war, law, terror, international relations

Terrorism and Human Rights (40): Targeted Killings, Pros and Cons

Drone view of Afghan funeral

(source)

The use of so-called drone airplanes to target and kill suspected terrorists is in the news again. Some in the U.S. have voiced what in my view are justified yet somewhat myopic concerns about the supposed authority of the U.S. President to target American citizens on foreign or domestic soil. This is one of many cases in which the value of due process clashes with the need to respond to imminent threats. As usual, the executive has a tendency to focus on the latter.

The concerns that have been voiced recently are myopic in the sense that most drone attacks take place abroad and most victims are foreigners. Let’s therefore limit our discussion to the justifiability of targeting foreigners abroad. (These drone attacks, by the way, are just one form of targeted killing – the British SAS and the Israeli Mossad use or have used human operators to stalk and shoot terrorists at home or abroad).

So, we’re talking about governments carrying out the killings, and the targets are suspected foreign terrorists, insurgents or combatants hiding on foreign soil. Governments try to justify such killings by arguing that they and the targets are engaged in armed conflict: a war if not necessarily a declared one. If indeed we are dealing with a war then the targets do not even have to pose an imminent threat when they are killed. A history of violence and a risk of future violence are sufficient reasons to target and kill them. In a war, it’s deemed acceptable to kill unthreatening and even unarmed enemy forces, as long as these forces are hostile and potentially dangerous elements in an ongoing conflict. Targeted killing is therefore seen as equivalent to the normal and traditionally unlimited wartime right to kill enemy soldiers.

That is also why the possibility of apprehension is not considered a sufficient reason to abstain from targeted killing, although in practice most killings are of people who are difficult to apprehend.

So that’s the governmental story about targeted killing. How should we assess this story? There are some good sides to it, and some bad:

Pros

If indeed we’re dealing with a war, then concerns about extra-judicial killings, about the absence of imminent threats and the failure to apprehend when possible do not seem justified. That’s a bog “if” of course. One has the feeling that the “war on terror” has been called a war not because it is one but because it yields the right to kill. And one can even question the traditional right to unlimited killing of soldiers during wartime, as Jeff McMahan has done.
Drone attacks evidently minimize the risks of casualties on the attacker’s side, even possibly down to zero. Drones may also provide cover for soldiers in the field during regular operations.
Although these things are difficult to measure given the secrecy of the whole affair, it does seem obvious that drone attacks, when compared to standard military attacks, should in principle involve fewer civilian casualties. (An attempt to measure this is presented here. A less rosy view on the matter is here and here).
Drone attacks may produce leadership vacuums and lead to disorganization in the terrorist organization. Organizational decapitation may hurt terrorist groups more than regular attacks.

Cons

Drone attacks – especially if they become widespread – mean that the attacking side no longer has skin in the game. As a result, these attacks may remove an important restraint on war. Wars or military adventures may become more common as they become less costly in human terms on the attacker’s side.
Positing the equivalence with normal wartime killing implies that the drone operators, who are commonly situated far from the battlefield and close to residential areas in the home country, are legitimate targets for retaliation. Ironically, drone attacks may therefore encourage terrorist attacks.
As already stated, a lot hinges on the use of words. Killing people who aren’t an immediate military threat may be tantamount to extra-judicial execution. And merely labeling those people “combatants” and the operation a “war” isn’t enough to acquire the right to normal wartime killing. It may often be more precise to label terrorist attacks as normal crimes rather than acts of “war”, in which case normal judicial proceedings are more appropriate, which means apprehension and trial, and killing only when apprehension is impossible and a threat is imminent.
The choice to kill when apprehension is possible means forgoing the possibility to put the target on trial and demonstrate to the world how a civilized country deals with threats. It gives the opposite message that violence is the appropriate form of defense and retaliation.
Intelligence that could be gathered by capturing and questioning the targets is lost when they are killed.
The lack of transparency opens the door to abuse, as does the view that an imminent threat is not required.
Drone attacks often violate the sovereignty of other countries, setting a dangerous precedent.
Targeted killing may be fatal to the democratic peace theory (see here for more details).

Some of these points carry more weight than others, and some perhaps none at all. Other points could be added. It’s up to the reader to make up his or her own mind, but my view is the following: compared to the general unpleasantness of war, targeted killing isn’t particularly shocking and can even be seen as a step forward. That is, as long as it is really limited to an actual, uncontested war involving real combatants who pose an imminent threat, and a threat that can’t be averted by apprehension and trial.

What is perhaps more shocking than the attacks themselves is the fact that the whole “war” rhetoric has become so vague that anything can be called a war. Is there a crime with which we’re not “at war”? When ordinary criminals – and I consider most terrorists to be ordinary criminals, ordinary except for their particular motivation – can be targeted like enemy soldiers, what is left of criminal justice? Extra-judicial execution then becomes the only form of crime prevention.

The War on Terror is 11 Years Old Today, With No End in Sight

(source unknown)

The War on Terror, started by the U.S. government as a response to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and later joined by other governments, is 11 years old today, with no end in sight. It has had and continues to have grave consequences for the human rights of people worldwide. Osama is dead, and the war in Iraq is over, and yet people are still stuck in Guantanamo, drone strikes are more numerous than ever before and the internal security forces of Western states are increasingly powerful. It’s a high price for an uncertain gain.

However, before I discuss the consequences for human rights, I would like to make it clear that I believe, as any rational human being, that terrorism is evil, that it has to be stopped and that democracies have a right to defend themselves against violent, anti-democratic fanatics (see this post for example).

I also believe that democratic governments should be especially vigilant because the freedoms that they are elected to protect, offer opportunities for those who hate freedom, opportunities that do not exist in other political systems. Potential terrorists find it relatively easy to enter a democracy and operate in it. A democracy is a very vulnerable form of government because of the freedom it gives to everyone, even those who don’t mean well.

The freedoms of a democracy can be and are abused, but this, it seems, has frightened democratic governments to such an extent that they have decided to limit these freedoms up to the point that they are in danger of abandoning them altogether, and hence doing the work of the terrorists for them. It can be acceptable to limit certain rights for the protection of other rights (see also this post), but the right to security seems to have taken on an absolute priority, at the expense of many other rights. There is no reasonable balance anymore.

1. Civil liberties

Governments try to defend their countries against terrorist attacks by limiting civil liberties in their territories.

The right to privacy has been limited: CCTV has become ubiquitous, DNA databases have been created, eavesdropping and wiretapping have been legalized etc.
“No-fly-lists” have come into force, limiting the freedom of movement of even those who have written critically of the government or attended peace-protests.
Hate speech laws have been voted to silence jihadist hate preachers, silencing others at the same time.
“Racial profiling” by the police has turned innocent people into possible suspects, often inverting the burden of proof.
Habeas corpus has been limited, periods of detention without charge extended, sometimes indefinitely (for “enemy combatants”).

However, in spite of all this, the constraints on a government’s actions within its territory are sometimes still considered to be inhibiting:

“Extraordinary rendition” has been covertly practiced, allowing suspects to be tortured outside of the territory by professional torturers in other countries.
Extra-territorial prisons have been created, in Guantanamo, but probably elsewhere as well, where suspects can be tortured or held indefinitely and where the Geneva Conventions supposedly don’t apply.

2. Mentalities

The war on terror has also changed people’s minds and attitudes.

The media have started to censor themselves. Solidarity with the government at war and the commander-in-chief, or the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, appeasers, “useful idiots” or even open allies of the enemy have turned many in the media into uncritical supporters of the war.
Citizens have turned on Islam and Muslims. Xenophobia and more specifically islamophobia have undermined the ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism, and have in certain cases even led to hate crimes against Muslims.
A ”culture of fear” has been created by the terrorist but also nurtured by irresponsible western politicians. This fear has damaged democracy. Not only have the media relinquished their traditional role as watchdogs. Politicians as well, and especially incumbents, have abused the fear of terrorism to harness support. Alert levels seem to go up just before elections.

3. Preemptive war

The US government has elaborated and implemented the strategy of preemptive war, a war

waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war. (source)

The Iraq war was deemed a preemptive war because Iraq was allegedly about to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction, or supply these weapons to terrorists. Whatever the merits of the case against Iraq – and with the passing of time these seem to become weaker and weaker – the war has been framed, correctly or not, as a necessary stage in the ongoing war on terror. It has, however, resulted in massive numbers of casualties on both sides. The human rights violations caused by the war stand in no relation to the violations caused by terrorism or the violations that could have been caused by Saddam.

In any case, you can’t solve the problem of terrorism by violent means only. Terrorism has causes, and there will be terrorism as long as these causes exist. (Mind you, I don’t want to excuse or justify terrorism).

4. Counter-productive

It is now widely believed, even in US government circles, that the war on terror is counter-productive. Especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture in Abu Ghraib and the detentions in Guantanamo have produced a backlash and have increased rather than reduced the terror threat. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate issued the following among its “key judgments”:

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. (source)

The war on terror has created and exacerbated resentment, hatred of the West and anti-americanism. And with anti-americanism often comes hatred of democracy and freedom, as wellas Islamic radicalization. Apart from the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, there is no evidence that any of the strategies in the war on terror has done any good (source). Any even this tiny success seems to be far from certain.

5. Misnomer

There is something fishy about the concept of a “war on terrorism”. This “war” is in fact no such thing. There is no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy. For this reason, there is no conceivable end to the war. And if you claim to wage a war on terrorism, you might as well claim to wage a war on carpet bombing. Both are tactics or strategies, not something you wage war against.

If you insist on calling anti-terrorist actions a war, then you give too much credit to the riffraff you’re opposing. Rather than deranged criminals they can call themselves soldiers. And soldiers defend something. You legitimize them. You turn a crime into a two-sided struggle in which each side defends its positions. This in turn leads to the view that the war on terror is a war of the West against the rest, bringing back images of colonialism, imperialism and the crusades, again legitimizing the terrorists, helping to consolidate their often internally opposed forces, and making them honorable in the eyes of some ordinary citizens.

I can understand that the concept of a “war on terrorism” is useful for some Western governments, because an executive that is at war has more powers, less oversight, more popular support and less criticism, but it’s a meaningless and dangerous concept. Let’s give it up, or let us at least declare victory in the one we’re now fighting for 11 years.

