Torture for Information Patrick Armshaw
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2011 The Torturer's Dilemma: Analyzing the Logic of Torture for Information Patrick Armshaw Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY THE TORTURER'S DILEMMA: ANALYZING THE LOGIC OF TORTURE FOR INFORMATION By PATRICK ARMSHAW A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2011 The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Patrick Armshaw defended on March 25th, 2011 _______________________________________ William H. Moore Professor Directing Dissertation _______________________________________ Michael Creswell University Representative _______________________________________ Charles Barrilleaux Committee Member _______________________________________ Jens Grosser Committee Member _______________________________________ Mark Souva Committee Member Approved: __________________________________________ Dale L. Smith Chair, Department of Political Science __________________________________________ David Rasmussen Dean, College of Social Sciences and Public Policy The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii This work is dedicated to my wife, Emma, mon abeille du soleil. I literally could not have done this without you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their help and support: William J. Armshaw, who was inspiring me months before I was born; my parents, William F. Armshaw and Marianne Armshaw-Farris; my sister, Katherine Armshaw; my committee members, Will Moore, Mark Souva, Jens Grosser, Charles Barrilleaux and Michael Creswell; as well as my fellow graduate students Jacek Stremski, Jacquelyn Rubin, James Patrick Nelson, Kim Hong- Cheol, and Jeffrey Weber, without whose constant input, argumentation and advice this work would be far the poorer. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT vii 1. TELL ME THE TRUTH: Torture for Information 1 2. THE LOGIC OF TORTURE: Why Shouldn't Torture Work? 9 2.1. Introduction 9 2.2. A History of Torture 11 2.3. Conceptualizing Torture 22 2.4. A Model of Torture 26 2.5. Evaluating the Model through Case Studies 31 3. THE WITCHHUNT: Slavery, Coercion and Misinformation in the Salem 39 Witch-Trials 3.1. Introduction 39 3.2. Witch Craft in New England 42 3.3. The Crisis in Salem 45 3.4. The End of the Trials 52 3.5. The Deceptive Cycle 56 3.6. The Strategic Logic of Coercive Interrogation 61 3.7. Torture, Tituba and Slavery 68 3.8. Conclusion 71 4. A TALE OF TWO ALGERIAS: Torture in the Casbah and the Bled 74 4.1. Introduction 74 4.2. Analysing Torture 76 4.3. The Battle of Algiers 80 4.4. Torture in the Casbah 84 4.5. Torture in the Bled 93 4.6. Weighing the Costs and Benefits 94 4.7. Conclusion 101 5. TORTURE AND TERRORISM: Coercive Interrogation in the War on 104 Terror 5.1. Introduction 104 5.2. Torture at Guantanamo 106 5.3. Torture in Iraq 113 5.4. Torture by the CIA 120 5.5. A Critical Case: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi 126 5.6. Conclusion 130 v 6. CONCLUSION: The Misleading Theater of Torture 134 REFERENCES 137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 156 vi ABSTRACT In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the fear of apocalyptic terrorism has caused many Americans and academics worldwide to reexamine previously held beliefs on the morality and suitability of torture as a means of ensuring public safety. While much of the ensuing debate has focused on deontological versus teleological ethics (Kant vs. Bentham), torture can only be properly understood as an empirical system – a means of gathering information. By applying an analytical narrative framework to comparative case studies, I argue that torture must depend on certain conditions that are inherently difficult to satisfy – and that the attempts by various authorities to make use of torture have instead led them inexorably towards a deceptive cycle where bad information corrupts the system. The implication is that torture can paradoxically do more harm to the torturing state even than the enemies it hopes to combat. The cases under examination include the Salem witch trials in 17th Century New England, the Algerian Revolution both from the standpoint of the French counterinsurgency and the FLN, and the United States during the War on Terror. vii CHAPTER 1 TELL ME THE TRUTH: Torture for Information Since the terror attacks of September 11th 2001, the utility of torture has once again become a subject of debate among politicians, pundits, and scholars in western countries. This debate has not been confined entirely to the world of academia – rather, it has shown up in news shows, television programs, films, and (as has become apparent since the revelations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib) even in government policy. The consensus on torture for many years had been one