Am I the only one slightly bothered by the partisan assumptions of this post?

Well, irregardless, while not particular to McCain, the lecture A Short History of Psychological Terror provides a good summary of how the present US policies of terror came to exist.

edit: last sentence should read “torture and interrogation” instead of terror.

What partisan assumptions do you have in mind? I do suppose that Republican primaries are a particularly hostile environment for speaking out against torture, but that seems well-enough supported that I don’t see how someone could be bothered by that “assumption,” so I’m guessing you have something else in mind — but am at a bit of a loss as to what that is.

That is good news that McCain does not oppose waterboarding – according to the CIA, it has and could be necessary to save innocent lives. Why should we be concerned about a terrorist being freaked out by simulated drowning when they are witholding information that could save innocent lives?!! People care more about a terrorist’s pychological health than the lives of their innocent potential victims!!

What the heck is torture anyway? Has anyone cared to define it? It seems to me a subjective word – I could argue that yelling in someone’s face or imprisonment are forms of torture. When a interrogation technique is so harsh that we think it is immoral, is that when we call it torture? Or could some harsh techniques that we call torture also be considered moral? Does the word “torture” connote evil or simply harsh treatment? Surely not all harsh treatment is evil – it depends on the situation.

I don’t care what people call it – terrorists witholding information deserve special painful treatment (as a last resort) in order to make them talk and give up information that can save innocent lives. I would not hesitate nor feel guilty about torturing someone if I knew they were guilty and witholding information that could save my family or any innocent person (if other forms of interrogation failed).

Jesus calls us to love our enemies, but surely there are important exceptions to this generaly rule – especially when people are trying to kill innocent people and the only way to protect the innocent people is to harm or kill the person trying to kill the innocent people.

Nick: I haven’t already drawn the conclusion that “McCain does not oppose waterboarding.” I’m trying to understand his vote. His past opposition to such practices seemed very principled. If he has changed positions (for any reason, but esp. if for political expediency), I would find that to be very sad.

Speaking for myself — but I think this would go for most who oppose our use of torture — you’re badly misunderstanding me when you conclude:

People care more about a terrorist’s pychological health than the lives of their innocent potential victims!!

For me, at least, this isn’t at all a comparative matter of which of those two I care more about. I’m not such a consequentialist in my approach for that to be what’s at issue. This is a case where I just don’t think that even extremely worthy ends can justify such evil means (even if the evil means were effective in producing the desired ends, which in this case, if you need reliable information from your victim, seems extremely questionable at best — but that’s another story.)

Keith, yea I know McCain’s vote may be due to the election – he needs to galvinize conservative support. But it’s also possible that he has geniunely changed his mind about the ethics of waterboarding and other similar interrogation techniques. I haven’t heard about this, but I’m sure we will find out soon.

I apologize for suggesting that you and others that oppose waterboarding care more about a terrorist’s well-being than an innocent potential victim’s. I understand you and many others think torture is inherently and necessarily evil in any situation. But I find it hard to believe that there has not been nor will be any situation in which our government must truly choose between a) “torturing” a terrorist or 2) allowing innocent people to be killed in a terrorist attack. Of course conditions must be met, like certainty of the terrorist’s knowledge of the attack, certainty of the terrorist’s malicious intent in witholding the information, and certainty that the information gained from the torture will help protect innocent lives, but its’s possible that these conditions could be met. In this situation we must choose between saving an innocent person’s life or protecting a terrorist from physical or phychologial harm. Do you really think that this situation is impossible? Why?

In these situations, I believe torturing is the moral choice. The terrorist witholding information about an attack is for all practical purposes analogous to someone pointing a gun at an innocent person with the intention of killing them (or rather aiming missle at a city). We do not condemn a police officer for shooting the gunman (though it causes extreme “torture”-like pain or death) in order to save an innocent life?

Saving an innocent life justifies shooting a gunman? Why doesn’t saving innocent lives (and usually many more lives than killed by a gunman) justify torture?

Btw, I greatly appreciate your writing about universalism – I have recently embraced it. I used to think that people could become so hardened that they cemented their own rejection of God and so maybe God would either destroy them or allow them to live the way they chose forever, but now I believe the love of God will ultimately win everyones’ hearts. How could someone possibly resist God’s live for eternity? Universalism id the most beautiful (i.e., most loving) theology concerning eternal salvation, so it must be true!

Of course conditions must be met, like certainty of the terrorist’s knowledge of the attack, certainty of the terrorist’s malicious intent in witholding the information, and certainty that the information gained from the torture will help protect innocent lives, but its’s possible that these conditions could be met. In this situation we must choose between saving an innocent person’s life or protecting a terrorist from physical or phychologial harm. Do you really think that this situation is impossible? Why?

