A Conservative Response to Matt Walsh’s Indictment Against “Enhanced Interrogation”
This is a topic that is a bit off topic for a tactical self-defense blog, but is, nonetheless, an important. Over the holiday break, my oldest daughter and son shared a podcast by Matt Walsh titled “The Conservative Case Against Torture.” Mr. Walsh attempts just what his title suggests, but his reasoning is flawed, fatally so. I address these issues below. In the interest of time – mine AND yours – I give some of Mr. Walsh’s errors short shrift but will devote more time to several critical errors.
As the KOA radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, frequently says, “Before someone tells me where he stands, it’s usually instructive to know where he sits.” Such is the case in this situation. I am a political conservative, but before that, I am a Christian. I attach no adjectives to “Christian” because all are insipid. I can only say that I take the Bible seriously, attempt to condemn what it condemns and likewise attempt to commend what it commends. Although I do not know Mr. Walsh, he claims to come from the same camp and gives me no reason to doubt his commitment to following Jesus.
Points of Agreement
I agree with Mr. Walsh on two points. First, it is incorrect to support the “enhanced interrogation techniques” under the premise that the ends, protecting innocent civilians from terrorists, justify the means. If the means are immoral, that is not changed by the righteous nature of the ends. Second, we should view human life as sacred because the Creator of life commands us to do so.
A Critical Distinction
We should first establish why these individuals were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” because Mr. Walsh rightly claims that we would be outraged if an enemy treated U.S. Marines in a similar manner. Mr. Walsh’s asserts U.S. outrage would stem not from the fact that the U.S. Marines were Marines from the fact they were humans. Consistency, Mr. Walsh further asserts, requires that we be outraged that alleged terrorists were treated in this manner, since they are not less human than the Marines.
However, Walsh ignores a fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition: justice requires treating people differently based upon different behavior. If you want to wage war against the U.S. and avoid waterboarding, there is a very simple way to do so. You can either join the military of a country so engaged or join a militia or volunteer force that meets these requirements: “(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates ; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Then when captured, you must, in accordance with Geneva Convention requirements, be afforded the privileges of a prisoner of war. If however you do not fight under a sovereign flag, purposefully blend in with the general populace, and specifically target civilians, you have no grounds for complaint when you are captured and then ill treated. The point that Mr. Walsh misses is that U.S. Marines generally abide by these rules; terrorists do not. Further, these rules were not made up after the terrorist combatants were captured but were commonly known before hostilities began.
There is a second reason why these combatants were subject to enhanced interrogations: To use the itinerate travelling evangelists’ term, they refused to repent. Not only did they engage in activities that made them an unlawful combatant against the U.S. and other countries, but they also continued their hostilities after captivity by withholding information regarding others who were so engaged. One might object that lawful combatants also withhold such information. That is true, but they are withholding information about soldiers who are “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” We must not miss that distinction.
The Question of Torture
Mr. Walsh asks why we, the United States, chose the term “enhanced interrogation.” The answer, he asserts, is because we did not want to call it what it was, torture. That is a possible explanation, the other explanation is that we wanted a general term to use for a group of techniques that legal combatants were not subjected to and which were not torture. So were these techniques torture?
Mr. Walsh argues that waterboarding, sleep depravation, and forced rectal hydration and feeding “unquestionably” qualify as torture. To claim otherwise, is to set an arbitrary standard that cannot be defended. Mr. Walsh cites the UN Convention Against Torture which states in part that “the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….”
So, is Mr. Walsh correct? No. His assertions are fraught with errors, some logical, some factual. First the logical, any demarcation between “enhanced interrogation” and torture is arbitrary. The Lord chose not to hand down the 10 commandments of terrorist interrogation, so we are left with trying to determine what is appropriate and what is not.
Next the factual. To claim, as Walsh does, that forced rectal feeding was used only to demean and exert control over detainees is not supported by a very biased Senate report. Rather, the report acknowledges that forced renal feeding was used to thwart one detainee’s hunger strike. The report’s language also implies that renal hydration was, at least in part, a response to detainees’ refusal to drink fluids. Put plainly, the CIA interrogators used these techniques to communicate to illegal combatants, “You are not in charge. You will not dictate the terms of our interaction.” This practice may violate Mr. Walsh’s sensibilities as he sits in an armchair by a warm fire, free from terrorist threats, but calling it torture is, at best, disingenuous. To equate this practice to sodomizing someone with a broom handle, as Mr. Walsh does, is an egregiously inaccurate indictment upon men who were working to protect U.S. citizens.
