A dialog about the use of torture
Lib: So, Conicus, you support the use of torture, right?
Con: Indeed I do, Lib.
Lib: I assume that you do not support the arbitrary use of torture.
Con: You assume correctly.
Lib: So you require that torture be used only under a set of rules, correct?
Con: Indeed so.
Lib: What might those rules be? For example, do you have any rules about WHO can be tortured?
Con: Yes, of course.
Lib: Would you permit women to be tortured?
Con: Um... no, I don't think so.
Lib: So if al-Qaeda were to recruit women for its tasks, our nation would have no defense against them?
Con: You're right. I suppose we would have to permit the torture of women.
Lib: Would rape be an acceptable form of torture for women?
Con: No, of course not!
Lib: Why not?
Con: Because it's uncivilized!
Lib: I see. So you would permit only civilized forms of torture, correct?
Con: Yes, only civilized forms of torture.
Lib: And can you tell me what forms of torture are civilized?
Con: I'm not sure what you mean.
Lib: Is waterboarding civilized?
Con: I suppose so.
Lib: What is it about rape that makes it uncivilized while waterboarding is civilized?
Con: Well, rape is nasty...
Lib: So waterboarding isn't nasty?
Con: Rape is very ugly.
Lib: Waterboarding isn't ugly?
Con: OK, here's the answer: the rapist enjoys it, but the waterboarder doesn't.
Lib: So your rule is that torture is civilized when the torturer doesn't enjoy doing it?
Con: Yes, that's the rule.
Lib: So rape would be civilized if it were carried out by a gay man?
Con: Well, no, but that's because we can't be certain that the gay man won't enjoy raping a woman.
Lib: Can we be certain that a waterboarder isn't a sadist?
Con: We can have psychological tests to insure that sadists are not permitted to become torturers.
Lib: So couldn't we have psychological tests to insure that gay rapist-torturers don't enjoy raping women?
Con: I suppose so...
Lib: Ergo, rape is a civilized form of torture so long as we use rapists who are guaranteed not to enjoy the experience?
Con: That doesn't seem right...
Lib: If you find people who truly don't enjoy torturing other people, won't they refuse to do it?
Con: I suppose so...
Lib: Isn't this a Catch-22: the only people whom you can trust to torture in a civilized fashion are the people who refuse to do it?
Con: Yes, I suppose so. I think I need a different rule for keeping the torture civilized.
Lib: Can you think of any other possible rules?
Con: What if we make the distinction based on long-term harm to the victim?
Lib: So, if it doesn't permanently injure the victim, it's not torture?
Con: Yes, that was essentially the argument of Mr. Yoo.
Lib: So rape is back on the table because rape doesn't permanently harm the victim.
Con: No, not at all. Studies have shown that rape inflicts permanent psychological harm on its victims.
Lib: What have studies shown about the use of waterboarding?
Con: We don't have any scientific studies on waterboarding.
Lib: So we don't know if waterboarding inflicts permanent psychological harm.
Con: True.
Lib: So how can you say that waterboarding is civilized torture? You don't know!
Con: Well, OK, but surely there are techniques known not to cause long-term harm.
Lib: Can you name any?
Con: No, I can't.
Lib: So this rule doesn't solve your problem, does it?
Con: No, I suppose not.
May 20th