Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
"For all of its well-deserved reputation for pragmatism, American popular culture frequently nurtures or at least tolerates preposterous views and theories," writes Gen. Michael Hayden in a column in today's Wall Street Journal. "Witness," Hayden writes, "the 'truthers'....[and] the 'birthers.'"
Let me add a third denomination to this faith-based constellation: interrogation deniers, i.e., individuals who hold that the enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence.
Maybe popular culture has proven too tolerant of birthers and truthers. But popular culture, as anyone as professionally observant as Gen. Hayden must surely have recognized, isn't at all interested in deniers. No, denying the usefulness of enhanced interrogation is the preoccupation of the mainstream media, in particular of the New York Times. Just get a load of this, from a May 4 Times editorial:
There is no final answer to whether any of the prisoners tortured in President George W. Bush’s illegal camps gave up any information that eventually proved useful in finding Bin Laden....most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means. No matter what Mr. Yoo [Ricochet's own John Yoo, who, like Gen. Hayden, has been standing up for enhanced interrogation] and friends may claim, the real lesson of the Bin Laden operation is that it demonstrated what can be done with focused intelligence work and persistence.
It isn't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or the New York Post or any other outlet of popular culture that indulges the fantasies of deniers, and Gen. Hayden simply has to know it. If you're going to roll up a newspaper to smack somebody on the nose, General, then for goodness's sake smack somebody who deserves it.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Klaatu
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Enhanced interrogation, otoh, is an attempt to cause damage for a particular end. And that is why it is to be avoided. · Jun 2 at 1:15pm
I must disagree again. The enhanced techniques were specifically designed not to cause any real or lasting damage. They were intended to be unpleasant and discomforting but not harmful. · Jun 2 at 1:27pm
Well, isn't the whole point of these techniques to break down the health of someone to the point that they can no longer "hold out"? You don't need to end someone's life to cause damage to their mental or physical health.
Let me say again, I get that this is a very difficult issue. I struggle with it myself, going back and forth -- it's much easier to say you're against these techniques when you're not responsible for saving the lives of thousands. I'm attempting to approach it in the most philosophically consistent and moral way.
Nov '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZWMF6QO1yI&t=1m
Yeah, it's a silly movie, but the hypothetical is what matters. Your men are being slaughtered, and you can put an end to it by killing an enemy prisoner of war. It's illegal, but I probably couldn't live with myself if I didn't do it:
Edited on June 2, 2011 at 10:57pmRe: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Beautifully stated, Bill, as always.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I linked earlier to Tollefson's piece, which I found helpful. · Jun 2 at 1:15pm
I'm about to read Tollefsen for the third time.
Anything Mollie says is worth reading....
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, isn't the whole point of these techniques to break down the health of someone to the point that they can no longer "hold out"? You don't need to end someone's life to cause damage to their mental or physical health.
Let me say again, I get that this is a very difficult issue. I struggle with it myself, going back and forth -- ....
I do not think the point is to break down the person's health but their will. There were very strict limits placed on the procedures to prevent crossing that line. Sleep deprivation can be extremely unpleasant without being harmful, in excess it can damage someone mentally and physically. There were safeguards in place to make sure that did not happen.
I understand and accept as well that this is not an easy issue and I believe honorable people can disagree where the line is. I simply believe the discussion needs to focus on where the line is.
May '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Arguments about "kill one prisoner to save 100 of your own people" are philosophical sophistry. The argument relies heavily on "if" you know the future result, which you almost certainly can't.
As for letting Osama bin Laden escape, we already let him escape for 10 years. Had we put more of our own forces in Afghanistan in 2002 instead of relying on mercenaries, and had used multiple divisions instead of a handful of battalions, and if we stopped the absurd policy of allowing neighboring states to harbor the enemy, then all this talk about getting intel from a few wretched prisoners would be moot. We'd have killed him and destroyed the enemy organization already. Well, we can't know that either, but it's a good likelihood.
