Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Get E-News from The Advocates
  

 
The Advocates' Board Chair Jim Dorsey Speaks Out Against Torture in the Star Tribune
Monday, June 13, 2011 9:20 AM

Five Ways Torture Hurts U.S. Interests

by James Dorsey

In a recent commentary on torture ("Torture is bad -- but might work," June 5), Gregg Bloche reported that behavioral science indicates that a certain type of torture might produce accurate information. This, he concludes, raises an ethical dilemma -- a tradeoff between morality (torture is immoral) and efficacy (but it works). His analysis is too narrow. The question is not whether torture can produce good intelligence, but whether the use of torture enhances our national security. Here are five reasons why it does not:

1. Our use of torture endangers our own troops.
By engaging in torture, we implicitly permit our enemies to torture our own troops who fall into their hands. Worse, our troops, who historically have taken comfort and strength from the knowledge that our military does not abuse its POWs, would no longer have that source of strength.

2. Torture prevents the enemy from surrendering and, in this age of terrorism, prevents family members and friends from turning in suspects.

In World War II, German soldiers were encouraged by their World War I veteran fathers to make sure they surrendered to the Americans, not the Soviets. In today's environment, parents who suspect their children may be involved in terrorist organizations are less inclined to report their children if they know that their children might be subjected to torture. Indeed, a potential lead in the underwear bomber case came from the bomber's own father, who contacted the authorities with his concerns. It is doubtful that he would have done so if he thought that the authorities would torture his son.

3. Torture creates enemies.

As we learned from Abu Ghraib, torture and prisoner abuse galvanizes the other side and serves as a recruiting tool for our enemies. We should remember that, by the end of the Cold War, the United States had clearly won the moral high ground. The Soviets had been revealed as thugs. In today's struggle for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, we should keep our eye on the bigger picture by presenting ourselves as a law-abiding nation that adheres to its ideals. As Israel's Supreme Court wrote when it banned the use of torture in 1999, "Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand."

4. Torture interferes with coalition-building.

Terrorism knows no borders. Therefore, we need strong and trusting alliances to combat it. But if we engage in torture, our key allies, all of which foreswear torture, will be less inclined to cooperate on all levels, especially turning over suspects.

5. We often use these techniques on the wrong people.

Once you embrace torture, it is hard to control its use. One of the reasons that Israel's Supreme Court prohibited torture was that Israel's security units were basically torturing everyone they picked up and then releasing most of them. The United States had a similar experience when we embraced torture following 9/11. For instance in 2002, we picked up a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, and sent him to Syria to be tortured for intelligence. We finally released him when we realized that he was completely innocent. In 2004 we kidnapped El Masri, a German national with the same name as an Al-Qaida operative, sent him to a CIA black site, and tortured him for nearly five months before we determined he was the wrong guy. We used the abusive techniques described by Bloche on all 780 of the men who have been held in Guantanamo. Yet we eventually released about 600 of them. Moreover, dozens of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq have died in custody as a result of the brutality that is spawned by a policy of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.

• • •

Any analysis of the utility of torture should be viewed in the broader context of our overall national security. In that context, the use of torture, as compared to other interrogation procedures, yields much greater costs, and, at most, limited benefits. Hence, from both a pragmatic and a moral standpoint, as both the Bush administration (in its second term) and the Obama administration have done, our nation should foreswear torture.

James Dorsey is the board chair of the Advocates for Human Rights and is a lawyer at Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis.

In a recent commentary on torture ("Torture is bad -- but might work," June 5), Gregg Bloche reported that behavioral science indicates that a certain type of torture might produce accurate information. This, he concludes, raises an ethical dilemma -- a tradeoff between morality (torture is immoral) and efficacy (but it works). His analysis is too narrow. The question is not whether torture can produce good intelligence, but whether the use of torture enhances our national security. Here are five reasons why it does not: 1. Our use of torture endangers our own troops.

By engaging in torture, we implicitly permit our enemies to torture our own troops who fall into their hands. Worse, our troops, who historically have taken comfort and strength from the knowledge that our military does not abuse its POWs, would no longer have that source of strength.
2. Torture prevents the enemy from surrendering and, in this age of terrorism, prevents family members and friends from turning in suspects.

In World War II, German soldiers were encouraged by their World War I veteran fathers to make sure they surrendered to the Americans, not the Soviets. In today's environment, parents who suspect their children may be involved in terrorist organizations are less inclined to report their children if they know that their children might be subjected to torture. Indeed, a potential lead in the underwear bomber case came from the bomber's own father, who contacted the authorities with his concerns. It is doubtful that he would have done so if he thought that the authorities would torture his son.
3. Torture creates enemies.

As we learned from Abu Ghraib, torture and prisoner abuse galvanizes the other side and serves as a recruiting tool for our enemies. We should remember that, by the end of the Cold War, the United States had clearly won the moral high ground. The Soviets had been revealed as thugs. In today's struggle for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, we should keep our eye on the bigger picture by presenting ourselves as a law-abiding nation that adheres to its ideals. As Israel's Supreme Court wrote when it banned the use of torture in 1999, "Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand."
4. Torture interferes with coalition-building.

Terrorism knows no borders. Therefore, we need strong and trusting alliances to combat it. But if we engage in torture, our key allies, all of which foreswear torture, will be less inclined to cooperate on all levels, especially turning over suspects.
5. We often use these techniques on the wrong people.

Once you embrace torture, it is hard to control its use. One of the reasons that Israel's Supreme Court prohibited torture was that Israel's security units were basically torturing everyone they picked up and then releasing most of them. The United States had a similar experience when we embraced torture following 9/11. For instance in 2002, we picked up a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, and sent him to Syria to be tortured for intelligence. We finally released him when we realized that he was completely innocent. In 2004 we kidnapped El Masri, a German national with the same name as an Al-Qaida operative, sent him to a CIA black site, and tortured him for nearly five months before we determined he was the wrong guy. We used the abusive techniques described by Bloche on all 780 of the men who have been held in Guantanamo. Yet we eventually released about 600 of them. Moreover, dozens of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq have died in custody as a result of the brutality that is spawned by a policy of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques.

To read the original article published by the Star Tribune, click here.