THOUGHTS ON TORTURE
Greg Miller’s article, “Bound by Convention” (November/December), needs to challenge the legalistic argument that what we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t a conventional war and therefore the Geneva Convention ban on torture doesn’t apply. In our time, like it or not, terrorism is simply a tactic of war, the way people choose to fight when they know they would be completely overwhelmed if they fought a conventional war.
The moral and practical reasons for keeping the ban are just as relevant whether the war is waged using “conventional” or unconventional techniques. Torture was banned because it (a) is generally ineffective for getting good intelligence; (b) makes the hostile army’s soldiers much more likely to fight to the death than surrender, and puts our own troops at greater risk; (c) endangers our own troops when they are captured by the enemy; (d) undermines whatever basis we have for saying our side fights for justice and freedom; (e) increases civilian resistance and resentment to our presence; and (f) is simply immoral, as a humanitarian issue.
The fact that in wars like Afghanistan and Iraq it’s often very hard to tell the combatants from the civilians makes it more important—not less important—that we respect the ban on torture.
David Brodwin, MBA ’81
San Francisco, California
For 40-odd years I’ve cast occasional glances at the five volumes of Macaulay’s History of England (1849) that I bought for four francs during my happy sojourn at Stanford in Tours. Since I was dimly aware, even as an undergraduate, that Macaulay exemplified an outmoded view of history, I was never tempted to open any of those volumes.
A few weeks ago I decided it was time to give Macaulay a chance. Strange to say, I kept running across passages that could serve as not-so-stupid commentaries on our current American venture to export freedom, civilization and good government to benighted segments of the globe.
Here are a couple of snippets. “We live in a highly civilised society, in which intelligence is so rapidly diffused by means of the press and of the post office, that any gross act of oppression is, in a few hours, discussed by millions. If the sovereign were now to immure a subject in defiance of the writ of Habeas Corpus, or to put a conspirator to the torture, the whole nation would be instantly electrified by the news.” Such, says Macaulay, was not the case in the Middle Ages. “Nor were our ancestors by any means so much alive as we are to the importance of maintaining great general rules. We have been taught by long experience that we cannot without danger suffer any breach of the constitution to pass unnoticed.”
We may regard Macaulay’s faith in “highly civilised society” as the triumph of hope over experience. But surely we would be wrong to reject it as a hope, an ideal to keep working toward. And not so naive is Macaulay’s insistence that what works for one stage of society may be wrong for another—that, in effect, we hold our enlightened modern leaders to a different standard from what we would apply to Edward III or Penda.
Bill Lorton seems to think otherwise (“Ethics for Some?” Letters to the Editor, November/December). “It seems to me that we should all be held to the same standard,” says he—we who live in a highly civilized society, and fanatical theocrats whose characteristic mode of political expression is decapitation, mutilation and mass murder. Surely we can dredge up a loftier standard to hold ourselves to. And surely we should, not just on mushy ethical grounds, but—as Greg Miller ends by suggesting—out of political prudence, an awareness that breaches of great general rules are likely to lead to our own downfall.
Peter Schroeder, ’62
San Bernardino, California
Mr. Miller did not mention a key reason why mistreating prisoners is a bad idea. In a real field war (which the Iraq war is not), a good reputation for treatment of captured soldiers represents a constant temptation to the enemy, for whom a dull but safe tour in a prison camp must always be compared to the exhaustion, injury and death in prospect for those who continue the fight. A reputation for mistreating and torturing prisoners encourages enemy soldiers to fight to the death.
The minds of the enemy soldier and ultimately of his commander are the objects of warfare; hardening their determination to resist is bad strategy.
Daniel M. Dobkin, MS ’79, PhD ’85
Sunnyvale, California
I noted with particular interest Greg Miller’s characterization of interrogators’ commitment, with rare exceptions, to come up with innovative techniques rather than succumb to the temptation of torturing or otherwise dehumanizing the detainees. Still, he leaves us with the question: how far is too far when interrogating terrorist and insurgent suspects? He argues that there are no clear answers.
While there may not be clear answers, there is a clear framework for answering this important question. Last summer I was asked to serve as the ethics consultant for the independent panel to review Department of Defense detention operations, headed by former Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger. I thought I would share some insights on resolving the tension between effective interrogation and a commitment to preserving human dignity.
