Ask Auntie Pinko
November 10, 2005
By Auntie Pinko
I don't want the military, the CIA or anyone else to practice
torture in my name. I believe in the Geneva Conventions. Bush says
the CIA shouldn't be required to conform to the Geneva Conventions
because when they have someone to interrogate, that person shouldn't
be too sure they won't be tortured. Or at least, I think that's
his argument. As usual, he sounds like someone brain-damaged trying
to explain his so-called "reasoning." Or maybe it's Uncle Dickie's
But wherever it comes from, it seems he wants accused or suspected
"terra-ists" in CIA custody (or in the custody of whoever the CIA
is paying to do their dirty work this week) to think they might
be tortured. Presumably, they'll be so afraid of it they'll talk.
Will they? Is this a valid way to get evildoers to rat out their
friends and prevent their nefarious plans from succeeding?
Nick from New York
Like many people who write to Auntie Pinko, I suspect you've already
made up your mind about the answer to this question. And I doubt
that you expect Auntie to disagree with you, in this case - which
is just as well, since I probably won't. But thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the matter here on Democratic Underground!
The notion of "keeping options open" for the interrogation
of suspected terrorists is flawed in so many ways Auntie hardly
knows where to start. The obvious one comes first: the reliability
of information obtained using such methods is always highly suspect.
Even when you have some information already, and believe that you
can use what you already know to assess the accuracy of new information,
you can easily be wrong, especially in the shadowy, complex world
of interlocking criminal conspiracies to commit acts of terror.
Using despicable tactics that dehumanize both the subject and the
interrogator to obtain information of dubious (at best) value just
isn't worth it.
Apologists for the use of torture like to advance the hypothetical
case of the terrorist captured at 9:00 AM who (presumably) knows
the location of the suitcase "dirty bomb" that's scheduled to explode
somewhere in midtown Manhattan at noon. There's "no time"
to convince him or her using "other methods," so let's
go ahead and insert the burning slivers under the fingernails, or
attach the electrodes, right? The evildoer holds out for an hour
or so (s/he is a very committed evildoer, fully prepared to die
for her/his cause) and then gasps out the location - a very obscure,
difficult to access spot, where such a suitcase could, indeed, be
left undetected for some time.
It takes some time to get the SWAT team there, of course... and
when they finally arrive, there's nothing there. By that time it's
eleven-forty-five, and even if you can torture another location
from your suspect, you don't have time to find and defuse the dirty
bomb anyway. It's a silly argument from the git-go, in other words.
There is NO way of stopping a torture subject from giving false
information, any more than there is a way of stopping someone committed
to dying in the course of committing terrorist acts.
"Truth serums" are no assurance of useful and accurate information,
either. Subjects under the influence of drugs are less likely to
be able to maintain consciously prepared fictions, but they are
also unlikely to distinguish fiction from reality, and can easily
distort or mislead without intending to do so. From a practical
standpoint, both torture and truth serums are of highly limited
usefulness in obtaining reliable information.
So why do people continue to use such tactics? To intimidate.
To sow fear. To excite terror. To suppress resistance or opposition.
What kind of people do this? Tyrants. Dictators. Authoritarians.
Those who are committed to imposing their will on others, even at
the cost of their own humanity.
The ethics of using interrogation and indoctrination to obtain
information, achieve goals, change minds and opinions exist in a
large gray area. Few people would argue with the basic legitimacy
of law enforcement professionals questioning suspected criminals
to obtain or verify evidence of crimes, or to gather information
that might prevent or hinder criminal acts. Society's tolerance
for the methods used in such questioning, however, varies widely
depending on the specific circumstances.
In fighting crime and criminal acts, we expect - indeed, we demand
- that the agents we empower through our government act with zeal
and diligence, and employ every legitimate tool available. We've
generally shown a high social tolerance for a certain amount of
psychological pressure when there is good reason to believe the
stakes are high. We have even shown ourselves willing to excuse
a certain amount of physical pressure in very high-stakes cases.
Conducting interrogations in environments of physical discomfort,
intimidation, the use of good-cop/bad-cop pressures, even the occasional
"slapping around" a recalcitrant suspect show up regularly
as tacitly approved, if not always judicially legitimate, tactics
in films and television shows.
Such tactics are usually further legitimated by showing high levels
of incriminating evidence or behavior against the individuals being
subjected to such techniques. The watcher of the TV show or film
feels a sense of cathartic vindication when the scummy child molester
is backhanded by the hardworking detective goaded past endurance.
But reality is often very different. Television and movie cameras
show us a "reality" that is very rarely obvious in the
real world. It's easy for law-enforcement personnel to make judgments,
and indeed, experienced officer are often good at making accurate
judgments. Someone they believe guilty may indeed be guilty - I
admit freely that knowing several good, conscientious law officers,
I'm predisposed to trust their assessments in many cases.
But that means nothing in terms of our Constitution, which demands
that only the judges and juries appointed by due constitutional
process make such decisions. This is just as true for a CIA officer
as for the beat cop in Auntie Pinko's little country town. The CIA
officer is part of a different chain of command and a different
hierarchy with different rules and techniques - but in the final
analysis, s/he is still subject to the restrictions of the Constitution,
which demands a presumption of innocence until guilt is established
by due process. And the Constitution applies to everyone
under American jurisdiction, citizens or not.
There was good reason for the framers of our Constitution to be
so clear about this matter. Many of them had personal experience
of authorities who did not hesitate to apply any methods they wanted
to achieve their personal ends, without any restrictions or legal
protections, without recourse for their victims, whether 'guilty'
or innocent. The framers of our Constitution designed a set of restrictions
designed to protect the humanity and dignity of everyone
- because they had seen what kinds of inhuman monsters resulted
from the unchecked assumption and application of authority.
If we value the "original intent" of our Founders, we cannot allow
specious arguments about psychological threats, "keeping options
open," and appeals to "protect citizens" from suspected
evil-doers, to demolish that careful structure of law and dignity.
And we cannot allow those we empower to protect us from menace to
become the exact kind of monsters we expect them to protect us from.
So you're on the right track, Nick, and thanks for asking Auntie
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at
a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking
points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those
pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for
Just send e-mail to: email@example.com,
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in
the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.