Torture A Collection, by Sanford Levinson (book review)
Sanford Levinson the editor has been and is an eloquent voice against torture and his intention in drawing together this collection is clearly to educate and raise awareness of a difficult subject to think about let alone put into written words. His introduction acknowledges that lawyers can only go so far in speaking about the reality of torture and he laments the fact that he could not get a professional Army investigator to contribute to this collection.
Much of the writing in this book is post 9/11. This terrible event brought home to United States citizens their vulnerability to horrific terrorist attacks on a grand scale. Since terrorists by definition operate in secret, preventing attacks relies heavily on information gained before an attack. That raises the question, how to get the information? One of the ways is through interrogation of suspects who might have knowledge of imminent attacks. But if time is of the essence what is to be done with potential suspects in custody. If they will not voluntarily provide information can they be forced to give it up through pressure, coercive techniques or even torture, physical or mental. Sanford's book is intent on exploring this issue from as many sides as possible: i.e., political, philosophical, legal, moral, historical, even theological. The sincerity of the editor-author and contributors is further underlined by the fact that all royalties from this book will be donated to The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition otherwise known as TASSC International.
This is a book for scholars, students, and laymen and concerned citizens. Since Mr. Levinson contributors have different views on the legality and morality of torture, any reader will find much to agree, or disagree, with the different perspectives presented here. I support a Zero Tolerance for Torture policy, thus, I would take strong issue with the articles by Jean Bethke Elshtain and Alan Dershowitz.
Jean Bethke Elshtain for example purports to speak from a Catholic ethical point of view and introduces her readers to classic Jesuitical moral casuistry. My problem with her presentation is she is grounding her arguments on one strand of theological ethics and ignores an equally strong deontological strand of Catholic ethics which says some acts can be intrinsically evil and can never be permitted no matter what the circumstances. The Convention Against Torture and human rights advocates reflect this strand of Catholic tradition when they say that the right not to be tortured is nonderogable, meaning it can never be set aside no matter what the circumstances even in extreme emergency.
Like Alan Dershowitz who in his book, Why Terrorism Works, Elshtain supports an absolute condemnation of terrorist acts but somehow she becomes a utilitarian (with sadness) when it comes to torture. Her contribution purports to be theological but Elshtain bases her arguments mostly on the Machiavellian ruminations of Michael Walzer's essay, "Reflection on the Problem of Dirty Hands", not on the Beatitudes of Jesus. In fact there are no scriptural references in her essay. One saying of Jesus she might have to overcome is "what does it profit one to gain (or save) the whole world but suffer the loss of ones immortal soul." Is not this the real condition of the policy maker and those who carry out the policies of a particular government, the torturers themselves ? Do not the arguments of Walzer, Elshtain, Posner, and Dershowitz lead the reader to a theory of "just torture". Even if one thinks these writers are wrong, they can still serve as lighthouses in the darkness warning others to sail clear of the shoals.
My only qualification in praise of this book is the lack of deep reflection by any of the authors post Abu Ghraib. It seems to me the revelations of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanimo and the revelations of renditions to other countries by the United States, takes the debate about torture and puts it in a context that is more troubling than the authors seem to understand. For Abu Ghraib stands to the world as 9/11 stands to the United States.
Now that we have seen what even Americans are capable of, we need to get this discussion off the academic and normative plane and into the empirical realm (to use a favorite Dershowitz distinction). Haven't we learned from all the ugly revelations of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq just how sadistic and corrupt human beings really can be? Can Judge Richard Posner say to Alan Dorfman, as he does in his essay, that Dorfman's absolute prohibition against torture is "overwrought in tone and irresponsible in content." In the empirical realm the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have all made the argument that the war on terrorism necessitates different tactics than any previously fought war--though they still make the dubious claim they do not engage in torture or violations of the Convention
Against Torture.
Let Sanford's distinguished authors grapple with this issue directly as our leaders grapple with them. Our leaders see "ticking bomb terrorists" almost everywhere. Are they right or are they the ones who might be "overwrought in tone and irresponsible in content ? " After Abu Ghraib should we really struggle and then acquiesce to the distinction between torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment as Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seems to suggest in a recent interview in Houston where he said that most of what happened at Abu Ghraib does not rise to the level of torture.
Maybe Mr. Levinson will honor us with a second volume that connects the discussion in this book with what has happened since Abu Ghraib. Meanwhile I suggest that "Torture a Collection" is essential reading for anyone who thinks about torture as a possible response to terrorism.
Paul Ferris
(...)
