Heretics' almanac

Civilization and the means to coerce

I'm reading Mark Bowden's book "Guests of the Ayatollah" and recently read the article about the Bush administration's secret torture program. And though there are way more differences than similarities, I'm struck by one thing: what access to violent coercion does to people.

There's been lots of studies about this, of course. And it's as if we never learn, and before we know it any moral high ground gives way, and all we're left with are cowardly thugs.

The moment a person has the means to harm a helpless human being (or for that matter, animal) there is an awesome responsibility involved. The New Yorker article relates that many CIA agents are traumatized by the things they'd done, even against decidedly nasty people who are capable of much worse. The "students" who abused the American diplomatic personnel in Tehran may or may not be suffering similar qualms - it says a lot about the kind of people they are if they aren't.

What is most striking is how easily people persuade themselves that violence is warranted, or even necessary. It is as if the option is to alluring to resist - could I hit this person? Could. I pull the trigger? Turn the switch? Why would I have that power and not use it?

Perhaps the most telling sign of a civilzation is the sense of responsibility and accountability that goes with this power. The Nazis glorified cowardly bullies. Khomeini's government endorsed it as a means toward an end end. The Bush administration compartmentalizes, regulates it, but can't quite resist it.

Interrogation techniques

Dahlia Lithwick in Slate has written a piece about a much longer piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, all about a secret US interrogation program that makes Abu Graib look like schoolyard bullying.

I think terrorists are the scum of the earth. Their naked disdain for virtually everything I consider decent leaves me with zero sympathy for them. Nobody who has ever read this blog could suspect me of trying to understand empathetically these murderous dogs.

But this interrogation program, if you can get past the euphemism is as shameful as terrorism is blasphemous. It dehumanizes the suspect, sure, but it also dehumanizes the officials and by extension, us. And to add insult to injury, it isn't even clear that it's effective. It gets lots of information, but the information can't be trusted.

In short, it looks more and more like the Spanish Inquisition. A special group of people with exceptional power, special tools, etc, that convinces themselves they're finding the truth.

Perhaps torture can be justifies if there really is urgency, such as a kidnap victim running out of air. I don't know, and I'm glad I don't have to decide. But every piece of evidence suggests that torture is an ineffective way to get useful information from otherwise cooperative people. And because it's degrading to the suspects, it's degrading to us.

I think every civilization recognizes at some level the inherent indcency of using physical power to force psychological submission. Defendants in court wear regular clothes and are - where possible - unshackled. We don't make anyone bow and scrape and prostrate themselves. Because if we did, we'd be cowards.

Cheney, Gonzalez and the others who direct and enable this travesty of an "interrogation program," are without a doubt far removed from it physically. I doubt they'd have the stomach to get any closer to it.

This, I believe, is indicative of the Bush doctrine, which is to use brute force to eliminate a complex problem. I think the psychology of terrorist masterminds is open for a lot of manipulation without the need for waterboarding or even sleep deprivation. I doubt that learned helplessness will make them more truthful, even if they are compliant. Terrorists are, after all, seriously deficient human beings. They do what they do for specific reasons that can be manipulated using "white" rather than "dark" techniques.