(This post is hoisted from the archives and slightly revised. The original was published on August 6th, 2008 and is unfortunately still relevant today).

law, most absurd human rights violations, torture

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (94): Virginity Tests in Egypt

(source)

Egypt’s army has devised an original method to defend itself against possible allegations of rape by women “in its care”:

By now, almost everyone has heard the about the 18 women protestors in Egypt’s Tahrir Square who this past spring were detained, beaten, given electric shocks, strip searched and forced to submit to “virginity tests“. (source)

May I suggest that trying to protect yourself against potential charges of rape by violating women’s bodies isn’t really very smart? Of course, the real reason for these tests is torture and intimidation. Women will probably think twice before participating in protests if they know what may happen if they are detained. The tests themselves are horrific, but they can also entail future harm: if the tests are negative, women risk prostitution charges, jail sentences and social stigma.

The tests involve an inspection of a female’s hymen, on the mistaken assumption that her hymen can only be torn as a result of sexual intercourse. This is one account of the way in which the tests were conducted:

[T]he female detainees were separated into two groups, the married and unmarried. The seven unmarried women were given a medical checkup during which the “virginity test” was done. …

“They took us out one by one … they took me to a bed in a passageway in front of the cell. There were lots of soldiers around and they could see me.

I asked if the soldiers could move away and the officer escorting me teased me.

A woman prison guard in plainclothes stood at my head and then a man in military uniform examined me with his hand for several minutes. It was painful. He took his time”. (source)

Fortunately, an Egyptian court has now ruled that virginity tests on female detainees are illegal, referencing the human rights guaranteed in the Egyptian Constitutional Declaration of 2011 as well as Egypt’s obligation under international law. Which of course doesn’t mean the tests will end. Virginity tests in general have not been outlawed, only those taking place in military detention premises. And it remains to be seen if the military will respect the ruling.

More on gender based violence. More absurd human rights violations.

democracy, international relations, intervention, law, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (39): Targeted Killing and Democratic Peace

Democratic peace theory states that democracies are less likely to engage in war with each other, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is the fact that in a democracy, the people vote, and the people are also those who shoulder the cost of war. In a regime in which the people can influence the decision to go to war, such a decision will only be taken very reluctantly. Conversely, a regime that doesn’t need to listen to its people can easily impose the cost of war. (More here, here and here).

What’s the link with targeted killings of terrorists? Let’s limit the discussion to drone attacks in the context of a war. Killing terrorists in any other context amounts to extrajudicial execution, since those terrorists are criminals rather than combatants and therefore have a right to a trial (unless killing them is the only way to stop an imminent attack). In the context of a war, targeted killings carried out by unmanned drone aircraft are supposed to have certain advantages compared to “normal” military engagement with the enemy. Two of those advantages are that

drone attacks are said to be more precise and hence less likely to result in civilian casualties, and that
you can avoid putting your own soldiers in harms way.

The supposed precision of drone attacks is contested, since it’s often difficult to judge from thousands of miles away whether the target is real, whether the informants on the ground are reliable and whether there’s no risk to innocent bystanders. There have been reports of civilian casualties resulting from drone attacks, although the true extent of this problem is difficult to measure since there’s no public information on those attacks.

Officers control and watch images taken by Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones)

In some cases, troops on the ground may be better able to judge these things. It’s also not commonly accepted that it’s ethical to focus on troop safety over and above the risk of civilian casualties. This focus is, of course, understandable in the case of a democracy engaging in a war. Public opinion is powerful in a democracy and doesn’t like it when troops are put in harms way – that’s one of the origins of the democratic peace theory. (It’s sometimes called the body bag syndrome). Hence, a democracy may be particularly tempted to use drone attacks and targeted killings, since a more traditional war is difficult to sell to a powerful public opinion.

If indeed a democracy is tempted to use targeted killings, then the price to pay may be the loss of democratic peace. Targeted killings remove one of the most powerful causes of democratic peace: the high cost of war. By making war less costly on the party initiating the war, targeted killings make war more likely.

[T]o me the reason to prefer human to robotic war is a cold and brutal one: because it brings war home to the citizenry in the form of the dead and wounded, and the citizenry may then be less likely to support future wars except out of clear necessity. (source)

Terrorism and Human Rights (38): Guantanamo by the Numbers

A fine infographic from the ACLU:

gitmo by numbers, ACLU infographic

(source)

The oldest prisoner is 98 years old? Come on people. Nobody can claim with a straight face that this person is a serious threat. I’m sure he can be handled by those manly security guards in a normal US prison where he would find himself serving a sentence imposed on him after a regular trial.

Terrorism and Human Rights (37): Torture is Social and Political Suicide

torture scene with rats from the movie "1984"

(source)

When democratic governments consider the option of torturing someone, the stakes are usually high. They won’t consider it just for some marginal benefit. The paradigmatic case is the ticking time bomb that’s about to kill thousands or even millions. Torture is supposed to be justified because the benefits are huge, or – stated negatively – because the possible harm resulting from a failure to torture is huge. Combining the size of what is at stake with the urgency of the threat makes the case for torture even stronger.

However, this justification of torture has some unsettling side effects. Given the urgency, and given the fact that terrorists are probably trained to withstand torture, a free society would have to

maintain a professional class of torturers, and to equip them with continuously-updated torture techniques and equipment. Grave dangers to democracy and to individual freedoms would be posed by an institutionalized professional “torture squad”. (source)

Such a highly trained and continuously available torture squad would be necessary to inflict torture that is likely to succeed in extracting the information on a reliable basis and within an extremely short time frame. It would also be necessary to inflict levels of pain sufficient to procure the victim’s compliance but insufficient to kill or render incapable of communication. Amateur thugs will not suffice. You really need professionals.

This is the institutionalization of torture. It’s difficult to see how a free society could survive the presence of such a torture squad. It would infect our entire society to know that there are people among us who torture for a living. The squad members themselves will most likely fail to remain well-intentioned, and the mere existence of such a squad corrupts morality in a society. It’s naive to think that the members of the torture squad will return to normality once their job is done and function like normal law-abiding and non-violent citizens in between emergency sessions. Torture leads to the destruction of a democracy and a free society that decides to go this way.

More on social and political suicide here. More on the ticking bomb here.

(image source)

terror, torture

Terrorism and Human Rights (36): There Are No Ticking Bomb Cases

(source)

The so-called ticking time bomb case is supposed to prove that there shouldn’t be an absolute ban on torture, and that torture is in some cases justified if it can help to prevent catastrophic harm. Maybe there shouldn’t be an absolute ban, but the ticking bomb case is the wrong way to prove it.

Just a brief reminder of what the ticking bomb case is about. Suppose a ticking bomb has been hidden in a densely populated area and will soon kill thousands or millions if not disarmed. The authorities have managed to capture a terrorist who has either hidden the bomb himself or knows where it has been hidden. (One can replace the “ticking bomb” with another and similar type of deadly device without changing the nature of the argument. The “ticking bomb” is in fact a “pars pro toto”, encompassing cases which do not necessarily involve an actual ticking bomb but which are nevertheless similar with respect to their circumstances and consequences).

The authorities are sure the captured person knows where the bomb is and how to disarm it, but the problem is that he obviously doesn’t want to reveal this information. However, the authorities are also pretty sure that he will do so under torture. There is no other or alternative way to extract the information, and simply evacuating people isn’t an option given the urgency and the lack of knowledge about the exact location of the bomb. Are we therefore not morally allowed to use torture in order to get the information and save numerous lives? Or, a somewhat stronger claim: are we not morally obliged to torture given the enormous benefits for large numbers of people compared to the limited costs for the tortured individual?

Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer. (source)

The problem – if it is a problem – is that this thought experiment can’t justify torture. It can’t because it’s loaded with so many hypotheticals that the chances of a case like it occurring in real life are close to zero. People simply have to know too much and yet just – just – not enough. That’s state of affairs is very unlikely, as is the application of torture that is so effective that it delivers accurate information in a very short time frame (remember, the bomb is ticking…).

Hence, if we won’t see a case like it in real life, the thought experiment can’t justify real life torture. At most it may be able to justify torture in theory. The purely theoretical nature of the whole affair is supported by the absence of ticking bomb cases in history. Some cases that are claimed to have been ticking bomb cases – such as the torture of Abdul Hakim Murad – were in fact, after closer examination, none of the kind. Murad only gave away his information after a month of torture, and it came as a surprise. He was tortured not because of an imminent threat. There was no such threat, and the torturers did not act on the assumption that there was.

Abdul Hakim Murad

In 1995, the police in the Philippines tortured Abdul Hakim Murad after finding a bomb-making factory in his apartment in Manila. They broke his ribs, burned him with cigarettes, forced water down his throat, then threatened to turn him over to the Israelis. Finally, from this withered and broken man came secrets of a terror plot to blow up 11 airliners, crash another into the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency and to assassinate the pope. … it took more than a month to break Mr. Murad and extract information – a delay that would have made it impossible to head off an imminent threat. (source)

I assume that all those who come up with the ticking bomb to justify torture want to use the case not to justify ticking bomb torture but other, more mundane forms of torture. After all, when you think you’ve managed to crack open the door a little bit – even theoretically – maybe it will swing wide open.

More about the ticking bomb case. More about torture.

data, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (35): Acceptance of Terrorism Lowest Among Muslims

A small antidote against the still very common essentialist claptrap about the inherent evil of Islam:

public opinion on targeting civilians, by religion

(source)

Those data are for US citizens only, but the data below show that Muslims in general, and not just Muslim Americans, aren’t more inclined to accept terrorism:

(source, MENA is Middle East and North Africa)

freedom, human rights violations, international relations, terror, torture

Terrorism and Human Rights (34): Terrorism Reduces Respect for Human Rights

(source)

And I don’t mean that in the obvious sense: terrorism is a human rights violation and therefore reduces respect for human rights. I’m more interested in the indirect effects of terrorism on human rights. According to this study, terrorist attacks substantially diminish governments’ respect for human rights. Extrajudicial killings, political imprisonment, torture, attacks on privacy etc. are much more common in countries that have witnessed terrorist attacks. One commonly cited reason for this is the perceived necessity of balancing human rights and security. However, it’s not clear whether restrictions on human rights do indeed work to deter or fight terrorism – perhaps such restrictions just make terrorism more likely in the long run (oppression creates resentment). It’s also unclear whether terrorism is the real reason for the restrictions or merely a pretext.

If terrorists are indeed motivated by their hatred of “our freedom“, then they are extremely successful because they have forced democratic countries to destroy a substantial part of their own freedom. Examples are here, here, here and here.

And whether or not restrictions of freedom do effectively improve security in the short and in the long run, governments can’t claim that what they do is what the public wants:

acceptance of restrictions on freedom, years after 9-11

(source, source)

More here and here.

aid, international relations, intervention, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (33): “The U.S. Coming Home!” (Commemorative 9-11 Repost)

On this 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, here is a repost of a mock OpEd I wrote some years ago. It’s mocking only in its form, not in its intentions. Warning: none of the opinions expressed here should be mistaken for my own.

