Changes

If there was one surprising aspect to this situation it Since the release of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s dramatic [[confessions]], [[moral]] outrage at the extent of his crimes has less been mixed with doubts. Can his claims be trusted? What if he confessed to do with the confessions themselves more than with the fact that for he really did, either because of a vain [[desire]] to be remembered as the first time in a great many yearsbig terrorist mastermind, torture or because he was normalized — presented as something acceptable. The ethical consequences of it should worry us all. ready to confess anything in [[order]] to stop the water boarding and [[other]] “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

While the scope of Mr. Mohammed’s crimes is clear and horrifying, If there was one surprising aspect to this [[situation]] it is worth noting that has less to do with the United States seems incapable of treating him even as it would confessions themselves than with the hardest criminal — in the civilized Western world, even the most depraved child murderer gets judged and punished. But any legal trial and punishment of Mr. Mohammed is now impossible — no court fact that operates within for the frames of Western legal systems can deal with illegal detentionsfirst [[time]] in a great many years, confessions obtained by [[torture and the like]] was normalized — presented as something acceptable. (And this conforms, perversely, to Mr. Mohammed’s desire to be treated as an enemy rather than a criminalThe [[ethical]] consequences of it should worry us all.)

It While the scope of Mr. Mohammed’s crimes is clear and horrifying, it is worth noting that the [[United States]] seems incapable of treating him even as if not only it would the terrorists themselveshardest criminal — in the [[civilized]] Western [[world]], but also even the fight against them, most depraved [[child]] murderer gets judged and punished. But any [[legal]] trial and [[punishment]] of Mr. Mohammed is now has to proceed in a gray zone [[impossible]] — no court that operates within the frames of legality. We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who are to be treated Western legal systems can deal with legal procedures (using lawyers illegal detentions, confessions obtained by torture and the like). (And this conforms, and those who are outside legalityperversely, subject to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarcerationMr. Mohammed’s desire to be treated as an [[enemy]] rather than a criminal. )

Mr. Mohammed has become what It is as if not only the Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls “homo sacer”: a creature legally dead while biologically still alive. And he’s not terrorists themselves, but also the only one living fight against [[them]], now has to proceed in an in-between worlda [[gray]] zone of legality. The American authorities We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who deal are to be treated with detainees have become a sort of counterpart to homo sacer: acting as a legal powerprocedures (using lawyers and the like), they operate in an empty space that is sustained by the law and yet not regulated by the rule of lawthose who are [[outside]] legality, [[subject]] to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarceration.

Some don’t find this troublingMr. Mohammed has become what the Italian [[political]] [[philosopher]] Giorgio [[Agamben]] calls “homo sacer”: a creature legally [[dead]] while [[biologically]] still alive. And he’s not the only one [[living]] in an in-between world. The realistic counterargument goesAmerican authorities who deal with detainees have become a sort of [[counterpart]] to [[homo sacer]]: The war on terrorism is dirtyacting as a legal [[power]], one they operate in an empty [[space]] that is put in situations where sustained by the lives of thousands may depend on information we can get from our prisoners, law and one must take extreme steps. As Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School puts it: “I’m yet not in favor regulated by the rule of torture, but if you’re going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.” Well, if this is “honesty,” I think I’ll stick with hypocrisylaw.

YesSome don’t find this troubling. The realistic counterargument goes: The war on [[terrorism]] is dirty, most one is put in situations where the lives of us thousands may depend on information we can imagine a singular situation in which we might resort to torture — to save a loved one get from immediateour prisoners, unspeakable harm perhapsand one must take extreme steps. I can. In such a case, however, As Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law [[School]] puts it is crucial that I do : “I’m not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle. In the unavoidable brutal urgency in favor of the momenttorture, I should simply do but if you’re going to have it. But , it cannot become an acceptable standard; I must retain the proper sense of the horror of what I didshould damn well have court approval. And when torture becomes just another in the list of counterterrorism techniques” Well, all sense of horror if this is lost“honesty,” I [[think]] I’ll stick with [[hypocrisy]].