Most support for the practice of torture in interrogations of terrorists is based on “ticking time-bomb” scenarios. These scenarios limit the kinds of suspects whom it is permissible to torture by the following criteria: (1) the interrogator must know the suspect possesses the information; (2) the information must be necessary for preventing immediate harm to innocents; and (3) there must be no way to prevent the harm otherwise. Further, such scenarios require interrogators to apply a “minimum harm” rule and not inflict more than is necessary to get the information. Any pain inflicted to teach a lesson, or after the interrogator has determined torture will not bear fruit, is morally wrong.
These criteria exclude torturing a population of suspects, even if the interrogator knows one of them has information that will prevent harm to innocents, because it puts innocent victims of torture in an impossible position. Their only options are to endure the torture indefinitely or give the torturer something he will believe, regardless of whether it is false, as Miller pointed out. Placing someone in a position where they have the choice of pointlessly enduring physical pain or lying degrades not only the subject and the interrogator but also the community that permits it. This same logic precludes torturing a known terrorist on the suspicion he has useful information. There is no way he can prove he does not.
Given these severe restrictions, it is reasonable to ask if institutionalizing the practice of torture is legally and morally worthwhile. In periods of emergency, there will always be pressure to override legal and moral norms for morally good ends. However, prohibitions against torture are so fundamental to the notions of human dignity upon which liberal democracies are founded that we ultimately risk doing more harm than good by overriding them. It is one thing to recognize that on a case-by-case basis we must accept the lesser of two evils. It is something else to assert that there are occasions when overriding these values is a good thing.
Still, we must recognize that there are occasions where violating legal and moral norms is understandable. In such cases, someone who committed an act of torture must offer his actions up for review and judgment by a competent authority and be prepared to accept the moral, as well as legal, consequences. Failure to recognize this represents the worst kind of careerism as it places one person’s interests over the needs of the profession and the nation it serves.
Lt. Col. Tony Pfaff, MA ’97
Alexandria, Virginia
Any suggestion that unlawful means can ever be used should be put to rest immediately. Mr. Miller’s observations are entirely consistent with mine during my service in North Africa in World War II. Part of that time I was assigned to military police duty and had occasion to participate in interrogation of local Arabs. There is an irreducible number of prisoners who will not talk at all, particularly if they are motivated by religion. Others will talk, either to gain some degree of physical comfort, or possibly to gain freedom. The problem is, how much can one believe?
Use of force to produce answers is always counterproductive. The subject will say anything to avoid being put in physical pain. Hence, the means will never justify the end, and if unlawful means are employed, the results are counterproductive.
Jerome F. Downs, ’47, JD ’49
San Francisco, California
Honoring Ernest
How great it is that Milt Ritchie and the Black Community Services Center, after all these years, uncovered the accomplishments of Ernest Houston Johnson (“Regarding Ernest Johnson,” November/December). His active participation and graduation in the Pioneer Class lends an entirely different perspective of that class’s willingness to accept diversity.
I only wish Johnson’s accomplishment and Jane Stanford’s willingness to go to bat for him could be honored a little closer to home—a plaque in Memorial Court, perhaps?
Jerry Franks, ’50
Aptos, California
'Gross footprint'
It may possibly be “Good News for Graduate Students” (Farm Report, November/ December) about the projected Munger graduate residences, but it was news of a different sort for many campus residents and the Stanford community at large. Your article makes these three relatively huge buildings, and the permanent disturbance they will bring, simply seem welcome, praiseworthy and perfectly feasible. They are anything but that.
Many of us who care about the physical and human quality of the campus began voicing our concerns as soon as the administration more or less dropped this fait accompli in the University’s lap. As someone who for over 20 years has walked almost daily through the targeted area, and who proudly takes out-of-town guests that way to show them an amenable side of Stanford, I am acutely dismayed at the project and the way it appears to have been foisted upon us.
Looming over the quiet green of Salvatierra Walk, with its benches and unobtrusive buildings, this “gift from above,” as your diagram puts it, sets down immense structures that have nothing to do with the immediate environment—a dense and gross footprint stamped onto a low-keyed, sensitive area. “Mitigating” certain elements, as the administration now says it will consider, won’t make much difference.
Aggrandizement at Stanford does not ipso facto mean excellence. Surely this housing, with its “750-space subterranean parking structure,” needn’t be dictated to the community. It can be sited elsewhere on Stanford’s acres, where it will not irreversibly destroy one of the inner campus’s few remaining humane aspects.
