The mainstream media speaking truth to power

With the administration now in counterattack against those Iraq war critics that formerly supported the war (many of whom deserve criticism, but for their earlier support rather than their newfound ability to dissent), it is refreshing (and somewhat surprising) to see Knight-Ridder not only lay out the administration's various recent assertions against its critics (made by both Bush and Cheney over the past week), but also to put them into context and assess their truth value (revealing the elements of truth where they exist, the distortions of truth where they can be well established, and even noting "this isn't true" in one case where the assertion was plainly and demonstrably false). To paraphrase the Vice President, perhaps the mainstream media may yet recover both its memory and its backbone.

Why do we torture (and how can we stop)?

Speaking of torture (and the causuistry by which it is now being officially countenanced), the Human Rights Watch report on those U.S. military interrogation practices that meet the legal definition of torture (though perhaps not the Bush administration's redefinition of it) found:

These soldiers’ firsthand accounts provide further evidence contradicting claims that abuse of detainees by U.S. forces was isolated or spontaneous. The accounts here suggest that the mistreatment of prisoners by the U.S. military is even more widespread than has been acknowledged to date, including among troops belonging to some of the best trained, most decorated, and highly respected units in the U.S. Army. They describe in vivid terms abusive interrogation techniques ordered by Military Intelligence personnel and known to superior officers.

Most important, they demonstrate that U.S. troops on the battlefield were given no clear guidance on how to treat detainees. When the administration sent these soldiers to war in Afghanistan, it threw out the rules they were trained to uphold (embodied in the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation). Instead, President Bush said only that detainees be treated "humanely," not as a requirement of the law but as policy. And no steps were taken to define what humane was supposed to mean in practice. Once in Iraq, their commanders demanded that they extract intelligence from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden. Yet when abuses inevitably followed, the administration blamed only low-ranking soldiers instead of taking responsibility.

A standard assumption within jus in bello (the part of just war theory that addresses conduct during wartime, not the justice of wars themselves) is that military command and control (including the nation's political leadership) is to be held responsible for the conduct of soldiers operating under their command, as the latter merely follow orders and therefore must depend upon the good judgment of their superiors in avoiding morally repugnant conduct (whether ordered or allowed). According to the HRW study, though, it appears not only that the military and civilian leadership was guilty at least of inadequate oversight (and very likely of granting an explicit approval of torture, as the administration's "torture memos" and the Vice President's hardline stance against rules prohibiting torture suggest), as the only evident display of any moral conscience (recognizing the wrongness of the acts in question) manifested among some of the soldiers themselves. As one officer in the 82nd Airborne (proudly known as the "Murderous Maniacs" for their treatment of Iraqi prisoners) is quoted in the report as saying:

If I as an officer think we’re not even following the Geneva Conventions, there’s something wrong. If officers witness all these things happening, and don’t take action, there’s something wrong. If another West Pointer tells me he thinks, "Well, hitting somebody might be okay," there’s something wrong.

There is indeed something wrong here. Contrary to the assumption within jus in bello, soldiers (and especially officers) ought to know the difference between right and wrong (and often do, even if they are not provided with explicit instructions not to act wrongly, or even if they are explicitly ordered to act wrongly), and evidence suggests that many are capable of making this distinction in fact (despite contrary norms within the military itself). Though this in no way exonerates those high ranking military and civilian officials that have obviously failed to prevent (and may well have encouraged) the illegal and reprehensible conduct that the various torture investigations have revealed, it does suggest a problem with the assumption that the moral conscience of the military is monopolized by those in positions of command (and therefore that moral responsibility for actions by the military resides exclusively with those issuing orders). What appears practically necessary, then, is a vastly improved system of accountability by which soldiers may report (without fear of reprisal) such conduct to relevant authorities (the International Red Cross, HRW or Amnesty International, etc.) when systems of domestic political accountability (e.g. those found in international law, Congressional oversight, basic procedural rights of prisoners) collapse (as is arguably the case now). Especially given the apparent refusal by the current government (legislative, executive, and judicial, though with varying degrees of complicity and dissent) to recognize (let alone enforce) international law governing conduct during wartime, some alternate mechanism of accountability appears to be warranted.