(source)

“The date is October the 1st, 2011, exactly 20 days after the worst terrorist attack in US history, an attack in which Muslim extremists used nuclear bombs to inflict heavy damage on 3 American cities, embarrassing the security forces who were on high alert on the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

Today, the whole world was listening to President Obama’s first policy speech after the events. The most shocking announcement was undoubtedly the decision to no longer deploy US troops abroad. The President defended this “Coming Home” decision by citing the failure of 10 years of military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, the Middle East, Nigeria and Indonesia intended to bring about more security for the American people. Evidence has shown that US involvement abroad, even peaceful and objectively beneficial involvement, rather than promoting US security, actually fosters hate, resentment and fanaticism. The objects of American involvement, even if this involvement means billions of dollars of aid, seem to think that it is fundamentally a ploy to “imperialize” them, a crusade to take away their identity, religion and wealth. Independence, national pride and Allah is what counts for them.

It has also become clear that the US was wrong to think in terms of “frontlines” in its war with Muslim terrorists. The strategy to try to attack the enemy in their homelands, the “first frontline”, rather than wait until they get on American soil, has proven to be ineffective militarily, and possibly even counter-effective psychologically: it has provided fuel for anti-crusader and anti-colonialist rhetoric, convincing ever more young Muslim martyrs and extremist Muslim regimes of the anti-Muslim and hence satanic nature of the Christian unbelievers.

Hercules and Hydra

Unlike an enemy army in a classical 20th century war, this enemy cannot be defeated by an overpowering military attack. The strongest military in the world cannot defeat a relatively small group of undoubting and unthinking amateurs ready to die with a makeshift bomb in their hands. With every amateur it kills it only produces more evidence of the presence of Satan on holy soil. Hence, the more it tries to root out the enemy, the more enemies it creates. The President therefore, wisely in our view, decided to shift focus from the attack to the defensive. Bringing our boys back home to defend the American border, effectively turning the army into a super coastguard and border patrol, should not be viewed as giving in to the enemy, a retreat or a Last Stand. That would only be a return to an inadequate and outdated military logic, useless given the kind of enemy we are dealing with.

Together with measures to prevent homegrown terrorism – which, fortunately, has been a limited phenomenon until now – a relentless border control should indeed be able to offer protection. The borders must, of course, include the entrances of airplanes and ships heading for the US. In order to be independent from foreign security services, the President has asked for legislation allowing only US aircraft and ship to enter the US. If economically necessary, the US will acquire a larger fleet. Anyway, unnecessary travel to the US will be discouraged.

(source)

The economic drawbacks of rigorous border controls will be countered by technological innovations funded by army budgets which become available when budgets for overseas operations start to diminish. The President also asked the citizens to prepare for the possibility of a certain number of years of economic depression. Energy supplies may also suffer as a consequence of the US drawback. Traditional allies will be disappointed by their abandonment. The loss of US military assistance will even endanger the existence of some regimes. Those which are also oil suppliers will resent the US and will disrupt the supply. The President is conscious of the economic impact this will have but asks the scientific community to tackle the problem of oil dependence. Existing alternatives, including nuclear energy, will be developed. Repatriated nuclear warheads, if not necessary for domestic security, will be recycled in the energy industry.

Some allies which are important for the US domestically, such as Israel, will not be abandoned without continued support. Military equipment not necessary for border control and security on US soil, will be handed over to them after they lose the protective umbrella of a US presence in their region. Financial assistance will continue to be possible.

Because US troops will no longer be stationed abroad, US expats can become easy targets for terrorists. The President therefore advises them to make plans to return home as soon as possible. The government will establish funds to incite people to come home and to compensate for damages they will incur. US multinationals will be legally forced to employ local people only in their foreign affiliates. The US government will immediately cease to employ its citizens in development projects in Africa and elsewhere. To alleviate the economic shock this will produce in developing countries, the US will double its funds for development aid for a period of 5 years. These funds, however, will be spend entirely by third parties. No US agencies will be active abroad. The US will also withdraw from NATO, the UN, and all other international institutions.

May God be with us, since it’s excessively clear that nobody else will.”

More on terrorism.

human rights nonsense, international relations, terror, war

Human Rights Nonsense (29): The Link Between Porn and Terrorism

scene from The Good Old Naughty Days

(source)

Pornography is not a necessary cause of terrorism. The abolition of pornography would not lead to the cessation of terrorism in the world. Terrorism existed well before graphic pornography and its mass spread via the internet.

Likewise, pornography is not a sufficient cause for terrorism. There are pornography users, even addicts, who do not become terrorists. Given how widespread the viewing of pornography is today, if the direct result of each individual’s pornography use were terrorist violence, one could conceivably argue that pornography proliferation would pose a more widespread threat to human existence than nuclear proliferation.

Yet pornography now appears frequently in the possession of violent terrorists and their supporters, including Osama bin Laden. …

I wonder whether the pornography of today—now ubiquitous and increasingly grotesque—is one of the influences warping the mentality of those who aspire to or who actually go on to engage in ever more grotesque public violence. … Why, after all, would an al-Qaeda affiliate, as reported in 2009 from interrogations in Mauritania, select pornography to target new recruits? We need to know.

As terrorism researchers Daniel Bynum and Christine Fair point out in an article about the modern terrorists we have been pursuing, especially since 9/11, the fact of the matter is that “they get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they’re well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?” (source)

Yes, indeed, “we need to know”. Perhaps. Or perhaps there is nothing to know. Who knows? I have rarely seen a pile of insinuations so completely devoid of data and evidence. I do admit that the effects of porn consumption on people’s actions are a worthy subject of scientific investigation. Some forms of pornography can have a dehumanizing effect and may change men’s perceptions of women, perhaps to such an extent that porn can lead to violent acts such as rape. But the evidence available so far is mixed. And in the specific case of terrorism caused by porn, all we have are flimsy anecdotes and insinuations. I’m sure you can find just as many little stories about terrorists and violent games, terrorists and early child abuse, terrorists and poverty, terrorists and beards and so on.

The story above is just a free floating riff. “The U.S. government has had opportunity to observe, and in many cases, acquire, personal media from untold numbers of those involved in terrorism and the support of terrorism … [we] may be sitting on a massive data set for studying the intersection of pornography use and support for twisted violence such as terrorism” [my emphasis]. But then again, we may not be sitting on a massive data set. However, that’s no reason not to speculate, right? As I see it, there isn’t even a correlation, let alone evidence of causation. Just random anecdotes that are of no help at all explaining terrorism. You need to do better than that if you want to find the causes of some of today’s most horrific human rights violations.

Terrorism and Human Rights (32): What is Torture?

(source)

This question has to be answered, and not just because answering it is intellectually satisfying. Those who engage or want to engage in torture are constantly trying to redefine the word downwards. Nobody wants to be a torturer, but many want to use force during interrogations. because they think they have to, because they believe it helps, or simply because they’re insane and evil.

Hence, if one can manage to exclude certain forms of interrogation from the concept of “torture” by way of some definitional acrobatics, those forms become somewhat more acceptable. An example is the infamous torture definition proposed by John Yoo and the Justice Department (who, I believe, belong to the “we have to” camp):

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. (source)

1912 illustration of an inmate in an American prison receiving "the paddle", a form of torture used for punishment. This was illegal at the time.

On the other hand, we don’t want the concept to cover too much. There are some cases in which the deliberate infliction of pain is justified and shouldn’t be called torture. Sadomasochistic relationships between consenting adults should not be prohibited. And some forms of criminal punishment cause pain – typically mental pain – and yet are commonly accepted. Likewise, we wouldn’t want to outlaw all types of war, no matter how intensely we yearn for peace.

So, let’s propose the following definition, based loosely on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lemma on torture: torture is

the intentional and non-accidental infliction of severe physical – and in some cases mental – pain or suffering (mental suffering can be a mock execution for example)
by one person on another, non-consenting and defenseless person who may or may not be guilty of a crime (the torturer may or may not be a government official or someone employed by a government official)
while assuming complete control over the victim’s body and autonomy
with the purpose of:

extracting information (forward-looking)
extracting a confession (backward-looking)
punishing the victim
degrading the victim
coercing the victim to act in a certain way or believe certain things
terrorizing, intimidating, pacifying or oppressing the victim, or
terrorizing, intimidating, pacifying or oppressing the wider society.

This definition is compatible with, although somewhat wider than, the definition offered in the United Nations Convention Against Torture:

Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. (source)

This UN definition has the advantage of explicitly including second-order torture, namely torturing a person – for example a relative – in order to get a confession, information etc. from another person.

Both these definitions exclude, correctly I believe, acts of self-defense, masochism or other types of consensual violence, as well as violent acts between combatants and ”collateral damage” (accidental injuries to civilians) in the course of war. However, it’s not because these actions are excluded from the definition of torture, that they are necessarily morally right.

Terrorism and Human Rights (31): Osama bin Laden Pining for the Fjords

Now that he is, maybe it’s useful to recollect my older posts about the man. Maybe useful as well to consider what a proper judicial trial would have accomplished, compared to what looks like an extrajudicial execution and a disposal at sea that’s going to fuel conspiracy theories for centuries to come.

law, moral dilemmas, philosophy, terror

Moral Dilemma (19): Shooting Down the 9-11 Planes

(source)

Germany’s Constitutional Court recently dismissed a law that would allow the federal authorities to shoot down a hijacked plane about to crash into a city. This decision is reminiscent of the usual discussions between Kantian deontological morality and utilitarian calculus of the consequences – take the ticking bomb discussion for example, or the case of the involuntary organ donor.

Let’s make this dilemma, if it is one, a bit more specific. It’s not certain that the hijacked plane will actually reach its target. After all, these things are never certain. Flight 93 didn’t reach Washington. However, let’s assume a case in which it’s very likely that the target will be reached and that catastrophic loss of life will occur. The people who will take the decision to shoot down the plane wait for the last possible moment, in order to make sure that there’s no third option. The people in the plane therefore look like they’re doomed whatever decision is made: let them crash or shoot them down.

A simple calculus of the consequences would favor the latter option, given the fact that the people on the ground are much more numerous. Another reasoning would favor the first option, because shooting down the plane means being complicit with the hijackers, intentionally killing the passengers and thereby treating them as instruments in an operation to rescue the people on the ground. This is similar to what happens to the involuntary organ donor, and equivalent to the treatment they receive from the hijackers, who also treat them as means. There’s an issue of human dignity here. People shouldn’t be instrumentalized. We don’t find it intuitively acceptable that a state can order a fatally ill person to stand between a gunman and his group of victims. So why would the plane case be acceptable? (Assuming that these two cases are equivalent).