WhenYes, most of us can imagine a [[singular]] situation in which we might resort to torture — to save a loved one from immediate, unspeakable harm perhaps. I can. In such a [[case]], however, it is crucial that I do not elevate this desperate [[choice]] into a [[universal]] [[principle]]. In the fifth season unavoidable brutal urgency of the TV show “24[[moment]],” I should simply do it became clear that the mastermind behind the terrorist plot was none other than . But it cannot become an acceptable standard; I must retain the president himself, many proper [[sense]] of us were eagerly waiting to see whether Jack Bauer would apply to the “leader [[horror]] of the free world” his standard technique in dealing with terrorists who do not want to divulge a secret that may save thousandswhat I did. Will he And when torture becomes just [[another]] in the president? [[list]] of counterterrorism techniques, all sense of horror is lost.

Reality has now surpassed When, in the fifth season of the TV. What “24” still had show “24,” it became clear that the mastermind behind the terrorist plot was none other than the decency president himself, many of us were eagerly waiting to present as see whether Jack Bauer’s disturbing and desperate choice is now rendered business as usualBauer would apply to the “[[leader]] of the free world” his standard [[technique]] in dealing with terrorists who do not [[want]] to divulge a [[secret]] that may save thousands.Will he torture the president?

In a way, those who refuse [[Reality]] has now surpassed TV. What “24” still had the decency to advocate torture outright but still accept it [[present]] as a legitimate topic of debate are more dangerous than those who explicitly endorse it. Morality is never just a matter of individual conscience. It thrives only if it is sustained by what Hegel called “objective spirit,” the set of unwritten rules that form the background of every individual’s activity, telling us what is acceptable Jack Bauer’s disturbing and what desperate choice is unacceptablenow rendered business as usual.

For exampleIn a way, those who refuse to advocate torture outright but still accept it as a clear sign legitimate topic of progress in Western society debate are more dangerous than those who explicitly endorse it. [[Morality]] is that one does not need to argue against rape: never just a matter of [[individual]] [[conscience]]. It thrives only if it is “dogmatically” clear to everyone sustained by what [[Hegel]] called “[[objective]] spirit,” the set of unwritten rules that rape is wrong. If someone were to advocate [[form]] the legitimacy background of rapeevery individual’s [[activity]], he would appear so ridiculous as to disqualify himself from any further consideration. And the same should hold for torturetelling us what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

Are we aware what lies at the end of the road opened up by the normalization of torture? A significant detail For example, a clear [[sign]] of Mr. Mohammed’s confession gives a hint. It was reported [[progress]] in Western [[society]] is that the interrogators submitted one does not [[need]] to argue against rape: it is “dogmatically” clear to waterboarding and everyone that rape is wrong. If someone were able to endure it for less than 15 seconds on average before being ready advocate the legitimacy of rape, he would appear so ridiculous as to confess anything and everythingdisqualify himself from any further consideration. Mr. Mohammed, however, gained their grudging admiration by enduring it And the same should hold for two and a half minutestorture.

Are we aware that what lies at the last time such things were part end of public discourse was back in the late Middle Ages, when road opened up by the normalization of torture ? A significant detail of Mr. Mohammed’s [[confession]] gives a hint. It was still a public spectacle, an honorable way reported that the interrogators submitted to test a captured enemy who might gain the admiration of the crowd if he bore the pain with dignity? Do we really want waterboarding and were able to return endure it for less than 15 seconds on average before [[being]] ready to this kind of primitive warrior ethics? confess anything and everything. Mr. Mohammed, however, gained their grudging admiration by enduring it for two and a half minutes.

Are we aware that the last time such things were part of [[public]] [[discourse]] was back in the late Middle Ages, when torture was still a public [[spectacle]], an honorable way to [[test]] a [[captured]] enemy who might gain the admiration of the crowd if he bore the [[pain]] with dignity? Do we really want to [[return]] to this kind of [[primitive]] warrior [[ethics]]?  This is why, in the end, the greatest victims of torture-as-usual are the rest of us, the informed public. A precious part of our collective [[identity ]] has been irretrievably lost. We are in the middle of a [[process ]] of moral corruption: those in power are literally trying to break a part of our ethical backbone, to dampen and undo what is arguably our civilization’s greatest [[achievement]], the growth of our spontaneous moral sensitivity.