No, I don’t think such a situation is impossible — though with the various certainties you mention included, it is extremely unlikely. Were it to occur, I believe it would still be wrong to torture: here’s a case where I believe even extremely worthy ends can’t justify an evil means. So we disagree about what’s right to do in some very unrealistic situations. [In calling these situations “very unrealistic,” I am taking seriously your description of the agent being “certain” of various things. Others might describe the situations in which they think torture is OK in weaker terms which would make the relevant situations less unrealistic — but, in my view, this makes torturing even further from being justified. Part of the story about our disagreement is that I don’t accept your analogy: I think that among the differences between the case in question and your policeman scenario are some that are morally quite significant.]

As long as we’re talking about possibilities, here’s another one: Agents of our government might cause someone who is completely innocent to be brutally tortured (no borderline case of torture here) for a long period of time. Beyond merely possible, we have good reason to think this actually happened. In light of such events, even if I agreed with you about the morality of what to do in your hypothetical situation (which I don’t), I’d still be wary of legalizing torture, at least until more responsible people were in charge.

Keith: “…at least until more responsible people were in charge.” – this leaves open the possibility that, given the right conditions, torture would be acceptable?

Nick comments that “Jesus calls us to love our enemies, but surely there are important exceptions to this generaly rule”. This is key to this issue; love of our enemies is central to what it means to be named christians, and there are no exceptions…

this leaves open the possibility that, given the right conditions, torture would be acceptable?

Andrew: No, *I* don’t leave that open. My position is that torture would be wrong even under the conditions Nick specified.

But I was trying to follow that up with the suggestion that even those who agree with Nick (& disagree with me) about what’s right to do in the circumstances he specifies still might want to think twice about legalizing torture given what’s been going on. I suppose I was suggesting for the consideration of certain people a position according to which torture was in principle allowable, but on which its legalization is still rejected on the grounds that it is likely to be abused, given what’s already been done. But this was just being suggested for people who won’t join me in a more absolutist rejection. As for my own position, I am something of an absolutist here.

A question to Nick and Keith: how could we ever possibly be “certain” that information gained from torture will help protect innocent lives? It seems to me that this condition (given words like “certain” and “will help protect”) is actually impossible. To imagine a possible scenario, would we have to change the wording to read something like, “Torture is admissable if we *are quite sure* that information gained from torture *might* protect innocent lives. That condition seems possible to meet, but is far less stringent, and seems to change hypothetical considerably.

Nick: I do agree with you that defining what constitutes torture is a very important task. This is why phrases like “enhanced interrogation techniques” is deeply worrisome. I don’t know what the government means by this phrase. This is precisely why it’s very important for us to know what McCain (and others) supports and what he ( and others) doesn’t.

how could we ever possibly be “certain” that…

You ask a very vexed question. Much of course depends on what it takes to count as “certain,” which is a very vexed matter. Given my contextualist approach to the meaning of epistemological terms like “certain,” this may be especially vexed for me (or as I prefer to put it: some of the ways in which this is a vexed matter are especially vivid to me).

I didn’t want to reply in a way that depends on it being in principle impossible for anyone ever to be certain of such a thing. So I went with “extremely unlikely.”

For torture to be ethicial, it must be reserved for specific conditions, that are probably very rarely met. The level of certainty must be high about the guilt of the detainee, the withheld knowledge of an attack, and the importance the information to save lives. Can we be 100% certain about these conditions? Maybe, but most likely not 100% and even if we believe we are absolutely certain, we could be wrong.
Certainty is rarely a matter of plain objective facts – its a matter of subjective discernment by fallible human beings.
We still send people to prison without absolute certainty of their guilt. We trust experts to present the case to a jury and we trust that the jury will make the best decision. Some people are wrongfully imprisoned, but that is no reason to abandon the justice system alltogether.

If torture has truly can save innocent lives by obtaining information that helps us stop terrorists from attacking (I have heard this is true), then a lack of absolute certainty and the risk of torturing an innocent person does not outweigh the benefits.

However, I am against any form of torture that causes permanent physical damage – I think this is the ethical line of coercive interrogation we should not cross. Moreover, if torture is too severe, we risk creating more enemies.

Rob Bell discusses this in “Sex God”, the idea that torturing other people changes the people performing the torturing as well, that they are, in effect, “bringing hell to earth”, which is not what we are called to do.

The United States is not a Christian nation, and it’s leaders are not Christian leaders (even if they are Christians). Discussing the actions of our government as if they were in some way held accountable to moral law, or were in some way inspiried by biblical thought, is rather contrary. McCain, like so many other people in our government, has accepted the laws of “The Prince”, which state that politicians must do despicable things for the nation as a whole. Quite possibly, for these people, true goodness is something that will happen after we die.

