Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Waterboarding and other unpleasantness

Some thirty years ago, I was a cadet attending ROTC summer training camp in Ft. Benning, Georgia. One day of the training was dedicated to adventure training. Rappeling, zip lines, biting the heads off chickens. That sort of thing.

At one point during the day, a group of cadets sat down with one of the training sergeants, a grizzled old Viet Nam vet. Somehow the discussion turned to the subject of questioning prisoners of war. The sergeant said that during the war, they would take two blindfolded VC up in a helicopter and start questioning them. Then they would tie a rope around one of them and throw him out of the chopper. The other would hear the screams as the man was pushed out, which was enough to get him to start answering questions.

Then the veteran said “If you really want information, you take the 9 volt battery out of the walkie-talkie handset, and press both terminals against the man’s temple. Bzzt! When he gets finished singing God Bless America, he’ll tell you anything you want to know.”

At this point he stopped and looked at the group of college students surrounding him, and saw the absolutely shocked faces. It was silent for a moment. Then, with dead sincerity, the sergeant said “That’s not torture. That’s interrogation.”

With the current media pyrotechnics about the Bush administrations “advanced interrogation” policies, it is worth noting this is not the first time we, as a society, have attempted to define the issue of what constitutes torture, and what is merely tough questioning. I think the question does not lend itself to bright and shining boundaries.

Pulling someone’s fingernails off with pliers? Yes, that’s torture. Sleep deprivation? Maybe. Now we’re in the grey area. Making a suspect wear women’s underwear, or having a woman lead him around with a dog leash? Please, you pay extra for that in Vegas.

But in struggling with these issues as policy is set, I have a suggestion. A modest proposal. Call it a version of sauce for the gander.

Have your attorneys draft memos outlining the limits of what is acceptable. This is just what the Bush administration did. Then take those same attorneys and subject them to the same interrogation techniques they proposed. If they say waterboarding is legal, waterboard ‘em. If they say exposure to cold is legal, stick ‘em in a meat locker. At the end of the process, is they still sign off on the memos, you have your policy.

Think of it as a new version of the Golden Rule. Not, “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.” Not, “Do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it first.” No, not even the classic, “Whoever has the gold makes the rules.”

This version of the Golden Rule is “Don’t do anything unto others that you wouldn’t be willing to have done to yourself.”

2 comments:

Ken said...

Chris,
As I read the news reports on the "torture memo's" in the Post, I was transported back to my wonderful week in the CA desert at SERE school. Many of those procedures were used on me. I did not consider them torture then, and have not considered them torture now.

I take this as evidence that I was morally damaged, since I don't clearly recognize the experience as having been tortured. I am preparing my VA disability claim now.

Christopher Wheeler said...

Ken, the moral damage clearly preceded your military training. Trust me.

Having taken the time to read the first of the memos (dating back to 2002) what struck me was how many limitations Bybee placed on some of the techniques. For example, if you put the detainee in a closed box with only enough room to sit, you can only leave him in the box for two hours. If the detainee is afraid of stinging insects, put an insect in the box, but it can't be a real stinging insect.

The other thing that strikes me is that the phrase "torture memo" has completely captured the debate. Now the question is "Who is going to jail for torturing these poor prisoners?" I think the legitimate question is the original one: "What are the true limits of interrogation?" Maybe the Bush administration got it wrong, but if they were truly the moral equivalent of Nazis that Paul Krugman says they are, they would have handed the Uighurs back to the Chinese purely out of political expedience. "See, we're repatriating Gitmo prisoners back to their home countries as soon as we determine they are not a threat to the US."

Mmm. It is a little off-topic, but I might post again on this subject.