John Felstiner
Professor of English
Stanford, California
Preventing nineveh
I see overpopulation as a big contributor to global warming (“All Is Not Dark,” Showcase, November/December). When couples choose to have two children, our population—already exploding—will stabilize at overpopulation. We need negative population growth, not zero population growth. Why is it so important for couples to have their “own” children, when there are lots of homeless or deprived children in the world? Have one child and adopt the others, or reach out to those in the community.
There are many simple ways we can each slow down or prevent global warming. Hang laundry outside to dry. Trim your trees and bushes in the winter to let in warmth and light from the sun. Pull your curtains at night to keep the heat in, and in the day when the hot summer sun shines in. Double-paned windows don’t eliminate the need for curtains. Replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs. Open windows and/or use a quiet fan instead of an air conditioner. We are not being good neighbors if we don’t do our best to conserve energy.
Jackie Leonard-Dimmick
Atherton, California
A mentor remembered
The November/December issue included an obituary for William Tocher (Class Notes). Bill was my biology and chemistry teacher at Pittsburg (Calif.) Senior High School and played an important role in developing my interest in scientific study. Having come from a sheltered parochial school [I found it] both refreshing and a bit unnerving to experience Bill’s openness and prodding to ask “why.” It was Bill who first suggested that I look at Stanford and pointed me in a direction that led to a career in scientific research. I don’t know how many other students Bill mentored but I don’t think I was the only one. Stanford alumni play important roles in many unassuming ways, some by working in out-of-the-way places like a small high school in the Bay Area delta.
Soon after the start of my year of biology, a large glass tank appeared in the corner of Bill’s classroom. As the days and weeks progressed, new items were added to the tank. First some gravel, followed by water, then some plants and slowly a collection of fish. One day in late November my lab partner remarked that something new was floating in the tank. We walked over to find suspended from a small float a sign reading “BEAT CAL.”
Alexander A. Grillo, ’71
Aptos, California
native names revisited
In his letter to the editor (“Native Names,” November/December), Robert Fairbanks helpfully states the importance of native names, and deepens our understanding of the complex issues involved in naming native groups. As I am not a tribal member, I always refer to tribal communities by the names they use themselves. Laura McDaniel took the same approach in her article about my work. (“Bale Bonding,” Being There, September/ October). Turtle Mountain community members do use the words Anishinabe and Ojibwe, yet they also routinely describe themselves as Turtle Mountain Chippewa. Chippewa also appears on the tribe’s website, within the tribal college’s mission statement, on the tribal chairman’s letterhead and on tribal license plates—although it is not, as Mr. Fairbanks points out, an Ojibwe word.
Mr. Fairbanks also makes several incorrect assumptions. Red Feather Development Group’s newsletter and website (www.redfeather.org) frequently identify the linguistic and cultural contributions community members bring to its building projects. Moreover, the design for the Turtle Mountain Environmental Research Center includes signage in both Anishinabe-Ojibwe and English.
My objective is not, as Fairbanks argues, to teach people how to live, but to build positive, cross-cultural relationships while constructing sustainable buildings with volunteer/community teams. As a person who practices community design, I see my job not as prescriptive, but as a listening process working to create consensus. I believe Red Feather’s successes stem from its ability to create a sense of community with, not for, people, and it does this by involving tribal members in all aspects of its projects.
Nathaniel Corum, ’89
Bozeman, Montana
Please internalize the fact that Stanford has graduated hundreds of Native American students who then typically go on to serve their communities in amazing ways. Why is it that when your magazine covers Stanford grads doing work in Native communities, they’re usually white? Do you feel any responsibility for the narrative that one-sided coverage usually perpetuates?
Angela Parker, ’99
Ann Arbor, Michigan
community cars
I enjoyed the article “Heavy Metal” (September/October) and feel it may be time to revisit one of the early programs to reduce the growth of the auto. In the 1970s, John Crain, a transportation consultant in Menlo Park, introduced the concept of local auto rental at major residential facilities to eliminate the need for many residents to keep an auto for their exclusive use.
Such a program was started at the Park Merced housing complex in San Francisco. A club was formed with autos available to residents for an hour, a day or as needed. The prototype was judged a success. Unfortunately, since John had no financial assistance and other work to do, he was not able to keep it going.
On a recent trip to the United Kingdom, I found the basic concept implemented in a number of locations. As auto-operating costs continue to increase, a healthy environment for such an arrangement should emerge. The usable fleet could even include a Hummer!
George E. Gray, ’51
San Diego, California
say what?