So we have two options: shoot or don’t. We could add other options, of course. A third option (one which was actually considered by the Court) could be to let the passengers, knowing that they’ll be killed anyway (with some likelihood) issue a statement of consent and transmit it to the military just in time. However, moral dilemmas are interesting to the extent that they are practical, and this third option is far from practical, I think.

More moral dilemmas here (still open to vote by the way).

Moral dilemma – refusing to treat a patient (politics.ie)
Underestimating How Moral We Are (psychologytoday.com)
Moral Dilemmas (alpup.blogspot.com)
Kant and shooting down hijacked airliners (crookedtimber.org)

data, horror, human rights maps, international relations, terror, war

Human Rights Maps (131): 9-11 and Ground Zero

Here are a few maps depicting the events of 9-11-2001. The first one shows the flight paths of the hijacked planes:

(source)

This next one shows the impact location in the two towers of the WTC, as well as the trajectory of some of the debris of the planes (the north tower, WTC 1 was hit first, 20 minutes before the second plane hit WTC 2):

(source, click image to enlarge)

This map shows which buildings were damaged or destroyed:

(source)

The following infographic explains why the buildings collapsed:

(source, click image to enlarge)

And this map shows the locations of human remains found on or around ground zero (never mind the indication of the “mosque“; some people believe that this is somehow relevant):

(source)

More on 9-11, the war on terror, al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. More maps on terrorism. More human rights maps.

data, horror, human rights maps, international relations, terror, war

Human Rights Maps (129): London Bombings of 7/7/2005

On July 7th 2005, during the morning rush hour, a group of Muslim young men carried out a series of coordinated suicide attacks on 3 of London’s subway lines and on one double-decker bus. At 08:50, three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other on three London Underground trains (the three red circles in the map below), a fourth exploding an hour later at 09:47 on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square (the red and black circle).

(source)

Here’s some more detail about the specific events and the chronology (click image to enlarge):

(source)

The map below gives some detail about the second attack, close to Russell Square:

(source)

The map below shows the last attack on the bus:

(source)

Read the full story here.

Two weeks later, on July 21st 2005, London witnessed four attempted bomb attacks, this time without much damage because the bombs failed to explode. While the manhunt for the perpetrators was in progress, on July 22nd, the police shot and killed a Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, at Stockwell tube station shortly after 10:00. Officers had pursued de Menezes from a location under surveillance, believing him to be one of the men wanted for the attempted attacks of the previous day. They apparently believed de Menezes was about to carry out a new attack. Afterwards, the police admitted that de Menezes was not involved in any of the bombings or attempted bombings. Read the whole story here and here. Here’s a map depicting the tragic event:

(source, click image to enlarge)

More maps on terrorism here. Other posts on terrorism are here. More human rights maps here.

aid, international relations, intervention, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (30): “The U.S. Coming Home!” (Commemorative 9-11 Repost)

(On this 9th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, here is a repost of a mock OpEd I wrote some years ago. It’s mocking only in its form, not in its intentions. I guess one day it will become prophetic, I’ll just have to repost it often enough. Warning: none of the opinions expressed here should be mistaken for my own).

(source)

Today, the whole world was listening to President Obama’s first policy speech after the events. The most shocking announcement was undoubtedly the decision to no longer deploy US troops abroad. The President defended this “Coming Home” decision by the failure of 10 years of military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, the Middle East, Nigeria and Indonesia to bring about more security for the American people. Evidence has shown that US involvement abroad, even peaceful and objectively beneficial involvement, rather than promoting US security, actually fosters hate, resentment and fanaticism. The objects of American involvement, even if this involvement means billions of dollars of aid, seem to think that it is fundamentally a ploy to “imperialize” them, a crusade to take away their identity, religion and wealth. Independence, national pride and Allah is what counts for them.

It has also become clear that the US was wrong to think in terms of “frontlines” in its war with Muslim terrorists. The strategy to try to attack the enemy in their homelands, the “first frontline”, rather than wait till they get on American soil, has proven to be ineffective militarily, and possibly even counter-effective psychologically: it has provided fuel for anti-crusader and anti-colonialist rhetoric, convincing ever more young Muslim martyrs and extremist Muslim regimes of the anti-Muslim and hence satanic nature of the Christian unbelievers.

Hercules and Hydra

(source)

Some allies which are important for the US domestically, such as Israel, will not be abandoned without continued support. Military equipment not necessary for border control and security on US soil, will be handed over to them after they loose the protective umbrella of a US presence in their region. Financial assistance will continue to be possible.

Because US troops will no longer be stationed abroad, US expats can become easy targets for terrorists. The President therefore advises them to make plans to return home as soon as possible. The government will establish funds to incite people to come home and to compensate for damages they will incur. US multinationals will be legally forced to employ local people only for their foreign affiliates. The US government will immediately cease to employ its citizens in development projects in Africa and elsewhere. To alleviate the economic shock this will produce in developing countries, the US will double its funds for development aid for a period of 5 years. These funds, however, will be spend entirely by third parties. No US agencies will be active abroad. The US will also withdraw from NATO, the UN, and all other international institutions.

May God be with us, since it’s excessively clear that nobody else will.”

More on terrorism.

human rights maps, international relations, intervention, terror, torture

Human Rights Maps (96): US Secret Detention Facilities

The current US Administration, like the previous one although somewhat less enthusiastically, believes that the War on Terror necessitates certain restrictions on human rights. The Bush Administration, in order to respond effectively to what it considered to be the existential threat of Islamic terrorism, claimed that it should be able to torture terror suspects and start preemptive wars. The Obama administration continues the Bush policies of

targeted killings with drone attacks (akin to extrajudicial executions in certain cases, and a risk to the lives of innocent bystanders)
suspensions of freedom of information rights
abuse of arrest powers, suspension of habeas corpus rights, detention without trial and even secret detention
invasions of the privacy of travelers and others (including wiretapping).

It’s not clear what is currently going on with renditions and secret detention. Here’s a map of secret detention facilities operated by the US during the Bush Administration:

Map of US secret detention facilities, based on information provided by a recent UN Human Rights Council report. (c) Amnesty International. Produced by AAAS.

(source)

While the U.S. has generally refused to disclose the locations of these facilities, the specifics have slowly leaked out. There’s evidence confirming CIA “black sites” in 20 locations around the world where “high value detainees” have been “rendered” and probably subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques“. There’s a map on the “rendition flows” here.

More on the war on terror. More human rights maps.

UN Report Documents Secret Detention Practices by U.S., Other Countries (seminal.firedoglake.com)
Exposed: CIA’s ‘game’ to hide terror detainees (msnbc.msn.com)
New Evidence About Prisoners Held in Secret C.I.A. Prisons in Poland and Romania (littlealexinwonderland.wordpress.com)
The secret detainee transfer (philly.com)
AP Exclusive: CIA whisked detainees from Gitmo (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

war, law, terror, human rights video, international relations

Human Rights Video (19): Targeted Killings

The question here is whether targeted killings are a form of extrajudicial execution or a legitimate act of war. And this question gets more complicated – or easier depending on your view – when these killings take place far away from the battlefield, when the targets aren’t necessarily combatants or a direct military threat, or when – as is the case – the targets are secret and sometimes even citizens of the country doing the killing. So there’s also the issue of a lack of transparency, feeding rumors that the U.S. is going about killing people without due process and without anyone ever knowing about it. More on targeted killings here. More human rights videos here.

data, democracy, economics, freedom, international relations, poverty, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (29): Terrorism, Caused by Poverty or Repression?

This is a follow up from some previous posts (here, here and here) claiming that poverty doesn’t cause terrorism, at least not usually, and another one (here) claiming that rights violations are a better predictor (and, conversely, respect for human rights predict reduced terrorism). I’ve found this paper (gated unfortunately) supporting those claims.

The empirical results reported here show that terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics, such as the level of political freedom, are taken into account. … lack of political freedom is shown to explain terrorism, and it does so in a nonmonotonic way. Countries with intermediate levels of political freedom are shown to be more prone to terrorism than countries with high levels of political freedom or countries with highly authoritarian regimes. …

On the one hand, the repressive practices commonly adopted by autocratic regimes to eliminate political dissent may help keep terrorism at bay. On the other hand, intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, and political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism. (source)

More posts in this “human rights facts” series are here. More on terrorism and on poverty.

poverty, war, terror, human rights video, economics

Human Rights Video (18): How Do Children Become Suicide Bombers?

This video makes the case that there is a strong link between poverty and terrorism, but I think the link isn’t all that strong (see here and here). A much stronger argument made in the video is the effect of the war on terror. This war seems to communicate the message that the West doesn’t care about civilian victims, so why should terrorists care? The video also focuses on the religious causes of terrorist violence. Religion does play a role, of course, but we shouldn’t forget that many suicide attacks took place in Sri Lanka for example, and those weren’t religiously motivated.

More on suicide bombers, terrorism and the war on terror. More on violence in general. More human rights videos.

international relations, terror, torture, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (28): Torture and the Ticking Bomb

In 1987, a judicial commission of inquiry headed by former [Israeli] Supreme Court Justice Moshe Landau had reported that “moderate physical pressure” [by the Israeli General Security Services G.S.S.] was defensible in cases in which an interrogator “committed an act that was immediately necessary” to save lives from grave harm. Israeli human rights organizations had monitored G.S.S. interrogations and concluded that some eighty-five percent of Palestinians interrogated had been tortured – subjected to methods almost identical to those currently being used in American military detention – and questioned whether such an enormous percentage of detainees were indeed “ticking bombs”. If those being tortured were all “ticking bombs”, why, asked an Israeli human rights organization shortly before the Supreme Court hearing, did interrogators take weekends off? “The lethal bomb ticks away during the week, ceases, miraculously, on the weekend, and begins to tick again when the interrogators return from their day of rest.” (source)

Whatever you think about the persuasiveness of the ticking bomb argument in favor of torture, or even it’s relevance to actual cases of torture, it’s difficult not see the risk of a slippery slope, especially given evidence like this. More substantial discussion of torture and the ticking bomb is here, here, here, here and here. More on torture in general here. More on Israel here.

law, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (27): Targeted Killing

Under fire, every soldier needs someone to talk to, someone to count on, a powerful protector who watches from above. That protector exists. He watches you from the heavens. He is there but not there. He hears your prayers and answers them. He sees your enemies and keeps you safe from them. If necessary, he rains fire and death on them. … He is a drone pilot.

