Michael Ignatieff's recent essay on whether liberal democracies should engage in the use of torture or its "gentler cousin," coercive interrogation, has caused a lot of controversy. Kinsella has jumped on it, I've had a couple of discussions with colleagues about it, and there's the usual misperceptions about what Ignatieff is actually saying. It's a long essay, and some people drop off after seeing him engage the idea of torture as a legitimate instrument in combating terrorism. They fail to reach the end where he comes down conclusively against both torture and coercive interrogation.
I found the article to be very engaging and insightful. It's not breaking any new ground, as anybody who has read The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror can attest. He's taken the argument from that text and expanded it somewhat, but he comes to the same conclusion as he did in 2004: torture is not something which liberal democracies should be pursuing. The temptations of nihilism, the physical barbarity, and the psychological effects on both the torturer and the tortured (he eloquently discusses this in the book) are but three of the reasons why an outright ban on the use of torture should be supported. See the chapter entitled "The Temptations of Nihilism," particularly pp. 136-144. The article is in the same vein of what is said in the text.
This article may be perceived as something of a response to Charles Krauthammer's recent article on torture, in which he heaps considerable opprobrium on the use of torture but does make the exception for the ticking time bomb case. This puts him directly at odds with Ignatieff, and though both make compelling arguments for the use/non-use in that extreme situation, I do concur with Ignatieff in that engaging in the "lesser evil" of destroying a small number of lives in order to save potentially thousands is simply to express "the state's ultimate view that human beings are expendable." This is a notion which I am certain we can all find repugnant and to be sufficient grounds for the repudiation of torture and coercive interrogations.
The incomplete sentence that begins Ignatieff's essay, "If Torture Works..." runs against the simple truth: torture doesn't work. It destroys a person's ability to be rehabilitated into society and indeed to ever trust humanity again. Ayman al-Zawahiri, best known as al-Qaeda's #2, was tortured in the aftermath of the assassination of Anwar Sadat by the Egyptian government. Upon his release, Zawahiri's hatred of his domestic regime and its ally, the United States, was vastly intensified and led to the amalgamation of his organization with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. The use of torture is thus antithetical to the objective of liberal democracies in the War on Terror; far from stopping terrorists, the use of torture helps to spawn new ones who are endowed with an ever greater hatred for the perpetrators of the hideous acts committed against them.
There is a broad discourse on the legitimacy of torture/coercive interrogation; while I firmly side with Ignatieff over Krauthammer, that very smart people are engaging in lengthy debates over the efficacy of torture is helpful because it sheds light on liberal democracies' abuses and usage of the evils which we would otherwise ascribe to the terrorists. That some people will quote Ignatieff out of context is inevitable; sadly, the level of political discourse in this country is in a sorry state of affairs. By publishing a lengthy article and entertaining both sides of the debate before arriving at a definitive conclusion, Ignatieff is contributing to the elevation of our debates beyond capturing soundbites to be played endlessly. Frankly, I would much rather listen to Ignatieff talk about the nuances of torture than listen to Paul Martin read off the back of a napkin his strategy to remove the federal government's ability to use the notwithstanding clause. That may be just me, I'm extremely hopeful that such is not the case. Mr. Townsend, writing in the Grit's comments section makes a fantastic point: anybody who attempts to use the article to paint Ignatieff as being pro-torture is simply demonstrating the lack of an ability to read. "Political savvy" be damned; I'll take a lengthy essay that arrives at the right conclusion over a 10-second soundbite that is wrong any day of the week.