of opprobrium – torture is something that autocracies do, while civilized powers understand it to be morally beyond the pale. This consensus has apparently diminished in the last decade, and the debate has shifted from questions of moral philosophy (can torture ever be justified) towards a realist paradigm centered around whether we can afford to consider morality in the face of an existential threat. This has led some observers to argue, in essence, that torture is useful, and can be harnessed by the state to find useful information (that is assumed to be unobtainable by other means) while avoiding its pitfalls. Most prominent among these observers has been the famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, whose piece in the Los Angeles Times1 argued that torture could be made part of a liberal society if it could be regularized and subject to judicial proceedings – taking the ultimate in lawless acts and subjecting it to the rule (and regularity) of law. This debate was furthered by a collection of essays on torture edited by Sanford Levinson (2004), wherein Dershowitz defends his proposal against critics on the anti-torture left (Elaine Scarry) and the right (Richard Posner).2 The hypothetical nature of this debate is perhaps best exemplified by the title of Michael Ignatieff's essay in Prospect magazine, “If Torture Works...”3 In a sense, the debate has been centered on a clash of ethical systems: deontology – where actions are judged by how well they follow a set of normative rules – and teleology – where actions are 1 Dershowitz. “Want to Torture? Get a Warrant.” Los Angeles Times (January 22nd, 2002) 2 Levinson, 2004. 3 April, 2006. Excerpted from "Torture: Does it Make Us Safer? Is it Ever OK?," edited by Kenneth Roth and Minky Worden. The New Press in conjunction with Human Rights Watch, 2006 1 judged by their effects. The deontological arguments against torture are of course highly familiar: torture is always wrong, it is a violation of human rights, etc. The teleological arguments can best be represented by the famous 'ticking bomb' scenario. In this hypothetical situation, the state holds in its custody a terrorist who alone knows where a bomb is located that in a short amount of time will go off. The bomber refuses to reveal the location of the bomb. Should the state torture the bomber, or allow the deaths of (some number of) civilians to safeguard the rights of their killer? The hit show '24', starring special agent Jack Bauer, has repeatedly used precisely this premise as a means of allowing its anti-hero to engage in torture repeatedly, and nearly always successfully – by breaking the right fingers at the right time, Bauer has saved the lives of countless extras, taking on the moral burden of torture and doing what we, the audience, worry we would not do ourselves. And given the circumstances of the episode, who could argue with him? If torture is always wrong, then the lives of innocents are transformed into necessary costs for society to pay – a position that is hardly tenable politically since most voters would identify themselves and their loved ones with the victims and not the terrorist. If torture can be justified by its results, then torture can always be justified – simply increase the number of potential victims or the likelihood that the captive is guilty until the correct balance is achieved. The imperatives of necessity make everything licit: John Yoo, former head of George W. Bush's Office of Legal Council argued that necessity could even extend to crushing the testicles of an innocent child in order to make his father talk.4 Necessity trumps all laws, even the Constitution, according to no less a jurist than Richard Posner. (Posner, 2006) If the debate is between deontology and teleology, between Kant and Bentham, then torture advocates have won from the start: in the absence of any social consensus on which (and whose) rules to follow, arguments that torture can never be justified are themselves unjustifiable. Torture may be wrong, but it cannot be ruled out: it may be the 'least bad thing to do.” (Elshtain, 2004) While individual cases of torture might be attacked as having failed the cost-benefit test of legitimacy, torture itself will be resurrected as a legitimate extension of state power. This choice between the Scylla of existential terror and the Charybdis of a torture-state is false, however: it assumes that torture 'works' without proving anything of the sort. Characteristically, this has meant a focus on whether or not torture has ever worked, with the assumption being that a successful instance of torture can justify a 4 Yoo made this claim during a debate in 2005 with Notre Dame Professor of Law John Cassel. The audio track is readily available online at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO2p0KHyzpw&feature=related.