These pilots live and work in the United States. Through the eyes and arms of their drones, they patrol the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan. They hear soldiers in need and come to their aid. In Pakistan, drones have become fearsome hunters, tracking down and killing commanders of al-Qaida and the Taliban. But they can also be guardians. More than 95% of their missions involve gathering intelligence or watching over troops.

By insulating pilots from danger, drones help us hunt and kill the enemy. But they also give us more time to distinguish the innocent. From a drone, unlike a plane, you can hover for hours and zoom in for a closer inspection using just your cameras. … Along with the godlike power to destroy, drones have given us godlike powers to protect the vulnerable and spare the innocent. William Saletan (source)

Read more about targeted killing and drone attacks here, here and here. If you do, you’ll see that things aren’t as uniformly beneficial as this quote suggests.

international relations, intervention, law, moral dilemmas, philosophy, terror, war

Moral Dilemma (10): The Morality of Targeted Killing of Terrorists

The targeted killing of terrorists, either by special forces or by unmanned drone aircraft (aptly named “Predators” or “Reapers“), raises a number of moral questions. Let’s focus here on the drone attacks (and also exclude the cases where there’s an imminent attack, because those can be considered morally easy cases of self-defense). There’s an interesting documentary here. If you can’t watch it in your country, here’s a quote describing it:

A guy gets in his car and drives to work in an office in Nevada. From his office he controls drones in Afghanistan. Occasionally he kills people (who can’t shoot back at him, since he’s 8000 miles away). When he’s done, he gets in his car and drives home to his wife and kids. You can tell the difference between ordinary farmers and insurgents by the way they move across terrain, apparently. (source)

I can think of a few moral dilemmas coming out of this, and I would like to see how you vote on these. So here they are.

1. I know that one of the advantages of drones is supposed to be their effectiveness: compared to normal, long distance bombing (such as the shock-and-awe attacks on Baghdad from the Persian Gulf), drone attacks are said to be a lot less indiscriminate. After all, that’s why they are called targeted “killings”. However, to the extent we can judge – there’s no public database of drone attacks – it’s not uncommon to hear about drones mistakenly targeting weddings instead of evil terrorist meetings, or killing bystanders together with the terrorists. It seems that the main reason for using drones is that you don’t endanger your own flying crews, and certainly not your ground troops. After all, once you have identified a target, a drone isn’t more precise than a normal bomber plane. So, if that’s the motive, we can ask if the prioritization of the minimization of risk to soldiers on your own side over the minimization of risk to civilians on the enemy side, is morally acceptable in war.

2. To broaden the point somewhat: is it generally fair or rather cowardly to shoot people who can’t shoot back, or to harm people from such a distance that they can’t harm you back, or is it morally praiseworthy to shoot people while minimizing the risk on your side?

3. Is killing people by way of drone attacks an admissible act of war or a war crime, assuming that the people killed are actually combatants or terrorists (and assuming that terrorists can be treated like enemy combatants in a normal war) rather than innocent civilians, and that the technology is therefore effective?

4. If Al Qaida kills the operators mentioned in the quote, is it an admissible act of war or terrorism?

5. If you have checked the first answer in question #3, do you believe it’s logical to check the first answer in question #4 a well? If not, why not? Add your reasons in the “other” box.

6. The same question as #4, but slightly modified, and assuming you checked the first answer in question #3. If Al Qaida detonates a bomb that wipes out an entire neighborhood, including the operators mentioned in the quote, can they claim their actions are equivalent to targeted killing by the U.S., given the fact that targeted killing isn’t always very precise either? Or are they wrong and are they in this case not engaging in admissible acts of war but in terrorism?

7. Again, a small modification of question #4, and assuming you checked the first answer in question #3: if Al Qaida detonates a bomb that wipes out an entire neighborhood, believing the operators mentioned in the quote were present, but they actually weren’t present, can they claim their actions are equivalent to targeted killing given the fact that drone attacks are known to have targeted places where terrorists were supposed to be but actually weren’t? Or are they wrong and are they not engaging in admissible acts of war but in terrorism?

More on targeted killings. More on the war on terror. More on just war theory. More moral dilemmas (which are still open to votes by the way).

economics, poverty, terror, war, work

Terrorism and Human Rights (26): Is Terrorism Caused by Unemployment?

girl holding bomb, by Bansky

(source, more Banksy here)

I don’t think I need to spell out the ways in which terrorism is a human rights issue (beyond the obvious violations of the human rights of the direct victims of terrorism there are serious human rights implications of the so-called ”war on terror“).

Some time ago, I linked to a paper claiming that poverty and lack of education do not, contrary to common belief, contribute to terrorism. If this claim is correct, then it has major implications for counter-terrorism efforts. There’s another paper here making a similar claim, looking at the correlation between violent insurgencies and levels of unemployment, specifically in Iraq and the Philippines. One often assumes that unemployment and the economic and social alienation resulting from it, are elements causing or facilitating political violence, and that efforts to promote employment can have a beneficial effect on social cohesion and political loyalty. The unemployed are believed to have the mindset (frustration etc.), the time and the opportunity to radicalize and be radicalized, whereas people who are employed have a lot to lose, economically, from political instability. Positively stated,

insurgency is a low-skill occupation so that creating jobs for the marginal unemployed reduces the pool of potential recruits.

However, the authors find

a robust negative correlation between unemployment and attacks against government and allied forces and no significant relationship between unemployment and the rate of insurgent attacks that kill civilians. … The negative correlation of unemployment with violence indicates that aid and development efforts that seek to enhance political stability through short-term job creation programs may well be misguided.

Some of the reasons given in the paper in order to explain this negative correlation are:

Counter-insurgency forces usually spend money to buy intelligence from the general population. More unemployment means that the available money can buy more intelligence, hence bring levels of violence down.
Insurgents also need to live. If there’s a lot of unemployment, they need to spend more time on basic survival and hence can spend less time on violence.
Efforts to enhance security—establishing checkpoints and the like—damage the economy.
etc.

The paper deals only with two countries, neither of which is perhaps a very typical case. Moreover, cross-border terrorism doesn’t seem to fit well into the analysis. But still, the findings are interesting.

political graffiti, terror

Political Graffiti (80): 9-11, Just Do It

Normally, I don’t post images of political graffiti that entail obnoxious messages, and certainly not ones that utterly disgust me. However, time for an exception I guess, just to show that a talent in graphics doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with political intellect:

(source)

Here’s a similar one:

More on 9-11, and more on the war on terror. More political graffiti here.

law, philosophy, torture, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (25): A Theory of No Resort

(source)

In just war theory, the concept of “last resort” means that force, violence and other violations of human rights are allowed only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical, and when force etc. is clearly the only option. In the current “war on terror“, the use or torture is often justified as a last resort, as the only option available, in certain circumstances such as the “ticking bomb“, to avoid an outcome that is worse than the use of the last resort.

There are many possible and convincing arguments against the use of torture, but one which isn’t mentioned a lot is the fact that justifications for torture emanate from a philosophy that sees risk as something to be completely overcome. Torture is justified as an extreme measure to overcome a last remaining and very small risk. That is evident from the ticking bomb case: the case itself is by definition rare, so the risk that it occurs is very small. Even smaller is the risk that we have to resort to the use of torture as a means to avoid the risk of the bomb going off (if, exceptionally, we find ourselves in a ticking bomb situation, other means short of torture may well allow us to avoid the risk).

This philosophy of using extreme measures to avoid or eliminate as much risk as possible is, I think, mistaken. If I’m right, the justification of torture as one of such extreme measures is void. And don’t say I’m fighting windmills here: this philosophy is omnipresent. Look at the swine flu hysteria for example, or the recent and silly airport and air travel security measures after the “Christmas Day Attack” (e.g. forcing passengers to sit down during the last hour of flight). Maybe we need a theory of no resort rather than a theory of last resort. Maybe we should learn to live with the fact that bad things happen and that often we can’t do a thing about them.

More on just war. More on human rights and risk. More on airport security here and here.

human rights maps, terror, torture

Human Rights Maps (74): The War on Terror, Extraordinary Renditions and Secret Detentions

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

Here’s another version:

(source)

Read this map as follows: extraordinary renditions allegedly have been carried out from the countries in dark blue; detainees have allegedly been transported through those in light blue; to the countries in red. The United States and countries with suspected CIA black sites are indicated, appropriately, in black.

More on rendition, arbitrary arrest and habeas corpus. More human rights maps here.

Uncovered: Britain’s secret rendition programme (independent.co.uk)
European rights chief: Rendition flights probes are weak because countries fear upsetting US (foxnews.com)

intervention, law, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (24): Extraordinary Rendition, The Story of Abu Omar, Ctd.

[This post is by guest writer Robert Nijssen who also has his own blog].

Abu Omar is an imam from Egyptian origin, who was kidnapped by the CIA from the streets of Milan. For more information on his kidnapping please refer to my original post here. Last week the Italian trial against the involved CIA operatives was concluded and most of the operatives received substantial jail sentences. Please refer here for the whole story, or here for an interesting counter opinion.

moral dilemmas, terror, torture, war

Moral Dilemma (1): Stopping a Suicide Bomber

A new blog series. The purpose of this series – contrary to many other series of posts on this blog – is not to inform, to entertain, or to argue for our points of view. What we want to do here is learn what you think. Of course, we have the comment sections for that, but here we want to try to guide your opinions in a more structured way. We will present you with certain moral dilemmas, some of which are well-known in philosophy; others not. Then we ask you to answer a few questions (and you can see how other people have answered). In case the straitjacket of the provided possible answers doesn’t suit you, you can of course go to the comment section and elaborate.

First dilemma: Suppose you spot a suicide bomber walking towards a crowd. There’s no doubt about his intentions. You are the only one who has correctly identified the bomber, and you have no other option but to use deadly force to stop him. You can’t warn the crowd, nor can you ask security forces to intervene. Moreover, the only possible way for you to stop him is by using a flamethrower.

More on targeted killing of terrorists. More on the war on terror. More on suicide bombers. More on the ticking bomb argument for torture.

freedom, terror, torture

Terrorism and Human Rights (23): What the War on Terror is Doing to America

(source)

Read here what the war on terror is doing to the U.S., in particular to its citizens’ freedom and rights (not to mention the freedom and rights of citizens of certain other countries).

poverty, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (22): Terrorism and Poverty

(source, cartoon by Ares)

(source, cartoon by Olle Johansson)

It’s almost trivial to state that terrorism is caused by poverty. But it’s wrong. I don’t claim that poverty has no role whatsoever, or that no single terrorist is driven, in part, by poverty (his own or that of his family/nation/group). Human motivation is complex and obscure. But it appears that other factors are more important. Read more.

intervention, law, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (21): Extraordinary Rendition, The Story of Abu Omar

[This post is by guest writer Robert Nijssen who also has his own blog].