Causing a terrorist temporary pain in order to prevent a terrorist attack is hardly bringing hell to Earth. Rather, it is trying to keep hell away from Earth by preventing catastrophic events.

We live in a jacked up world, in which sometimes we have to choose between two unfortunate options. I think most would agree that a terrorist suffering pain (as a consequence of an action the terrorist chose!) is less unfortunate than innocent people losing their lives in a terrorist attack.

Nick:
Optional (out of curiosity): Do you think history suggests that when a nation or organization decides it will use torture, but only in very special circumstances (e.g. when the victim really is quite certainly guilty of something awful, when very much is riding on getting information from them, etc.), that one can rest reasonably assured that the nation or organization in question will do a good job of staying within the proper limits (assuming you’re right that there are proper limits for this) in their use of this dreadful tool?

More specifically and more importantly (to current concerns): Do you believe the recent history of the United States’ use of torture suggests that our officials (military, intelligence & other) in particular have done and will do a good job of seeing to it that this tool has been / will be used only where and how it is appropriate? [I mean here “appropriate” by *your* judgment]

Just trying to figure out where you’re coming from: You write, “according to the CIA, it has and could be necessary to save innocent lives.” Do you have a great deal of trust in what the CIA is saying? Has that trust been at all shaken by any recent events?

Keith, yes I would trust the CIA to stay within these proper limits. I know people are fallible and they probably could figure out how to secretly overstep the limits regarding torture. But I suppose that I am not as cynical and pessimestic as you. I believe our government could set strict limits on the use of torture and ensure proper oversight so that the limits are not breached. Surely an organization such as the CIA has strict oversight of interrogations. Our military could use force in terrible, immoral ways (such as has occurred), but we should figure out how to use military force ethically, not abandon the use of it. So just because torture could conceivabley be used inappropiately, does not mean we should reject torture as a tool in the war on terror – we can make the changes necessary to make the improper use of torture extremely unlikely. It seems like you think because the CIA is not perfect, they should make torture completely illegal. I know they are not perfect as well, but I think we should make some forms of torture legal, while developing a transparent system of oversight so that immoral forms of interrogation are illegal and never used.

Todd, the prophets quite clearly apply moral standards to nations besides Israel who did not have God’s law. The oracles against the nations are a prominent part of most of the prophetic books, and the criticisms are indeed moral. So surely the same standards apply to leaders of the United States, even though it is not a Christian nation in the same way that Israel was divinely-instituted.

I say this even though I’m (1) not an absolutist on the moral issues of torture and (2) not prepared to take a policy stance in favor of allowing it (largely because I do not know a good way to safeguard against the problems even if I think it would be ideal to allow it but to have such safeguards).

I do think the proper view will fit with the moral teaching of the Bible.

McCain’s statement on the bill explicitly says that he still opposes waterboarding but also says that he doesn’t want to restrict the CIA from extreme interrogation methods. The only charitable interpretation I can think of is that he thinks the list of banned methods includes some techniques that he thinks do happen that are justified and not worth banning, so he won’t vote for a ban that includes them. But he wouldn’t say anything particular, probably because he doesn’t want to indicate which techniques the CIA is actually using. He did point out that the CIA already isn’t allowed to use waterboarding. Since the bill only covers the CIA, there must be something else in the bill that he disapproves of, because the waterboarding part wouldn’t change anything.

Thanks, Jeremy. I’ve been swamped with work the last couple of days & haven’t been following the news. Do you (or anybody else reading this) happen to know of a web site where one can find this statement of McCain’s you’re referring to?

He did point out that the CIA already isn’t allowed to use waterboarding.

I would have thought it was illegal all along, under any reasonable interpretation of what’s illegal, but, apparently, reasonable (at least from my point of view) interpretations haven’t been ruling the day. At any rate, the CIA’s use of waterboarding in particular apparently stopped in 2006. On this, see the links in this old post. For some of the recent history of the CIA’s use of torture, see this story — which I linked to on this blog a few months ago: this is just for those who missed that earlier link to it, but have been following the discussion in this comment thread.

Keith, I got busy too, but I did manage to find the text of his speech here.

Thanks Jeremy!

It’s also in in this post by Marty Lederman at Balkinization (which I only found b/c the post Jeremy linked to linked to it): Some people might appreciate Lederman’s (rather brief but still helpful) analysis before he gives the text of McCain’s speech, but the brief summary of the situation given in the TPM post Jeremy linked to before that post prints McCain’s full remarks is also helpful — though, as the post admits, the situation is extremely complicated & difficult to summarize. Either way, it’s nice to have McCain’s own explanation.

I imagine this might all come up in Presidential debates — though I’m not all that hopeful that they will be very enlightening.