×
Jim Manzi asks why torture is wrong:
Or more precisely, why is the belief that the torture of captured combatants is wrong compatible with anything other than some form of pacifism? I mean this an actual question, not as a passive-aggressive assertion.Manzi reiterates this argument in various forms for another couple hundred words, and I'm not really sure why, because the answer is pretty simple. In war, combatants have entered into a social contract, once you have raised your weapon to another, you have declared your intention to kill as well as your consent to being killed. Surrender withdraws both intent and consent. Violence inflicted upon a surrendered or captured adversary for the sole or primary purpose of causing them suffering, whether punitively or to "gather intelligence," is immoral because the prior contract is no longer in place. There's also a question of culpability -- torturing someone whom you suspect of a crime is likely to produce whatever "confession" is desired, with no relationship to the facts. It should be self-evident that violently forcing someone to implicate themselves is wrong. Manzi's argument assumes that anyone being tortured is culpable in some fashion. Both the low recidivism rate of Gitmo prisoners and the sheer number of those we have let go contradict this assertion. In the case of Afghanistan, many detainees have been turned over by bounty hunters looking for American cash. There is no direct evidence of culpability. It's not even clear that these people have consented to the above contract by becoming combatants.It can’t just be that it involves inflicting horrible pain and suffering. The moment before an enemy combatant surrenders, it is legal (under the current rules of war which govern U.S. military operations as I understand them), to shoot this person in head, launch burning petroleum jelly onto him that is carefully designed to stick to his skin and clothing, or deviously hide explosives that will maim him (but intentionally not kill him) when he steps on a landmine, in order to slow the advance of the group that must then carry him, and also to make it easier to subsequently kill both him and the person who assists him.
Aside from that, American society holds that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Among them is the right against "cruel and unusual punishment." Suffering inflicted to and by consenting combatants in war, no matter how horrible, is part of the implicit agreement they've made by entering into combat. Even then, our moral sensibilities may be affected by what we feel are "disproportionate" uses of force that go beyond the achievement of combat objectives into the realm of punitive sadism. Once that consent has been revoked, how can torture be anything else?
-- A. Serwer
-- A. Serwer
