

    But note my key point. I’m not arguing that we should freely torture captured adversaries or do anything that’s not consistent with the Geneva Conventions. Quite the contrary. I think we should demand the very highest standards of our people even if it puts us at a disadvantage to do so. I just think that we should make stronger arguments for doing so.

  • Dave:
    It never entered my mind that you would endorse torture.

  • Dave, I agree with you. The argument of protecting American soldiers is a particularly weak one, whereas there are strong moral arguments to be made in favour of foregoing torture. I would argue that it strikes to the foundations of our values as a society (and I include Canada in that) and that it is essential we defend those values and do anything in our power to oppose the acceptance of torture.

    In Canada tomorrow, Justice Dennis O’Connor will be bringing out his interim report on the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who ended up in Syrian jails through the American policy of extraordinary rendition, which I consider absolutely heinous. It appears painfully obvious that there was active complicity on the part of the RCMP and CSIS, so Canadians can’t take the moral high ground on this one. Arar was almost certainly innocent of any terrorist activity, as was Almalki, another Canadian who ended up in Syrian jails after extensive police and CSIS investigations were unable to result in any charges. They apparently thought by subcontracting torture to Syrian authorities, they could extract the information they wanted.

    I cannot speak strongly enough to how repugnant this is to me. And it must be uprooted before it becomes too widespread.

    Arar was not allowed to sue the American government. Almalki is suing the RCMP and CSIS. I wish him well. This kind of behaviour is more dangerous to our society than any terrorist ever could be.

  • LaurenceB Link

    Dave,
    If I recall correctly, in the early days of the Iraq War the Iraqis had captured some American prisoners and released photos of them. Some of the prisoners were obviously in bad shape and I believe there was some speculation that they had been roughed up. The Iraqis claimed that no ill treatment had occurred. Rumseld, et al objected to the photos on the grounds that this was “humiliation” – prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

    Are we on the same page so far?

    So, here are my questions:
    1. Was it ever resolved conclusively whether the prisoners had been maltreated?
    2. If they were not, or if they were, but the abuse ended at the insistence that the Iraqis follow the Geneva Conventions, is that not a case where the Geneva Conventions were indeed influential in the behavior of an American enemy very recently?

    Just wondering out loud.

  • The photos themselves are prohibited under the Convention but that wasn’t what I was referring to. I’m going back to Gulf War I. There are well-documented instances of abuse from then.

    How our soldiers were treated by the Iraqi military remains a matter of controversy. Here’s a statement from Human Rights Watch. The Red Cross issued a number of complaints to Iraq. Whether Jessica Lynch was sodomized between her capture and her treatment by Iraqi doctors (all accounts of her treatment by Iraqi doctors are exemplary) is disputed. It continues to be suggested that some of our soldiers who were captured by the Iraqi military were executed.

    And, of course, that the insurgency (however they are constituted or defined) is emphatically not treating our soldiers according to the Conventions is beyond doubt.

    We have to be careful of post hoc propter hoc. If Iraq (or any other country) stopped abusing our soldier as a consequence of a notice of violation it would, indeed, be evidence. Just afterwards, no.

  • LaurenceB Link

    Hmmm…

    I guess I’m not yet convinced that your objection to that particular argument is a sound objection. Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly with your general premise that the strongest case to be made against “coercive interrogation” is that it is just wrong. Its wrong to induce hyperthermia in prisoners, to waterboard them, to force them into stress positions, to not feed them. These things just should not be done by civilized people and/or governments.

  • If we define article 3 to suit our needs, then that, by extension, allows every other country to define article 3 as they wish. At that point, article 3 becomes a meaningless set of “guidelines” that countries can define and alter how they wish.

    To use Korea as an example – North Korea (and China) committed atrocities in the Korean war. If similar atrocities were committed today, then North Korea could legally justify them by interpreting article 3 to their wishes. If we win any future war with NK, then how are we to prosecute them for war crimes? It will make it much more difficult to do so, especially if the tactics they use are the same ones we endorse. We need to really be careful if we decide to define what is allowed and what is not simply because by doing so we are saying that those same tactics are legitimate to use against our own forces. That is, I believe, what concerns Powell and many others. The danger is that techniques we previously considered violations of the GC when committed against our own troops will now essentially be legal. As a serving member of the armed forces, that bothers me.

    One may argue that it doesn’t matter because our enemy doesn’t care about nor follow the GC. That has historically been true in many cases, but redefining article 3 will ensure it remains true and will elevate some acts from a violation/atrocity to be legally sanctioned.

    Many don’t seem to recognize or admit this danger to defining article 3. Perhaps it IS worth the long-term cost – but it’s something that should be closely examined and debated. I think we need to be cautious about changing or defining these long-standing principles and standards of conduct for the expediency of the current situation. Here are a few other downsides to consider:

    1. Our historic relatively lenient treatment of POW’s works to increase the chance that our enemy will surrender because they know they’ll receive good treatment. Narrowly defining article 3 could threaten that advantage in future wars. Certainly many, if not most, Jihadists don’t intend to surrender at all. Still, there will be other wars besides this one in the future that we need to be cognizant of. The massive surrenders of Iraqi Army troops during the Gulf War I was in large part to our humane treatment of prisoners combined with effective PSYOPS that convinced the Iraqis we would treat them well.

    2. The GWOT is primarily an ideological struggle, not a military one. In fact, anyone familiar with counter-insurgency warfare will tell you that the primary center of gravity in insurgent warfare is gaining the loyalty of the population that supports insurgents. As Mao, probably the greatest guerilla fighter of the 20th century said, “The people are like water and the army is like a fish.” If our tactics to kill the fish end up deepening and widening the water in which they swim, allowing more fish to be created and thrive, then it’s ultimately a net loss for us. I think a valid argument can be made that redefining article 3 will give a propaganda coup to our adversaries and show the population that we are fighting for that we are hypocritical and cannot be trusted. The Jihadist propaganda is already effectively beating us over the head in the moderate Muslim world with debacles like Abu Ghraib as well as “renditioning,” Gitmo, etc. We are losing the ideological battles for moderate Islam. This redefinition will further the perception that America is not a moral force and that we hold different, lower, standards for Muslims. Perhaps you’re right that public opinion is a battle we can’t win, but we should be reluctant to hand our adversaries a propaganda goldmine like this.

Leave a Comment