Torture and Civilization

The fact that we are having a national political debate over torture shows again how a grim century of war and totalitarianism has coarsened our civilization and eroded its ideals. At the turn of the last century, before the rise of the Nazis and the Communists and the other 20th Century tyrannies, it was commonly understood that torture, like witch hunts and pogroms, was something from the dark, Medieval past that the civilized parts of the world had finally moved beyond. Subsequent facts of course proved otherwise. Now, a hundred years later, and in the United States of America, we have come to the point of arguing about whether to sanction torture.
The people who argue for the use of torture against captured terrorists make valid points about the nature of the enemy. Islamic terrorists are vile and despicable murders in the service of an evil cause. They function in secret and without honor or decency, torturing and brutalizing prisoners, targeting innocent noncombatants and shying like cowards from direct combat with armed men. They have no established bases, uniforms, or formal deployments. They have to be found before they can be attacked.
People favoring torture also make valid points about the practical value of extracting information from prisoners. Learning the location of a planted bomb or the plans for an attack or the names and whereabouts of members of a terrorist cell can save innocent lives and enable us to find and destroy the terrorists.
However, for a couple of reasons, I believe that those favoring torture are wrong. First most of the points above apply just as well to cases where torture is properly banned, so they cannot be conclusive. As a hypothetical example, suppose that during a military campaign against the Nazis or the Soviets we capture an SS or a Red Army officer who possesses important information about a planned attack by his unit. The prisoner is a cruel and brutal killer in the service of an evil cause, a murderer of civilians and himself a torturer. He has information that would save many lives and increase our chance of success in the coming battle. Yet by law and practice the armies of the United States world refrain from subjecting him to torture, and even the people who want to torture terrorists likely would agree that that was the right thing to do. A second example is even more to the point. Consider a vicious criminal, a thug who knows when and where the rest of his gang are going to pull off a violent heist that will inevitably kill many innocent bystanders. The prisoner is a worthless, cowardly murderer and rapist who serves no nation and wears no uniform. He and the rest of his gang function in secret, hiding in the shadows and coming out to prey on the innocent. They have no honor and follow no civilized rules. Learning where the rest of the gang is hiding would allow the police to save lives and take dangerous criminals off the street. Yet by law and practice, American police would refrain from subjecting him to torture, and, again, most of the people who want to torture terrorists would agree that that was the right thing to do.
In each case the prisoner is as loathsome as the Islamic terrorists. He is also in service of ends that are evil. To agree that these prisoners should not be tortured is to concede that the moral status of the prisoner and the evil of his cause and even the importance of the information he holds and the good we could do with that information are not sufficient to justify torture.
This leads to the second and more important reason for opposing torture. We should oppose torture, not out of any tender feelings for the terrorists, whom we should gladly see dead, but out of concern for ourselves and our country. In our hearts we know that torture is wrong, and that refraining from torture is right. We also know that while in some cases doing right can be tragically inexpedient, we should do it anyway. We do right, not because it always produces the best short term or local outcome, but because it produces the best long term and global outcomes and because of the sort of people and nation that doing right makes us.
We should fight, pursue, catch and kill the scum and those who support them without mercy but also without becoming something we should not be.

Now, at the end of the hurricane season, is a natural time to reflect on what people should have learned from (or been reminded of by) the events in Louisiana. I am not referring here to the fairly obvious broad societal conclusions people should have drawn about the failure of the welfare state, the effects of fatherless households on the lives and prospects of women and children, and the consequences for the human spirit of a culture of dependency, excuse, irresponsibility, and self-righteously low expectations. Rather, I am thinking of a few things that will help us understand how to plan and behave.
First, never expect government (outside of the armed forces and sometimes fire and police departments) at any level to do anything well or competently, especially in situations requiring thought, initiative, or improvisation. This is a well established rule of long standing, and it was confirmed in both horrific and sickly funny ways after the hurricanes.
Second, you can expect that competent individuals, compassionate church congregations, and well-run private companies will do things well, even in situations requiring thought, initiative, or improvisation as Walmart and others showed in Louisiana. (This is another well established rule that, taken in conjunction with the one above, should lead intelligent observers to large, societal conclusions about the relative merits of bigger or smaller government.)
Third, the world we take for granted depends crucially on the availability of electric power, safe on-tap water, and a functional transportation network.
Fourth, the world is subject to natural or man-made events that can make some or all of those things locally unavailable for a time.
Fifth, fear of liability has made cowards and laggards of us all. There were many, many stories of individuals and groups of people being prevented from helping in Louisiana by someone’s fears of being sued. The plague of lawyers is taking a toll at the margin on the ability of our society to function, especially in times of stress.
Sixth, and finally -- with all that said -- we must all take responsibility for making contingency plans for ourselves. It is not necessary to join the survivalists to see the benefits of having a few days supply of drinkable water and food that doesn’t require cooking or refrigeration on hand, of keeping copies of the information you would need to reconstruct your financial life in a safe place off site, and of being prepared to protect your life and property if civil order breaks down for a time. Appropriate insurance wouldn’t hurt either. If the disaster that strikes is big enough to make national news for more than a day or two, you might be bailed out at least in part by the government; but if it is small and local, you could be footing the bill on your own.
Beyond that people’s precautions will vary with their contexts. We should all take a clear look at what the risks are in our particular locations and situations and plan for them . Earthquakes are a worry in San Francisco but not in West Texas. The reverse is true for tornados. Some people have a large network of helpful friends and family close at hand. Others are alone. Some have people depending on them. Others have only themselves to worry about. Some are old or sick or otherwise particularly at risk, while others are young and healthy. We each have to figure out what sort of plans make sense for us.
The important pragmatic lesson of the disaster in Louisiana is that we should all have plans, and that no one can safely default that responsibility to the government.