We want to justify fighting with the least sweat or effort. We'll spend billions to defeat bombs that cost only thousands, but we won't put out the effort in manpower to win. We don't need technology or torture (or mistreatment). All we need is enough people on the ground to win.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
I have to speak up in Peter's defense here, on these two points. First, what someone thinks may be torture will vary among many different people. But that is not the key issue. The key issue is what Congress believed torture to be when it passed the federal anti-torture statute. Here is what it said in 2001: "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." Congress unquestionably intended this prohibition to be narrow, much narrower than many popular understandings of torture. The alleged torturer must have acted with "specific intent," the highest level of criminal intent known in the law -- the difference between pre-meditated, first-degree murder, and manslaughter. Torture is not just any pain or suffering, but severe pain or suffering. Mental suffering, the statute says, has to be prolonged and arise from specified acts, such as the use of mind-altering drugs and threats of imminent death.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
People can have different opinions whether the interrogation methods used by the CIA, which only culminated in waterboarding (which occurred to only three al Qaeda leaders), passes this line. I agree with Peter that it does not. But you don't need to take my word or Peter's word for it. You can take Congress's word. Because when Congress enacted follow up laws in 2005 and after on interrogation methods, it refused to include waterboarding or any of the other CIA interrogation methods in its definition of torture.
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
On Peter's second point, those who claim that "the ends don't justify the means," are trying to appeal to a Kantian notion of justice. But it should be clear that Kantians cannot run a government, and anyone who strictly holds to Kantianism can never serve in government. Every government decision is a trade-off of costs and benefits, and our elected officials are elected precisely because they must ask some to sacrifice in order that others may benefit. This ranges from seemingly small decisions, such as making more fuel-efficient cars that lead to higher traffic fatalities, to large ones like asking future generations to pay so that we can spend more now. In fact, the ends justifying the means is an essential part of war. We ask young men and women to risk their lives, sometimes to sacrifice their lives, so that some greater objective can be realized -- whether it be taking a tactical objective or achieving the nation's war aims or protecting American civilians. If the ends really don't justify the means, then our government would be unable to fight any war, because in war we kill human beings who hold allegiance to our enemy, and in fighting we accept that human beings on our own side will die. If you really believe the ends don't justify the means, would you not just be willing to have Osama bin Laden running around, but would you be willing to give up on the use of nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence, of the use of the atomic bomb to end World War II with Japan, or the use of strategic bombing against Germany, not to mention orders that soldiers fight and perhaps die on our battlefields not just in self-defense, but to advance American national interests?
Edited on June 3, 2011 at 2:35amSep '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
On Peter's second point, those who claim that "the ends don't justify the means," are trying to appeal to a Kantian notion of justice.
Not necessarily Professor Yoo. Kantian notions of justice are deontological, while those who are saying "the ends don't justify the means" are saying they are opposed to consequentialist notions of justice. To be opposed to consequentialist notions of justice does not necessarily imply a Kantian, deontological notion of justice.
The atomic bomb to end World War II is a consequentialist approach to justice which, for example, a Thomist can be opposed to without being a Kantian deontologist.
Sep '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
For example, Thomist Ed Feser -- an NRO columnist -- opines on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in his post called Happy Consequentialism Day.
Sep '10
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
As a note for Peter -- Tollefson's understanding of the Germain/Grisez Thomist theory of moral action is criticized by more traditional Thomists such as Feser (and I include Janet Smith and Christopher Kaczor in this) as being too Kantian because it decouples moral action theory from its traditional basis in Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysics. The same issue arises in regards to moral analysis of capital punishment and, to a lesser extent, lying.
Mollie, please cover your eyes.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
First, we did not kill any prisoners.