Imagine this, while walking to your local supermarket a minivan pulls up next to you, two men jump out, grab you and throw you in. This minivan turns out to be the start of a journey that ends in a prison where you are tortured for a year. During this year your family and friends have no idea what happened to you and assume the worst.

This may sound like a second rate thriller but unfortunately it is not: it happened to Osama Mustafa Hassan Nassir (better known under the name Abu Omar). Abu Omar, an imam from Egyptian origin, was kidnapped by the CIA from the streets of Milan. Subsequently he was taken to Egypt where he was tortured because of his known longstanding opposition to the Mubarak regime. For the complete story of his kidnapping please refer here or here.

During the investigation into his disappearance it became clear that already prior to his kidnapping Abu Omar had been under suspicion of terrorist activities. The team of the Italian police investigating these activities however, felt that there was insufficient evidence for his arrest and that, as he did not pose any imminent threat, more could be learned by just observing. The sudden removal of him from his regular working place not only made any legal action against him impossible, it also kept the Italian police from completing their investigation.

Although it seems to be commonly accepted these days that in our fight against terrorism we need to adopt a slightly more ‘practical’ attitude versus human rights, I still find it shocking that somebody can be grabbed from the streets of a country like Italy and just disappear for a year. In that light I cannot deny that there is a certain irony in the fact that in the end this blatant violation of human rights did not only do nothing to improve our security situation but by sabotaging a running investigation it might even have deteriorated it.

As a consequence of the Abu Omar disappearance a number of CIA operatives and Italian officials were charged by an Italian prosecutor in a trial that continues to this day. The Italian government, apparently less affected by human right violations occurring in their own back yard, has been trying to delay the process wherever it can. For more information on the trial please refer here and here.

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

For more articles of this author please visit his weblog. More on the “war on terror“.

law, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (20): Targeted Killing of Terrorists

(source)

Are governments, or even private individuals, allowed to kill terrorists when killing them is the only way to prevent a terrorist attack? Intuitively, I would say “yes”, but only if certain conditions are met: the attack must be imminent, and no other solution is possible. In fact, these conditions limit the possibility to cases such as killing a terrorist with explosives clearly visible, and seen – from a distance - to be moving towards a target.

Most cases will be different and will make it possible for the police or bystanders to disable the terrorist in some other way, short of killing him or her, and without putting themselves at risk. I never understood why the British SAS needed a policy to target and kill IRA terrorists when they were not engaged in an imminent terrorist attack and when they could easily be arrested (see here for the story).

Now, one could reply to this with this question: why should we treat terrorists better than soldiers? In a war, soldiers can be killed almost at will. If an army spots enemy soldiers, it can kill them without violating any law of war, even if these enemy soldiers are not engaged in an imminent attack. So why can’t we kill terrorists in the same way? In fact, we should treat soldiers better, since many of them are conscripts who do not target innocent civilians. Terrorists are (normally) volunteers who target innocent civilians. That makes two aggravating circumstances.

In answer to this, we could state that terrorism isn’t a war; it’s a criminal act. Some things are allowed in a war which aren’t allowed in peacetime. And terrorism is horrible and not peaceful at all, but not everything that is horrible or a breach of peace is necessarily a war. If we are allowed to stop the crime of terrorism with targeted killings - even if the crime is not imminent – then why not normal murder as well? For example, we may know that someone is about to commit (a non-terrorist) murder, but the act is not imminent. If you accept the SAS tactic, you also have to accept the preventive killing of normal murderers.

Some go even further, and accept not only targeted killing in cases without an imminent threat, but also killing after the fact. They would accept the killing of Osama bin Laden, even if he wasn’t planning a non-imminent attack. They would justify this killing based on his past actions. (Another example is the targeted killing by Mossad of the people involved in the Munich Olympics killings, made into a movie by Spielberg). I think that’s just as unacceptable as the targeted killing SAS style. It’s punishment without due process.

More on terrorism.

law, privacy, terror, torture, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (19): The War on Terror and the Right to Privacy

war on terror and privacy Ian Waldie Getty Images

(source)

Just a few more thoughts as a follow-up from this post, this one, and this one. During an apparently never-ending war on terror (what could be the end of such a war?), people are quick to believe their “liberal” governments when they tell them that a bit less privacy is a cheap price to pay for more physical security.

However, many of those governments, because they claim to be “liberal” and “democratic”, feel uneasy about this. After all, if rights are tradeable like this, if they depend on the circumstance and should be surrendered when the circumstances become more difficult, what is left of them? They become a luxury for good times, rather than a safeguard in bad times. (Another sign of this is the way in which the war on terror is eating away at other rights as well, e.g. the right not to be tortured; but let’s stick to the right to privacy here).

Because of this unease, governments claim that the right to privacy isn’t really being sacrificed. ”If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about”. It’s only the terrorists whose right to privacy is being limited. But in the meantime

DNA databases are being established for almost entire populations
CCTV is omnipresent
“data mining” is used extensively (after all, how can you determine if someone is a terrorist if you haven’t first violated his or her right to privacy?)
etc.

I don’t mean to imply that rights such as the right to privacy are absolute or that there can never be a good reason to limit one right for the sake of another. On the contrary. But limiting rights can only be done when there is a “clear and present danger” for other rights or for the rights of others. A vague and everlasting “war on terror” provokes limits on rights when there’s no such danger. Limiting rights becomes the normal MO of governments keen to prevent such a danger from ever occurring. And that’s unacceptable. Obviously, terrorism is a danger, but governments can only limit rights in order to prevent it when the danger is clear and present, and imminent. A general and vague fear of terrorism will not do.

More on the war on terror. More on privacy.

discrimination and hate, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (18): Right-Wing Terrorism in the U.S., and the Shared Responsibility of Conservative Media

Only days after the attack on Dr. Tiller, the U.S. is shocked by yet another terrorist attack by a right-wing extremist, this time at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. Some have questioned the role of the media in all this. It’s true that parts of the U.S. media, especially on the conservative side, are not characterized by nuanced analysis and balanced reporting. There’s a lot of hate speech, stereotyping and shouting on cable news, on the radio and on the internet. So it’s fair to say that there may be a risk that the media are fanning and nurturing extremism and hate in society, and that they may be responsible for pushing sick people over the edge. (See also here).

I personally regret the lack of quality in the media, and I do believe that journalists and pundits should be more careful in what they say and how they say it. But I also believe that critics of the media should be careful when deciding responsibilities and causal relationships. Society is complex, and people are driven by many factors. Still, most people are ultimately responsible for their own acts (I don’t know enough about the two cases at hand to conclude that the mental condition of the perpetrators at the time of the crime was such that they could be held criminally responsible).

We run the risk that these terrorist events will lead to calls for a more restrictive interpretation of the freedom of speech of the media. Let’s hope that this risk incites the media to question their behavior and to abandon the language of hate.

Terrorism and Human Rights (17): Torture and the Ticking Bomb, Slideshow

I’ll be giving a talk about torture at the next ALSP conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning of July. Here are my slides:

View this document on Scribd

You can read the full paper here or here.

torture

Terrorism and Human Rights (16): Torture and The Ticking Bomb

Kevin Drum

(source)

OK, here’s my view on ticking time bombs. It’s not original: Torture should always be illegal. But if you’re really, truly convinced that a nuke is about to go off in downtown Atlanta and the human filth in your possession can tell you where it is, then do your worst. I’ll cheer you on, the president will pardon you, and the nation will be grateful. OK? I wish everyone could just agree on this. It’s not as if it’s ever going to happen, after all, and if it does, well, the guy who saved Atlanta really would get a presidential pardon, wouldn’t he?

In the meantime, it would allow Charles Krauthammer to apply his allegedly vast IQ to less barbaric sophistries. And the rest of the pro-torture crowd would have to think up some real reasons for supporting the Spanish Inquisition. (My emphasis)

Or this one:

Jesse Ventura

(source)

You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders. Jesse Ventura, Minnesota governor.

A more rigorous but less amusing refutation of the “ticking bomb argument” is here.

governance, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (15): Does Respect for Human Rights Reduce Terrorism?

(source)

Here is an extremely interesting paper by James Walsh and James Piazza. Quote:

Some hold that restricting human rights is a necessary if unfortunate cost of preventing terrorism. Others conclude that such abuses aggravate political grievances that contribute to terror. We demonstrate that theory and data support the latter position. (source)

They focus on what they call physical integrity rights, or rights which protect people from physical harm. The more a state respects these rights, the less terror attacks it suffers. It will also be less engaged in some way or other in transnational attacks.

These findings are opposed to two similar and widespread beliefs: unstable states can only guarantee security is they are authoritarian (see here), and even well-developed democracies have to limit some human rights in order to fight a terrorist threat (see here). In the former case, the threat comes usually from within; in the latter case from abroad.

States that seek to preserve human rights and political freedoms are limited in their ability to monitor and detain terrorism suspects, are prohibited from making broad police sweeps to catch terrorist perpetrators and their sympathizers, limit coercive interrogation of suspects, and must afford suspected terrorists access to a lawyer and a public trial. Freedom of assembly and of the press allows terrorists and their supporters to publicize their grievances. … The implication is that states that protect human rights are more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. (source)

In fact, the opposite is true. Protecting human rights, and especially security or integrity rights, reduces terrorism, and violating them promotes terrorism. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon, but I think it true to say that grievances and injustices (and many of those are caused by rights violations) are important motives. Democracies and states that respect human rights supposedly give too much freedom to terrorists, allow them to organize, recruit, mobilize and plan, and make it very hard to efficiently combat terrorists (rule of law, free speech, humane treatment and torture prohibitions etc. are all said to hamper counter-terrorism). But authoritarian regimes create injustices on which terrorists feed. They also make it hard to express and redress grievances in non-violent ways, and use ruthless methods that only make their opponents more radical, fanatic and popular.

(source)

The authors back this up with data. They link the MIPT measure of terrorism (Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism) with the Physical Integrity Index:

More here and here.

terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (14): The War on Terror and Human Rights

Andrew Sullivan

(source, photo by Nubar Alexanian)

We must be vigilant not to let our civil liberties collapse under the understandable desire for action. To surrender to that temptation is part of what these killers want… The task in front of us is to somehow stay civilized while not shrinking from the face of extinguishing – by sheer force if necessary – the forces that would eclipse us. To be ruthless yet humane: not easy but always vital in warfare. Andrew Sullivan, writing just after 9-11.

