From a reader:
Jonah,
I’ve emailed you previously, so hopefully you know that I am truly conservative – not someone who states that they are a “life-long conservative” before spouting off liberal nonsense.
I had a bit of an epiphany last night regarding waterboarding. I have thought of it as not being torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions, etc., and defended it as not torture ad nauseam.
My thinking was that it does not create any physical injury and it is only applied for a very short time period, is used sparingly and gets results.
First, I have to concede that the time period it is applied, whether it is used sparingly and the fact that it gets results are irrelevant to whether or not the technique is torture. So really, I am left with just the fact that it does not produce any physical injury when used – only psychological harm.
However, I was thinking about this last night – using electricity to shock someone for 5 minutes also would not produce any lasting physical injury (depending on voltage, amps). Also, Chinese water torture (dripping a drop of water on someone’s forehead) does not produce a physical injury. Yet, I think we would all agree that both of those examples are in fact torture.
So, I am left in kind of a conundrum. I can understand why people believe that waterboarding is torture. I believe a very strong case can be made that it is torture under the Geneva Conventions. But, on the flip side, I do want some techniques available that can break a terrorist quickly if needed.
Me: I think this is an entirely humane and morally serious quandary. And I largely share it. Hence my frustration with some of the readers who insist that I’m rah-rah for waterboarding (though, as I suggested below, if all you read was the headline, you might get that sense). I really don’t like that we’ve done it. I don’t like the idea that we might ever do it again. But I also find the explosion of sanctimony and righteousness about the issue very frustrating. That’s one reason why I focused on the slippery slope point. Most of the people complaining about waterboarding don’t dwell on the people who were actually waterboarded (in much the same way that death penalty opponents usually ignore the obviously guilty and evil people on death row). Instead, they conjure dark predictions about the “direction” of the country. Well, we did it three times (according to Mukasey) and while I think you can defensibly argue that we shouldn’t have even done it those three times, I don’t think you can argue that America lost its soul or is well on its way to becoming akin to the Soviet Union.
My own quandary is that I’m a big believer in settled dogma. And I think having the question of torture permanently settled on the anti-torture side is a good and healthy thing. On the other hand, we now have this debate because life has thrust it upon us and distinctions need to be made. Personally, I could live quite happily with a permanent and complete ban on waterboarding (we’re almost there now). But if I was president of the United States would I want an out in case of a ticking time bomb situation? Absolutely.