So what of waterboarding, is it torture? Mr. Walsh claims that waterboarding is not simulated drowning but drowning, and points out that if you waterboard someone long enough they will die. I have heard firsthand accounts of waterboarding from a friend who is a retired Navy SEAL. He, along with other Vietnam era soldiers, was waterboarded as part of his counter interrogation training. During the waterboarding, his “interrogators” repeatedly ordered him to “hold still squid”, because he did not panic, applied his diving training and breathed through the corner of his mouth. Does this sound like actual drowning? Furthermore, as Michael B. Mukasey points out in the Wall Street Journal, the number of detainees who were waterboarded is fewer than the number of reporters who have paid someone to waterboard them! Yes, if you waterboard a man long enough, he will die. What does that prove? If you hold someone in a “choke hold” too long, they will die; however, choking someone down is a restraint that does no lasting harm. Are chokeholds now torture?
Members of the Bush Administration struggled with what techniques should be permitted and which should not. Both the Senate report and Mr. Walsh ignore the debate and downplay the Congressional briefings to the so-called gang of eight. You can get a flavor for this debate in an article at NPR. My point in raising this is that Bush Administration officials were concerned that they implement effective techniques that were lawful and defensible. Mr. Walsh dismisses these debates among policy makers and serious legal scholars; he is the one committed to the sanctity of life. These Philistines are harming the conservative movement. Mr. Walsh’s attitude smacks of hubris.
Finally, Mr. Walsh and many in our country view these detainees as passive agents in this period. Nothing is farther from the truth. They were actively engaged in unlawful hostilities against civilians. How so? By their willful, intentional refusal to cooperate with interrogators who were attempting to stop further attacks on civilians. Had they cooperated from the start, they would not have been subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and once they started cooperating, the harsh interrogations apparently stopped. Ends do not justify means, but circumstances often determine what is permissible. When dealing with evil men bent on carrying out murderous endeavors through their silence, a different set of rules apply.
Mr. Walsh is not the only one whose sensibilities are violated. There are events that violate our civilized, sanitized, pasteurized U.S. sensibilities. However, just because events make us squirm does not mean they are immoral. In chapter 10 of the Old Testament book of Joshua, Joshua brings out 5 defeated kings and has the elders of Israel put their feet on their necks. He then says, “Do not fear or be dismayed! Be strong and courageous, for thus the Lord will do to all your enemies with whom you fight.” (Verse 25) The Scriptures are mute on the Lord’s moral verdict on Joshua’s little ceremony, but the remainder of the book indicates that the Lord did indeed defeat Israel’s foes. A similar queasiness arises when we learn of the Lord’s prescribed method of execution: stoning. Stoning strikes many, myself included, as cruel and unusual, but we must bow to God’s moral authority and acknowledge that He is just in all things.
Just because a prisoner is treated harshly or in a “degrading” manner does not necessarily imply that his captors or interrogators acted unethically. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Not all desperate measures are justified, but we should exercise caution in pronouncing judgment on the decisions and actions of others when we stand comfortably removed from the context within which they were forced to make their decisions.
Quick Points
No Ticking Time Bomb: Mr. Walsh asserts that we know there was no imminent threat posed by terrorists which would have mandated such techniques. The point is not what we know now but what we knew then! At 8:00 am on September 11th, 2001, we “knew” that President Bush was going to be an inconsequential president during a time of peace and spend his time reading quietly to school children in Florida. Let us pray that all of the CIA does not divulge all threats that were neutralized because doing so will enable terrorists to better plan in the future.
Rejecting Torture Does Not Imply Inaction: Mr. Walsh goes to considerable effort to insist that his stand against torture should not be construed as advocating passivity. Unfortunately, he offers no alternatives to enhanced interrogation. It is easy to say, “Hey, knock that off!” It is much more difficult to come up with other viable alternatives, particularly under the stress of wondering when the next attack might come.
The Techniques Harm the Humanity of the Interrogators: This is a concern. However, the same is true of police work and military campaigns. The fact is that the interrogators were working under specific guidelines designed, presumably, to protect the prisoners and to minimize the psychological impact that these techniques would have upon the interrogators.
Inaccuracies of the Report: This is my point, not Mr. Walsh’s. The Senate staffers who compiled the report did not interview the staff or administrators of the CIA who were primarily responsible for this program. That indicates that they had a pre-arranged conclusion they were working toward.