A good excuse to remind you of this older post of mine, detailing the effects on human right of the war on terror. Torture is perhaps the most obvious human rights violations that resulted from the war on terror, so there’s a post on this here.

Terrorism and Human Rights (13): Counterproductive Anti-Terrorism, The War on Terror, and the War on Islam

(source)

I mentioned here how the war on terrorism, and more specifically its extension to Iraq (based or not on real facts about terrorism), has been counterproductive and has probably produced more (potential) terrorists than it has eliminated. The two ongoing wars in Muslim countries have enraged many Muslims and have turned their attention to the “American Criminal” and away from the criminals within. They have united the Muslim world, and this unity has reduced the ability and willingness of Muslims to criticize the extremists within their community.

These wars have also offered battleground experience to extremists, including experience in group formation and group discipline. They undoubtedly have led to stronger ties between extremists from different countries who otherwise would never have met.

The wars themselves have to some extent been counterproductive, but the way they have been conducted has made things even worse. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib will be rallying calls for generations of terrorists.

(source)

The anti-Americanism of many Muslims has been encouraged by the wars on terrorism, but also by the anti-islamism or islamophobia that seems to be increasingly widespread in the West (see here and here). In fact, and despite the recent assurances of President Obama, the war on terrorism is often merged with or morphed into a war on Islam; not a military war per se, but an ideological war.

The specter of “EUrabia” (based on the EU’s supposedly lax immigration policy combined with the high fertility rates among immigrants), of Western Shari’a, of the incompatibility of Western and Muslim morals and ethics (see here), of sleeper cells etc. all seem to produce a widespread rejection of a caricature version of Islam. Islam is reduced to an objectionable monolith on the basis of extremely rare but photogenic outliers.

No wonder many in the Muslim world feel rejected and turn inwards. And inwards often means towards a more pure and therefore more radical form of identity. They in turn make a caricature of western culture and reject it as a whole because of some aspects of it that they deem objectionable. Another way in which anti-terrorism shoots itself in the foot.

(source)

Another point: the fear of militant and political Islam convinces western governments to back some brutal Middle East dictatorships. These are believed to be a lesser evil compared to islamists taking over political power and using it to support terrorists. However, a brutal dictatorship may well be an important cause of terrorism. An interesting parallel with the time of communism, by the way:

David Gardner asks a provocative question in this weekend’s Financial Times: Is the West’s fear of political Islam condemning the Middle East to a generation of poor leadership? Political Islam is the new communism, he argues; the United States fears it so much that it prefers despots to even the most moderate Islamists. The Middle East, by implication, might be going through the same bout of poor leadership that afflicted Latin America and Africa as the Cold War contest played out in their regions. Elizabeth Dickinson (source)

terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (12): War ON Terror, Or War FOR Terror?

(source)

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. (source)

The war on terror has created and exacerbated resentment, hatred of the West and anti-americanism. And with anti-americanism often comes hatred of democracy and freedom and Islamic radicalization.

Terrorism and Human Rights (11): Torture and the Ticking Bomb, Again and Again

Just a follow-up of this previous post (I happened to see this cartoon and, frankly, it says things better than my piece of 5000+ words):

(source)

horror, terror, torture, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (10): The Little Door to Hell, Torture and the Ticking Bomb Argument

waterboarding torture

I have an article here offering a more profound rebuke of the so-called ticking bomb argument in favor of torture than the one I gave here some time ago. Here’s the introduction:

The most astonishing and shocking by-product of 9-11 is undoubtedly the renewed legitimacy, in the eyes of many, of some forms of torture. Since many centuries, the most brutal dictators have felt the need to lie and deceive about their torture practices, and now we have political and intellectual leaders of the free world openly arguing in favor of the use of torture in certain cases. The most commonly cited of these cases is the one described in the so-called “ticking bomb argument” (hence-forth TBA).

The kind of torture that is supposedly justified by this argument can be characterized as benevolent torture, well-intentioned torture, or even moral torture because it is different from torture as it is commonly used by certain oppressive or authoritarian governments. “Ticking bomb torture” is not a method of terrorizing and subjugating a population, and neither is it a substitute for normal means of establishing innocence or guilt and of punishing criminals. On the contrary, its declared purpose is to protect the population and to avoid a terrorist attack on civilian targets. It is benevolent torture because its objective is not fear or punishment, but safety and security. It is moral torture because reluctance to engage in it would endanger the lives of innocent civilians, and would therefore be immoral. “A society that elects to favor the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring” (source).

Proponents of the TBA readily agree that they discuss an exceptional case which is unrepresentative of torture in general – most real cases of torture have absolutely nothing to do with the example given in the TBA – and which in no way justifies torture that has other, and less benevolent purposes. Yet they believe that this exceptional nature of the case does not render it insignificant or irrelevant. In the setting of a “war on terrorism”, it can be extremely important to agree on the soundness of the TBA because no matter how exceptional the case may be, when it occurs it has important consequences. A clear agreement on the TBA is necessary in order to save many lives.

I will argue in this paper that the TBA is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a number of untenable assumptions, and that it therefore does not justify torture. Moreover, I argue that the TBA, when thought through until its logical conclusions, ends up condoning torture of a much less exceptional and benevolent nature than the torture it started with. In other words, the TBA proves too much. It would not simply put us on a “slippery slope” towards ever increasing levels of torture; it would also destroy our democracy and freedom. It is, in the words of the title of this paper, the little door to hell. The TBA forces, reluctantly and disgusted, a small opening into an area of human activity that is shielded by a very strong moral and legal taboo, and then finds that it has allowed this activity to take over civilization.

Read the rest here:

View this document on Scribd

Here’s the pdf-version.

education, poverty, terror

Terrorism and Human Rights (9): Is Terrorism Caused by Poverty and Lack of Education?

(source)

This paper says it is incorrect to state that poverty and a lack of education are the root causes driving people towards terrorism. It’s a highly interesting paper worth to be read in full. I’ll just try to summarize it here.

Terrorism is premeditated violence against citizens intended to cause fear and terror and to influence public opinion and government policies. Given that terrorism is obviously a crime, and given the well-established link causal link between poverty and lack of education on the one hand, and crime on the other, one could assume that there is also such a link between poverty/lack of education and terrorism. However, the link with crime in general, as the paper points out, is stronger in the case of property crime than in the case of violent crime. And terrorism is a violent crime.

(source)

The paper also presents more direct evidence of the absence of a causal link between poverty/lack of education and terrorism:

Opinion polls measuring public support for terrorism among Palestinians do not show more support among the poor.
Hezbollah members are not, on average, poorer than the rest of the population of Lebanon, on the contrary.
The education and income levels of individual terrorists are higher than average:

An explanation for this is that people with higher levels of education and income often feel much stronger about political causes, have more passionate support for political groups etc., partly because such involvement requires knowledge and leisure time.

The most extreme type of terrorist, the suicide bomber, is obviously not motivated by economic gain. But he may be motivated, not by his own poverty and his struggle against it, but by the poverty of his family, people or country (many terrorist groups give money to the families of suicide bombers). The paper calls this “Robin Hood terrorism”. While it is true that the poorer countries produce relatively more terrorists, this correlation disappears when respect for human rights is taken into account.

At a given level of income, countries with greater respect for civil liberties are less likely to be a wellspring for international terrorists. A lack of civil liberties is associated with higher participation in terrorism.

The results of the paper are discouraging in a way, because they cut off one avenue in the fight against terrorism: provide better education and higher incomes. If terrorism isn’t the result of poverty and ignorance, then the struggle against it may prove to be very difficult. It’s easier to do away with poverty and ignorance than it is to remove other possible causes of terrorism, such as indignity, frustration, religion, culture etc. What is encouraging is the link between rights violations and terrorism. One more reason to promote human rights.

Terrorism and Human Rights (8): Torture and the Ticking Bomb

Richard Posner

(source)

If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. … no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. Richard Posner

Alan Dershowitz

(source)

During numerous public appearances since September 11, 2001, I have asked audiences for a show of hands as to how many would support the use of nonlethal torture in a ticking-bomb case. Virtually every hand is raised. Alan Dershowitz

People have come up with many arguments to justify torture, but the most famous one is the “ticking bomb argument“: suppose we capture a terrorist, and we know that he or she knows where the ticking bomb is hidden that will soon kill thousands or millions, or where and how another type of terrorist attack will take place. However, this person will only reveal the information under torture. Are we not allowed to use torture in order to get the information and save numerous lives? Are we not morally forced to torture given the enormous benefits for large numbers of people compared to the limited costs for the tortured individual?

I’ve stated before that I believe this argument is flawed, because it is based on a number of untenable assumptions:

Assumption 1: A real-life case

This seems to be a thought experiment rather than a real-life dilemma. The example of the captured terrorist with information about a ticking bomb is unlikely to happen in real life. Law enforcement officers or military and intelligence personnel usually do not arrest terrorists or accomplices before the terrorist act takes place (usually they make the arrests afterwards, and sometimes they don’t even manage to do that). We all know that most real cases of torture have absolutely nothing to do with the example given in the ticking bomb argument.

Assumption 2: Knowledge and knowledge about knowledge

But let’s assume that it does happen, and that one is, in exceptional cases, able to arrest someone before the terrorist act takes place. For the ticking bomb argument to be valid, we have to be positively sure that the terrorist or accomplice has the information that is required for us to stop the attack or explosion to take place. How can we be sure about this? And if we’re not sure, can we start torturing this person in order to know that he or she has the information?

The latter would mean that we don’t just torture in order to get life saving information. We torture in order to know whether this person has or doesn’t have such information. It’s obvious that in this case we will torture many people who don’t have information. And if they don’t have information, we may be torturing innocent people, or at least people who, although accomplices, are not justifiable objects of torture since the argument is that torture is justified because it is necessary to obtain life saving information. These people don’t have such information, and hence their torture isn’t justified. Some other justification is required in order to be able to use torture on people who do not obviously and undoubtedly possess life saving information. This seems to fall outside the ticking bomb argument, an argument which is therefore incomplete.

And, by the way, torturing people in order to find out if they have information is the worst kind of torture: since many of them don’t know anything, they will be subject to the longest and deepest forms of torture.

Assumption 3: It works

Again, let’s assume that all of the above is irrelevant, that we do hold someone who has vital information, that we know for certain that he or she has this information, and that we didn’t have to use torture to be certain. These are already a lot of assumptions, but a further assumption of the ticking bomb argument is that torture is a efficient tool to extract reliable information. We all know that it isn’t (see here). People who are tortured say anything in order to make it stop.