A political system built around maintaining multiple points of access - ensuring that legitimate grievances are able to be heard by some authority even if others are for various reasons inaccessible to them - ought to regard international NGOs as a valuable source of accountability and therefore as a critical check upon abuses of state power during those times (well known to exist) in which the rule of law fails to hold sway over domestic political institutions. The need for effective checks and balances has been a cornerstone of American political thought since Federalist 51, and recent events suggest that Madison's celebrated separation of powers (itself significantly weakened in recent years) may provide inadequate safeguards against some kinds of abuse. Though I don't expect that this will be the case, I would hope that this report (and others like it) will be recognized for the invaluable service which they may now be uniquely (in contrast to the "official" reports on such controversies) able to provide.

The ethics of leaking classified information

In the wake of the Valerie Plame investigation, it might be tempting for the inobservant to conclude from the deserved (if uncertain) punishment of those responsible that leaking classified information was the offense in question. To those paying attention, however, the obstruction of justice charges brought against Scooter Libby stand out as the more serious crime, and the leaking of Plame’s identity as a covert CIA agent the slightly lesser one (though both crimes deserve punishment, for Libby and all others responsible). Of the latter offense, the leak’s purpose was clearly retaliation for Joseph Wilson’s publicly contradicting the Administration’s fabricated (as we now know) case for war, and this reckless act of revenge demonstrated a disregard not only for Ms. Pflame’s personal safety but also for national security. Unless the existence of covert CIA agents is itself objectionable (and it seems safe to conclude that this is not Libby's objection, given his apparent fondness for secrecy), then no broader purpose could have been served by making her identity public, and the leak cannot be justified on the basis of some exposed abuses or averted evils. This is not to say that the leaking of classified information is never justified - only that personal revenge and public smear campaigns against political opponents hardly counts as the defensible end by which such leaks may in some cases be justified.

All this raises an interesting issue: is leaking classified information ever justified? Of course, government whistleblowers who expose violations of law and other abuses of power may do so by leaking classified information (in this case, by exposing crimes by the state), in which case leaks might not only be justified, but also be both courageous and morally praiseworthy, as they serve as a crucial check against illegality and other repugnant actions by public officials. Hence, we must understand the offense at the heart of the Plame case as not about leaks per se, but about the nature of the leak (its intent, its effects, the borader public purpose which it serves, and so on). Libby was no whistleblower – far from serving as a check against abuse of state power, he (along with others) was part of a system of state corruption, abusing the very power that whistleblowing ought to protect against.

I raise this distinction in light of the release today of a draft letter by the GOP leadership in Congress condemning the leaking of information concerning secret U.S. interrogation centers abroad (which, if true, would constitute a gross violation of both domestic and international law), the existence of which the White House has not denied. Especially in light of Vice President Cheney’s insistence upon a legal waiver for the CIA to torture “terrorist” suspects abroad (also in blatant violation of both domestic and international law, save the casuistry of those seeking to redefine torture in a manner compatible with allow waterboarding and other repugnant practices), the charges in question are not at all implausible, and at least warrant further investigation (by a credible international authority – not another Congressional or military whitewashing of human rights abuses). The letter declares:

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.”

The letter, which condemns the leak but not the illegal secret prisons (aptly described by critics as "gulags") whose existence the leak revealed, misses the point entirely. Whoever leaked the secret prison story deserved commendation as a whistleblower, not punishment. Secret detention centers, torture, and the other repugnant acts that are part and parcel of the so-called “war on terror” do nothing to “protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks,” and are directly responsible for the increasing anti-Americanism that such anti-humanitarian policies generate (and are responsible for no useful intelligence, as information gleaned from torture is predictably unreliable). We are not any safer because our government secretly detains “terrorist” suspects or because our CIA uses interrogation methods that are clearly and rightly proscribed under international law, and there is good reason to think that we are considerably less safe as a result. Senator Frist and Representative Hastert should know this – they are observant enough to understand why Libby was investigated, and what his offense was – so the only motive that I can imagine for this letter is to tacitly endorse not only the secret prisons (which should be unequivovally condemned and the rule of law affirmed), but also the systematic violation of human rights that they represent, and the government secrecy in which they are cloaked.