Here is what we do know. From former DCI's Tenet, “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA put together have been able to tell us.” and Hayden, "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” This is not a matter of "if" but "is." We know there were plots that targeted Americans and that we stopped them because of the information we got from this program.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
I argue that this debate displays our cultural horror reflex against inflicting pain. Is inflicting pain such an egregious atrocity against humanity that nothing can justify it? We have such a cultural aversion to inflicting pain (an aversion that otherwise does us credit) that we've absolutized it into a mortal sin, and we hate inflicting any sort of pain, in whatever form.
Through history, inflicting pain was taken for granted.
Note that I'm not endorsing inflicting pain. But I'm making a cultural point: we believe that our refusal to inflict pain is mature and civilized behavior. What we find, however, is that in the attempt to become more civilized, some people push the envelope of what constitutes pain. Consider that California asserts that more than one prisoner in a cell is "cruel" punishment. Where do you set the boundary between inconvenience, pain, and then "torture?"
Waterboarding causes no permanent damage. Does the mere fact that it's painful, therefore, make it morally atrocious? Is all pain torture? Where do you draw that line?
I believe that it's intellectually lazy, and morally adolescent, to flatter yourself as being more moral by defining all pain as torture.
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Talk about an argument that relies heavily on "if." If we had a force structure that allowed us to use multiple divisions rather than a handful of battalions in 2002, if we had greater airlift capability, if Afghanistan was not landlocked, if we had forward deployed forces in the area, if Pakistan was not nuclear armed, if, if, if....
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Last but not least, I would hope so! We better want to leverage our strengths; intelligence, technology, and resources to fight and win this war rather than just throwing bodies at the effort. For one thing, the American people would never stand for it and there is no reason they should.
If making 3 terrorists uncomfortable allows us to keep a single Army or Marine battalion out of the theater then what possible argument is there for not doing it.
May '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Professor Yoo,
I don't in any way doubt the legality of the mistreatment, enhanced interrogation, what have you. I am talking from a moral standpoint. Many things which are legal and even have a beneficial side effect are nonetheless immoral. Nor is it my intent to say that you or anyone who disagrees with this point is immoral for your opinion. I just don't think it's a road we should go down. You and I might trust G.W. Bush, and I think he's been among the most honorable presidents in my lifetime, even if I might disagree with him on some issues. But I don't trust a government that can treat people in this manner. They might be doing enhanced interrogation on Al Qaeda today, but it will be another, less honorable president who will use it on less unworthy people in the future.
Lines must be drawn somewhere. I would draw the line much short of where others might.
May '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Klaatu
Talk about an argument that relies heavily on "if." . . . if, if, if.... · Jun 2 at 6:31pm
That was my point. If you want to throw in "if's" to justify mistreatment, then you can always throw in other "if's."
Jan '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Skyler
Klaatu
Talk about an argument that relies heavily on "if." . . . if, if, if.... · Jun 2 at 6:31pm
That was my point. If you want to throw in "if's" to justify mistreatment, then you can always throw in other "if's." · Jun 2 at 6:49pm
Yet you still have not justified your characterization of this treatment as mistreatment. Where would you draw the line? Is an unlawful combatant entitled to the same treatment as a lawful combatant? If not, what level of questioning is allowed? Are all forms of coercion mistreatment and an affront to our moral standards?
May '11
Re: Gen. Hayden Owes Popular Culture an Apology
Klaatu, I'd say if you're going to force a line out of me right here and now, that I would say that if you wouldn't treat your dog that way, you shouldn't be treating people that way. I'm not referring to lab rats or lab monkeys, but pets.
Either kill them (unlawful combatants) when you find them, execute them after a hearing, or if you accept their surrender then you treat them with decency. They don't need reading material, they don't need fine food, or even a lot of food, they don't need a lot of room or friends to talk to, but you don't mistreat them. This used to be the normal way of thinking.
I think our sissy ways of fighting wars has made us desperate to find some secret panacaea to win through our brains, technology and intelligence. All these things are fine, but the most important way to fight a war is with a lot of people, because a population can only be defeated by being controlled and people can only be controlled by people, not machines.