TORTURE AND TERRORISM ARE NOT EQUIVALENTS…
November 19th, 2007
This afternoon I read a post by Andrew Sullivan in which he points to and quotes from an argument by Norm Geras that left-liberals can’t be against torture if they’re not willing to be equally against terrorism. What Geras doesn’t understand is that we are. Just not in the way I understand that he’d like to parse the meaning.
We are against the willful — intentional or not — targeting in time of war of children, women and non-combatants by all forces.
This is what Sullivan quoted:
Torture is an indefensible practice; but so is the random murder of innocents. The absence of pleas for understanding in the former case, set beside the rich presence of pleas for understanding in the latter case, tells either of a wildly imbalanced distribution of sociological curiosity with respect to the two or of a much greater predisposition on the British liberal-left to condone terrorism than to excuse torture.
And Sullivan responds:
It seems to me that both cross a profound moral line; and the most depressing fact of our time is that the right seems unable to refute torture without qualifications and the left seems unable to refute terrorism without qualifications. The key to civilization’s endurance, it seems to me, is a refusal to tolerate either.
On the face of his statement. I’m with him. But I doubt that he is willing to terrorism as I described it above.
Since sullivan doesn’t allow comments on the Daily Dish, I wrote him this email.
Shalom Andrew,
If only violence on the national scale could be settled using some form of the Marquess of Queensberry rules. If only armies could engage each other on sterile battlefields, far from productive farmland and civilian populations. If only the people who died in wars were adults who chose to take up arms and agreed that their life was more than an acceptable exchange for the liberty and freedom of those they fought to protect.
But that”s not the way we fight wars.
And that”s why Geras is wrong. Torture is not the equivalent of Terrorism.
Allow me to set aside for the moment the moral issue. I promise I will return to it.
At the pragmatic level, torture does not work; it does not return usable intelligence.
Terrorism, as a tactic of those whose military strength is too lacking to defeat a well equipped, trained and professional force, does work.
Freedom fighters/Terrorists have always sought the unorthodox as a way to convince an enemy that the fight cost more than whatever they fought for was worth.
History is full of accounts of those in rebellion attacking civilian populations sympathetic to the oppressors in order to pressure the other side to walk away. I would be hard pressed to suggest a nation that, at some point in its history, did not find recourse in irregular actions. Rules of combat and war are for those who can best take advantage of them. When the rules stand between people and their shared aspirations, the rules will be damned.
Returning to Marquess of Queensberry and his gentlemanly rules, in a boxing match against a proper opponent, I”m happy to fight fair. In a street fight against an unknown or more powerful adversary, I will kick, bite, gouge and use every dirty trick at my disposal.
And now for the moral issue. Geras, and you, are absolutely correct.
In war, the slaughter of children, women and other non-combatants at any time is morally wrong at every level I can conceive of.
But until we are prepared to recognize that a mother cradling her dead child does not care if the child died from a 500-pound bomb dropped by a B-52 or the detonation of 500 lbs of explosive in the trunk and back seat of a Mercedes, and universally condemn both acts as immoral, we will have no standing in the argument.
Both sides have made an immoral decision based upon expedients. Neither is correct.
Just as the victors get to write history, they also get to assign the labels.
Nelson Mandela, a once terrorist now recognized by many in the world as a great freedom fighter, gained his change in title, not because he shifted his tactics, but because he won,
B”shalom,
Jeff Hess
Powerful post, Jeff. Thank you.
Shalom Poet,
Thank you. As long as bullies are allowed to define terrorism as what the other guys do, we’ll get nowhere.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] Coffee Will Write offers a powerful argument on why Torture and Terrorism Are Not Equivalents: If only violence on the national scale could be settled using some form of the Marquess of [...]
I am of the belief, “the end, justifies the means.” If in order to save innocent lives or that of our soldiers, pushing the limits on interviewing enemy combatants is justified.
The argument we are above that is weak! We are fighting a war. War is ugly, brutal,& violent. I would rather someone torture a combatant than lose innocent lives.
Furthermore, somebody correct me if I am wrong – I am not aware of ANY country or enemy we have EVER fought has afforded our soldiers their rights due them under the Geneva Convention. So we are to play by the rules, when others don’t have too? Please don’t tell me we are better than that – remember this is war!
Shalom King,
Ah yes. War. Been there, done that, got the disability check.
Is there any situation in which you do not hold that the ends justify the means?
B’shalom,
Jeff
Yes Jeff, I believe there are many situations where the ends do not justify the means, war not being one of them.
On most things, I believe it is more important to do the right thing, regardless of the outcome. Being able to look in the mirror and being able to look into my son’s eyes with honesty means pretty much more to me than anything.
But with this war, if the extremists are allowed to prevail, my son (6yr old) may not be able to look into his sons eyes some day.
Shalom Ralph,
Could you provide two or three examples of when the ends do not justify the means so that I can continue our conversation?
B’shalom,
Jeff