Cheney's Torture Chamber

After discussing the meaning of realism and idealism as ways to approach political analysis, the class applied those analyses to several "case studies." The first was why they came to class today. The second, why Robert, a class member, never does homework. And, third, why vice president Cheney had argued to Senators that the US should be allowed, under certain circumstances, to commit torture.

This group of juniors and seniors had the most difficult time analyzing Cheney's message as idealism. The power component of realism was more familiar. We began with the basis of the vice president's argument, which basically boils down to one of sacrificing one life (and values) to save many. A version of the "ticking bomb" example.

Surprisingly, at least to me . . . no, maybe shockingly, one student after another began to defend the basic idea that torture was acceptable under certain cases, for example, if the government knew that the 9/11 attacks were going to take place and had a suspect in custody. "But it's just one person, and you would save thousands" was the most common type of rationale. Never mind that it was contrary to US law. Never mind that "cruel and unusual" punishment is unconstitutional. Never mind that the US is a signatory to the Convention on Torture, which clearly forbids torture.

A few hands went up uncomfortably at saying that torture was ok, let alone moral (to save lives), but only a few. I finally ask how many students, if it came to the decision, would allow torture under certain circumstances. More than half of the class agreed.

As an abstract concept, with the realities kept in dark corners and hidden from view, it is difficult for this group to condemn torture. We move the line. Is it ok if we're not sure we have the right suspect? Is it ok if the attack isn't immanent? Is it ok to find out if an attack is planned? Is it ok for political dissenters? Was it ok then for the Vietnamese to torture Americans during the War? More students begin to waffle. (Flip-floppers!)

This is the same group of students who universally condemned the weakness of people following authority by "torturing" others in the famous Milgram experiment. It is much harder to condone human behavior like torture when it becomes less abstract and more "real"; when it is less of a political debate over truth, and more of a concrete image of one human being torturing another. That "reality" is what is so difficult at times to bring to the classroom. It's what makes the Holocaust more than just some old black and white films and abstract arguments over racial theory. And keeping it abstract is what led to good German citizens closing their window shades as the trains rumbled past, and what led my students to resort to advocating barbarism for a good cause.