An Enemy of the People

Dr. Thomas Stockmann is a popular citizen of a small coastal town. The town has recently invested a large amount of public and private money towards the development of medicinal baths, a project led by Dr. Stockmann and his brother, Peter Stockmann the Mayor. The town is expecting a surge in tourism and prosperity from the new baths, said to be of great health value, and as such, the baths are a source of great local pride.

Just as the baths are proving successful, Dr. Stockmann discovers that waste products from the town's tannery are contaminating the waters, causing serious illness amongst the tourists. He expects this important discovery to bring him honor and approval and promptly sends a detailed report to the Mayor, which includes a proposed solution, but one that would come at a considerable cost to the town.

To his surprise, Stockmann finds the authorities unwilling to accept the seriousness of the issue and to publicly acknowledge and address the problem, claming it could mean financial ruin for the town. As the conflict develops, Dr. Stockman’s own brother tells him he should "acquiesce in subordinating himself to the community." Dr. Stockmann refuses to accept this, and holds a town meeting in order to persuade people that the baths must be closed.

The townspeople - eagerly anticipating the prosperity that the baths will bring - refuse to accept Stockmann's claims, and his friends and allies, who had explicitly given support for his campaign, turn against him en masse. He is taunted and denounced as a lunatic, and an “enemy of the people."

Is a Torture Commission Needed?

In an earlier post on torture I pointed out that "torture is personal." That is, there are the tortured and the torturers and they are human beings; victims and victimizers. Who would we have be the latter? Did we torture? Yes. Should we have? That's the question a commission would address.

The former Vice President, Dick Cheney is not apologetic. He seems to be saying, "Yes, we did it, and it worked."

Military psychologists involved with the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program advised the military on what “enhanced interrogation techniques” worked best and although they are mostly reviled by their professional peers, one SERE colleague calls them “patriots,” a la Jack Bauer. The ends justify the means, and legality, let alone morality, be damned.

Apologists for torture are fond of presenting to their critics a consequentialist dilemma, often made more persuasive by the “ticking time bomb scenario” so popular on Fox TV’s “24.” In other words, for those who claim that torture is morally wrong, absolutely, proponents paint a scenario in which the torture of a single person results in (has the consequence of) saving a hundred, a thousand, a million lives -- or perhaps, more compelling, the life of one single person -- your child. Wouldn't you condone torture under those circumstances? Yes? Who would you have perform the deed?

Putting aside law and morality and decency (and we did) for the moment, let’s consider another aspect of torture, its efficacy – is torture the most effective way to obtain intelligence? Considering the question in its broader context, the answer is a resounding, “NO.”

When we resorted to covert brutality and then were revealed in photographs taken by our own soldiers as the worst kind of thugs and hypocrites, we not only stained forever the moral fabric of our great nation, we hardened Islamic extremists against us and irreparably degraded the probability that more moderate Muslims might cooperate with us.

Ironically, intelligence experts tell us that what they call “less-kinetic interrogation and indoctrination techniques” (Malcolm W. Nance, November 9, 2007) work as well or better, and aren’t as likely to “backfire” (Ali Soufan, April 22, 2009).

In the final analysis, whether torture works or doesn’t work isn’t the real issue. The overarching issue is the dehumanizing brutality of torture and the depravity that is almost always associated with torture -- legal or not – and the question of who we, as Americans, are.