At the end of the article on toxic substances (“Cleaning Agent,” September/October), the author refers to the words of Chief Seattle. Chief Seattle existed, but his purported speech is a well-documented hoax.
Fred Hawkes, ’50
Monte Sereno, California
When to worry
When I was concerned about my daughter’s inability to roll over at 8 months, I loved to read reassuring, anecdotal stories like Joanne Jacobs’s (“Baby Steps,” End Note, September/October). But the truth is, some children who are slow to reach their milestones actually do turn out to have developmental disabilities. Since my own daughter was diagnosed with autism, I have learned what a difference early intervention services can make—the earlier the better. If your child can “barely talk” when she is almost 2 years old, this is not something to ignore. Trust your own intuition, and if you think something is wrong, have your child evaluated by an expert.
Heather Cousins, MD ’93
San Francisco, California
diseased language
As an experienced clinician and chief medical officer of an integrated delivery system, I can tell you that Cornelia Little Strawser is correct (“Aging Issues,” Letters to the Editor, September/October). All “payors” (best spoken with clenched teeth to honor the bitter irony of the term) have pulled back from patients, doctors and payments. Quantitatively they pay less and less, but qualitatively they cover less and less.
The current prattle about “quality” (next time somebody uses the word, stop them and demand a definition) and “safety” is merely the absence of an alchemy to improve something by pulling its financing away.
My point is that we are conceptually bankrupt on the whole subject, and our remarkably adaptive, precise language provides the key; we can only afford “disease care,” not “health care.” Physicians, hospitals, the whole system is designed around the treatment of disease. Health, by definition, doesn’t require treatment. We have made the cost of health care so massive, disease care is progressively compromised. Risk pooling won’t work when everybody jumps in for a swim. The paradox is, “The more we cover, the less we cover.”
I recommend a vocabulary shift to disease care for its wonderful, clarifying power. Sadly, in a society where “virtual reality,” “sport-utility,” and “politically correct” are taken at face value, I’m not optimistic for us.
Dan H. McDougal, MD ’66
Hagerstown, Maryland
outside view
My husband has a graduate engineering degree from Stanford and, therefore, we receive the magazine. I just finished reading “Our Report Card” (First Impressions, November/December) and thought you might be interested to know that, as an alumni spouse with no “psychic investment” or personal attachment to the school, I regularly read the bulk of the editorial content, too.
I think you do a great job in the area of intellectual substance and human interest, educating, entertaining and provoking thought, even for those of us who aren’t even really sure what “the Farm” is! Thanks.
Melissa Anderson
Grand Rapids, Michigan
ethics clarification
In the September/October issue, the article “Ethically Speaking” (Farm Report) contains two factual errors. Lawrence Quill does not lead the undergraduate interdisciplinary program in ethics in society; I am the director of that program, a position I have held since 1996. Second, there are no plans at this time for the ethics in society program to share staff and office space with the new ethics center. Of course, where feasible, we hope to collaborate on programs and lectures.
Ethics in society is an undergraduate honors program housed in the philosophy department. Since 1987, we have been a vibrant research and teaching program, guided by the conviction that a liberal education must broadly explore questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, citizenship and community. In addition, we sponsor the Wesson lectures in democratic theory (past lecturers include John Rawls and Amartya Sen); a weekly “ethics at noon” public seminar where faculty present their research on topics with moral dimensions; and an “ethics across the curriculum” initiative, seeding courses in different disciplines.
For the last four years, under the program’s auspices, Stanford faculty have taught university-level humanities classes to women addicts recently released from prisons. Interested readers can find out more at www.stanford.edu/dept/EIS/.
Stanford is currently engaged in an important effort to strengthen ethics teaching and research across the University. Your readers should be aware that there are multiple ways that this can happen and a diversity of initiatives under way.
Debra Satz
Director, Ethics in Society
Chair, Philosophy Department
Stanford, California
pungent pages
Your publication stinks—literally. Have you recently changed paper and/or ink vendors? Seriously, there is a strong, pungent, lacrimator-like odor associated with recent editions. I have tried to air my copy outside for days but the odor persists. Am I the only crank that has complained? I hope future issues have a more pleasant odor.
Alan Cunningham, MA ’67
Carmel Valley, California
Editor's Note
We received one other complaint and have asked our printer to try to identify what if anything might have occurred during production to account for a stronger-than-normal odor.
Address letters to:
Letters to the Editor
Stanford magazine
Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105
Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an e-mail. You may also submit your letter online. Letters may be editedfor length, clarity and civility.
