Torture, Morality, and Law: A Gchat

So... since I haven't been writing in this blog lately, I thought I'd post part of a verbose chat I just had with my good friend Danielle about why it's better to play by the rules than to torture people (in which I am accused of eloquence).

Danielle: So, speaking of torture...
I'm in heated message-board debate about it right now :)
I saw your facebook post! As far as you know, has any of the "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists led to legitimate, viable information in the war on terror?

Me: Probably.
By the way, most of them weren't "suspected."
Actually, scratch that.
I don't know that.

Danielle: I'm still a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty" bud

Me: In what court?

Danielle: honestly? I'd love that sentiment to be worldwide

Me: Yeah, and I'd love a blow job from Angelina Jolie every night when and wherever I go to bed.

Danielle: And I honestly don't believe we, as Americans, should be purporting any form of law that isn't equal to what we'd approve of in our own nation, among our own citizens

Me: Yes, but our government was created to protect the rights of its citizens.

Danielle: Yes, that's true. But hundreds of years later we are also a world leader who is looked upon as a beacon of hope, democracy and freedom. In my opinion, if we get to invade a country and say "now you're a democracy" we had damn well live up to our legal system in every.single.way

Me: Yeah, but we don't get to do that. Not legally, anyway.
Anyway... since we are a modern democracy that has embraced the idea of universal human rights, we have ratified treaties and enacted our own laws that enjoin our agents from violating those specific rights, even when dealing with foreign nationals who aren't technically part of the social contract that obliges our government to respect those rights.

Danielle: So when I shred the rhetoric, you're saying you don't agree with torture, yes?

Me: I'm saying torture is illegal. I think it's immoral.

Danielle: so, as the devil's advocate...what if it works? should it be used if it produces actionable intelligence? This the argument I'm getting right now, and I have NO good answer - torture worked, so it should be used

Me: The problem is, none of those treaties or laws apply directly to the people we're holding at Guantanamo.

Danielle: um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Geneva Convention say otherwise?

Me: The Geneva Convention is an 105-year-old treaty between nation-states. It has sections that enjoin signers from mistreating an enemy country's non-uniformed personnel.
But al-Qaeda isn't a nation-state. It's not a country.

Danielle: i get that

Me: The terrorists we capture are basically soldiers without a formal army or a country.

Danielle: But the rules of war should adapt, should they not? We are in "war" on terror...

Me: There is really no framework in current international law that says (a) what they are, and (b) how (a) should be treated when captured.

Now, there is the UN Convention on Torture, which the US ratified back in the 40's.

Danielle: so, torture is okay against an enemy without a nation-state?

Me: No...It's immoral and wrong.

Danielle: So it's immoral and wrong, but not illegal?

Me: No, it's illegal as well. We signed the UN Convention on Torture.

Danielle: okay. I'm gonna have to google that in a minute

Me: Here's the question, though: It's a war.

Danielle: right

Me: War is barbarism.

Danielle: But you haven't helped me in my message-board fight!
:p
How do I logically combat "interrogation worked, so let's use it"?

Me: We can write all the "laws of war" that we want, but eventually we will find ourselves faced with the decision to break those laws or lose lives.

Danielle: I meant, "Torture worked, so let's use it."

Me: Ok... think of it this way: Your opponent is arguing that torture, though both illegal and immoral, can be OK if it produces intelligence that saves lives.
Now, let's say that it's OK. That only means that it's not immoral. The act of torture itself is, by definition, still illegal.

Danielle: Yes, that is true

Me: Wait. Let me finish.

Danielle: But apparently, from my opponent's viewpoint, the other side isn't abiding by the "rules", so why should we, when it (torture) will save American lives?

Me: Because holding ourselves to a higher standard - abiding by a system of law that's based on respect for fundamental human rights, and applies equally to everyone - is what makes us the good guys and them the savages. So what you have to ask is, if it's necessary (or OK) to break the law in order to save lives, how far are you willing to go before you abandon the moral authority of the very principles on which your society is founded?

Danielle: Thank you
That is SO what i wanted to say, but you said it so much more eloquently

Me: Are you willing to make a guy watch his child get a drill taken to her skull to stop a terrorist plot?

Danielle: no

Me: Well, once you've allowed yourself to break the law in the name of expediency, your behavior in a wartime environment is at the mercy of your sense of morality.
And war has a way of skewing one's sense of morality. That's why we have laws that prevent us from behaving immorally during the times when we can't tell wrong from right.

And in any case, the people who designed these "enhanced interrogation" techniques (i.e., the Soviets) used them to extract false confessions of dubious intelligence value. Al-Qaeda is a decentralized terrorist network that's largely dependent on electronic communication and personal relationships. If we were to focus our resources on proactive intelligence-gathering activities, we would likely be just as, if not more, successful in preventing acts of terrorism. Any interrogator who knows the nature of his work will at least admit that's a possibility. We weren't so quick to torture after 9/11 because we needed that intelligence to save lives. We started torturing because we were afraid that following a moral code made us soft. We were scared and lashing out.

We wanted revenge.

We're only human. But we're civilized humans, who recognize that we can't always trust ourselves to behave morally. Once again, that's why we have laws, which we should be following.