And what if torturing the terrorist doesn’t make him or her speak? In that case, the ticking bomb argument also justifies torturing the terrorist’s family and children (a kind of indirect torture aimed at “convincing” the terrorist to give information). If torturing him or her is insufficient, then further options are equally justifiable. The cost-benefit analysis on which the ticking bomb argument is based justifies torturing the family. The guilt or innocence of the family, or of anybody else who is tortured, is irrelevant. What counts is that the cost of torture doesn’t outweigh the good it does, i.e. the number of lives it saves.

But this begs the question: how many lives have to be saved if the cost of torture is to be acceptable? A million? 10.000? 10? … Difficult to tell in borderline cases, but then the answer would be: at least it’s clear when we go into the really big numbers. Torturing even a few dozens of people in order to safe a million is a “no-brainer” (in the words of former Vice-President Cheney). The reality is however, that most terrorist attacks do not kill millions or even thousands.

Assumption 4: No alternative

Again, let’s accept all the above assumptions, for the sake of argument. One of the supposedly strong points of the ticking bomb argument is the lack of an alternative to torture. There seems to be nothing else one can do. But there is something wrong with the timing in the argument:

On the one hand, to represent some type of ticking bomb scenario, the timing of attack must be far enough in the future that there is a realistic chance of doing something to stop it. On the other hand, if it is so far off in the future that the loss of life can be prevented in some other way (evacuation, for instance) then the supposed “need” for torture simply disappears. (source)

Assumption 5: Exceptional

Given the urgency in the example of the ticking bomb, and given the fact that terrorists are often trained to withstand torture, a free society would have to

maintain a professional class of torturers, and to equip them with continuously-updated torture techniques and equipment. Grave dangers to democracy and to individual freedoms would be posed by an institutionalized professional “torture squad”. (source)

Torture corrupts people, and it is not farfetched to assume that a “torture squad” would infect an entire society. The squad members themselves will not remain well-intentioned, and the mere existence of such a squad corrupts morality in a society. This shows that torture in the ticking bomb argument starts as an exception but tends toward institutionalization.

Assumption 6: The Greater Good

It’s not obvious that the rights of one person can be sacrificed for the benefit and rights of others. Once you start this kind of trade off, you will quickly find yourself in a world in which it is allowed to “break some eggs if you want to make an omelet”. Terrorists also assume that they fight for a greater good and that they are allowed to sacrifice some in order to save others. Torture then puts the tortures on the same level as the terrorist.

What motivates the ticking bomb argument?

It’s not difficult to see some of the underlying motives of those using the argument. It seems to me that the dramatic force and moral clarity and simplicity of the example, even if it is very unrealistic and far removed from the much murkier and complex cases that confront us in reality, can be used by those who are in favor of torture in order to open the door and make some cracks in what is still, for many, a moral absolute (similar to the prohibition of slavery and genocide).

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which took on the force of federal law in the U.S. when it was ratified by the Senate in 1994, specifies that

No exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

The ticking bomb argument is intended to show that an absolute ban on torture is unwise and ultimately detrimental to the survival of a free society. Opponents of torture are labeled moral absolutists, unwilling to confront the darker sides of reality and isolated from the tough problems that people in the field have to deal with. By making it impossible to “deal” with these tough problems, absolutists endanger the nation.

Once the absolute is broken, and some forms of torture are allowed in some circumstances – and even necessary if we want to protect freedom – then those who fight for democracy and for the right of people to express their opposition to torture, are able to do their jobs and make their hands dirty.

The torturer becomes the patriot; those defending the moral values of a nation are ivory tower intellectuals unaware of the realities of life and de facto allies of the terrorists. It’s not the example of the ticking bomb that is simplistic; it’s the moral absolutism that obscures that complex choices of real-life anti-terrorism.

The obvious objection to breaking the absolute is of course the slippery slope. I mentioned above that the ticking bomb argument would allow torturing many more people than just the captured terrorist holding vital information.

Human Rights Ads (1): Waterboarding

(source, an Amnesty International ad)

“The unofficial world record in holding your breath under water”. More on waterboarding.

justice, law, terror, war

Terrorism and Human Rights (7b): Arbitrary Arrest and Guantanamo

(source)

All democracies arrest people without a charge or conviction, but they only do so for very short periods of time, usually a very limited number of days. Also, when a charge is filed, democracies want to have a court case as soon as possible. Detention on remand, as it is called, is confinement in a house of detention prior to treatment of a case in court. Generally, this type of detention is imposed, if a person is suspected of a serious crime and if he/she is prone to escape, to tamper with the evidence, to commit further crimes etc. Democracies also want to keep this detention on remand as short as possible, because there is always the risk that an innocent person is imprisoned.

In a well-functioning judicial system, there can be no excessively long detention without a charge or detention on remand. We do not want to incarcerate innocent people. Without a time limit – usually expressed in number of days – detention without charge or detention on remand would be arbitrary arrest. And arbitrary arrest is typical of tyranny. An arbitrary arrest is an arrest of a person without evidence of this person’s involvement in a crime. If there is such evidence, then there can be no problem presenting this evidence within a very short delay, after which the person can be formally charged and a court case can be decide on guilt or innocence, also within relatively short delays. A long delay between an arrest and a formal charge or between an arrest and a court decision on guilt or innocence, would create an injustice if it turns out that the person in question is innocent. The harm done by this possible injustice can be limited is the time frames are short. All this is part of treating people fairly and doing justice.

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. This is linked to habeas corpus. See also here.

Unfortunately, the U.S., still a beacon of democracy and the rule of law, has decided that its war on terror forces it to imitate dictatorships and to detain people, in Guantanamo and other places, without a warrant, without a charge, without a fair trial and conviction, and for indefinite periods. Let’s hope the new administration will close these prisons soon and, if there is evidence, formally charge the inmates.

The government in the U.K., not having an equivalent of Guantanamo, has simply decided to change the period:

(source)

torture, human rights video

Human Rights Video (7): Torturing Democracy

If you want to watch the rest of this movie, click here. More on torture is here.

human rights maps, terror

Human Rights Maps (37): Worst Terrorist Attacks

This map, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, and last updated 24 August 2008, shows the worst terrorist attacks, worst meaning attacks resulting in 100 or more fatalities:

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

Legend:

1: 13 Dec 1921: bombing of Bolgard palace in Bessarabia (modern Moldova) (100)
2: 16 Apr 1925: bombing of cathedral in Sophia, Bulgaria (160)
3: 18 May 1973: mid-air bombing of Aeroflot airliner, Siberia (160)
4: 4 Dec 1977: crash of hijacked Malaysian airliner near Malaysia (100)
5: 20 Aug 1978: arson of theater in Abadan, Iran (477)
6: 20 Nov-5 Dec 1979: hostage taking at Grand Mosque in Mecca (includes 87 terrorists killed) (240)
7: 23 Sep 1983: crash of Gulf Air flight following mid-air bombing over the UAE(112)
8: 23 Oct 1983: truck bombings of U.S. Marine and French barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (301)
9: 14 May 1985: armed attack on crowds in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka (150)
10: 23 Jun 1985: mid-air bombing of Air India flight off Ireland, and attempted bombing of flight in Canada (331)
11: 18 Apr 1987: roadway ambush near Alut Oya, Sri Lanka (127)
12: 21 Apr 1987: bombing of bus depot in Columbo, Sri Lanka (106)
13: 29 Nov 1987: mid-air bombing of Korean Air flight near Burma (115)
14: 21 Dec 1988: mid-air bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland (270)
15: 19 Sep 1989: mid-air bombing of French UTA flight near Bilma, Niger (171)
16: 27 Nov 1989: mid-air bombing of Avianca flight in Bogota, Columbia (110)
17: 3 Aug 1990: armed attack at two mosques in Kathankudy, Sri Lanka (140)
18: 13 Aug 1990: armed attack at mosque in Eravur, Sri Lanka (122)
19: 2 Oct 1990: crash of hijacked PRC airliner in Guangzhou, PRC (132)
20: 12 Mar 1993: 15 bombings in Bombay, India (317)
21: 22 Sep 1993: crash of airliner struck by missile in Sukhumi, Georgia (106)
22: 19 Apr 1995: truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (169)
23: 14-19 June 1996: hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts (143)
24: 23 Nov 1996: crash of hijacked Ethiopian Air flight off Comoros (127)
25: 29 Aug 1997: attacks at Sidi Moussa and Hais Rais, Algeria (238)
26: 22 Sep 1997: attack at Ben Talha, Algeria (277)
27: 30 Dec 1997: attack at Ami Moussa, Algeria (272)
28: 4 Jan 1998: attacks at Had Chekala, Remka, and Ain Tarik, Algeria (172)
29: 11 Jan 1998: attack on movie theater and mosque at Sidi Hamed, Algeria (103)
30: 8 Aug 1998: truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania (303)
31: 13 Sep 1999: bombing of apartment building in Moscow, Russia (130)
32: 31 Oct 1999: intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot (217)
33: 10 Aug 2001: attack on train south of Luanda, Angola (152)
34: 11 Sep 2001: crashing of planes into WTC, New York, Pentagon in Virginia, and Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)
35: 12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)
36: 26 Oct 2002: hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow (includes 41 terrorists killed) (170)
37: 29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)
38: 1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)
39: 21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)
40: 27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)
41: 2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)
42: 11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)
43: 24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)
44: 1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)
45: 28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)
46: 14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)
47: 5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)
48: 11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)
49: 16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)
50: 23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)
51: 22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)
52: 3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)
53: 6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)
54: 27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)
55: 18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)
56: 3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)
57: 7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)
58: 14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)
59: 18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)
60: 17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)

There’s another list of terrorist attacks here. Below is this list in map form:

Here’s another map showing the number of non-state terrorist incidents in the period 2000–2008:

(source)

More on terrorism.

(source)

Pros

Cons

Share this on:

(source unknown)

1. Civil liberties

2. Mentalities

3. Preemptive war

4. Counter-productive

5. Misnomer

(This post is hoisted from the archives and slightly revised. The original was published on August 6th, 2008 and is unfortunately still relevant today).

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

(image source)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

(source, MENA is Middle East and North Africa)

Share this on:

(source)

(source, source)

Share this on:

(source)

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

Share this on:

(source)

Related Articles

Share this on:

(source)

(source, click image to enlarge)

(source)

(source, click image to enlarge)

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source, click image to enlarge)

Share this on:

(source)

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

(source, more Banksy here)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

(source)

Share this on:

Share this on:

Share this on:

(source)

Share this on:

(source, cartoon by Ares)

(source, cartoon by Olle Johansson)

Share this on:

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

Share this on: