Mark Bowden has a rare sober and cogent analysis of the use of waterboarding as a means of coercing information from terror suspects. Bowden is responding to critics of his position that waterboarding is acceptable in rare circumstances. His conclusion is telling.
There is no question that something important is lost when we as a nation accede to tactics considered reprehensible. One correspondent asked: "What is the harm done to the citizens of the country whose agents have a policy that allows torture?" This correspondent argued that we ought to accept impending tragedy in the name of honoring a high-minded policy.
In my column, I raised the example of the German police chief who threatened a captured kidnapper with torture because he refused to reveal where he had buried alive his 12-year-old victim. The kidnapper promptly gave the location. The German police chief lost his job for making the threat.
It may well have been more noble on some level for him not to have made the threat, but I prefer a less rigid concept of morality. I would not have fired the police chief, or prosecuted him. I agree completely with his actions, even though torture is repulsive. The boy's life matters more than my rectitude or peace of mind.
This is what in Machiavelli is known as the problem of "dirty hands." The art of politics, especially when it comes to war (in Machiavelli's time politics and war were more inseparable than today), one must get one's hands dirty to do what is necessary. Those who are unwilling to accept this reality are better off in a monastery than in politics. While Machiavelli may go to far there is a truth in what he says. Bowden's argument is that waterboarding should be considered wrong yet tolerated in extreme circumstances. His is the opinion of one who does not confuse morality with feeling good about one's self. That is the difference between morality and moralism. My own views on waterboarding are here, although Bowden is causing me to reassess them.
Recent Comments