Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Ignatieff and torture: the Liberals respond

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:50pm - 156 Comments

From the Inkless emailbox: the DonOLO responds.

Michael Ignatieff argues against torture from 1987 – 2009

Lesser Evil Lecture at the Miller Center of Public Affairs – April 23, 2005

“If you ask me what I would do and what I endorse, I would have an absolute prohibition on torture”… (58)

“Let me be clear on what water boarding is. You put somebody in a tank of water upside down until they have the experience of downing and you pull them out just before they drown. And that’s torture. Because it is the most awful experience a human being could have short of dying violently. So we don’t want to do that.” (54:12)

Ignatieff, Michael. “Lesser Evil.” Penguin Group, Toronto: 2004.

“I argue that actions which violate foundational commitments to justice and dignity – torture, illegal detention, unlawful assassination – should be beyond the pale.” (x)

“States should absolutely ban extreme interrogations, targeted assassinations, and other use of violence, “ (118)

“For torture, when committed by a state, expresses the state’s ultimate view that human beings are expendable. This view is antithetical to the spirit of any constitutional society whose reason d’etre is the control of violence.” (143)

It (torture) violates basic commitments to human dignity, and this is the core value that a war on terror, waged by democratic state, should not sacrifice, even under threat of imminent attack.”(140)

“The rights to due process of law, to basic dignity in treatment, are independent of conduct and irrevocable under any circumstance. We believe that our enemies deserve to be treated as human beings.” (167)

LEADER, THE ECONOMY, TORTURE, AND MACHIAVELLI. Maclean’s , Mon Feb 16 2009 Page: 13 , Byline: Michael Ignatieff interviewed by KENNETH WHYTE

“So getting to the issue of interrogation, interrogation has to be consistent with Canadian law, consistent with international conventions — like the Convention on Torture — consistent with our international obligations. It has to be rigorous and thorough, because we’re up against some threats to our security, but it must be within the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws, and it must be subject to democratic scrutiny. ”

“When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture. That was never, ever, ever intended/desired/stated. There is a clear line between tough interrogations that stay on the right side of the law and stuff that gets into the area of moral disgrace, and I’ve always been clear what that line is.”

Ignatieff sets the record straight; [National Edition]

Michael Ignatieff. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Oct 29, 2005. pg. A.23

“Diane Francis says I support torture because I believe authorities interrogating terrorist suspects should be allowed to engage in disinformation or disorientation techniques.

To call these practices torture is to distort the plain meaning of words. I am on record as being opposed, both on moral and on strategic grounds, to any infliction of physical or psychological pain on interrogation subjects; I am on the record as believing all interrogation subjects held by the United States anywhere in the world, whether U.S. citizens or not, should be regularly inspected by the International Committee of the Red Cross; and in order to prevent abusive treatment, I am on record as supporting the right of all detainees, citizens or not, to habeas corpus review of their detention by U.S. federal court. I am also opposed to any practice regarded as cruel or degrading under international law. My views on this matter are fully set out in my book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror.”

Balancing foreign and domestic;

Michael Ignatieff. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 2, 2005. pg. A.19

“When a Canadian citizen, born in an Arab country, finds himself arrested in the U.S., deported to a foreign country, where he is tortured, what are the rest of our new Canadians to think about the capacity of our government to protect them? The Canadian passport must confer indivisible rights and protection to all its bearers, regardless of their origin and place of birth.”

The myth of citizenship. The Kingston Whig-Standard, Tue Oct 20 1987

Section: Magazine , Byline: Michael Ignatieff

“When a man is being tortured in another jurisdiction, I can no longer regard our difference of citizenship as grounds to leave it to someone else to protest.”

Tags: I bet this one makes Anon Lib all weepy too, Michael Ignatieff

More by Paul Wells

Andy Y.

I can't remember what the original source was but in "The Torture Debate in America" the entire thrust of Iggy's argument is that we should ban the use of torture to create a disincentive; however, in certain circumstances the government should break its own law and torture prisoners

I guess in that sense Donolo is write Ignatieff supports making torture illegal, he just doesn't feel that he has to follow the rules
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Let's call spades spades. Ignatieff bought into the "coercive interrogation" shtick because he wanted to retain his credentials as a liberal pragmatist, and he thought that, in the post-9/11 world, "realism" was going to be defined by the neoconservatives. Turns out the neocons were both losers and evil; evil was OK with Iggy but being a loser is unforgivable. So now he's reduced to splitting hairs. Which is, after all, what British moral philosophy is all about.

Anonymous

"and he thought that, in the post-9/11 world, "realism" was going to be defined by the neoconservatives."

So did the news media. That's why these various manifestations of "realism" were given so much attention.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Which is why I say that the best course of action is to admit that he supported torture, the lite version, but that he was wrong.

If I was Iggy's advisor, I'd tell him to hold a presser, own up to the fact that he was once swayed by the 9-11 events and thought that the torture of those responsible for such evil could be justified. He was an academic, not a would-be leader of a nation who would have to decide whether to continue the transfer of prisoners to the care of a government that routinely abuses people. He now understands that a nation that calls itself civilized and democratic must above all differentiate itself from the Taliban and that it must be reflected in the way it treats its prisoners.

I'm reminded of Obama's speech on race relations after his pastor's video tape surfaced. I'd have far more respect for a politician who can own up to his mistakes than one who tries to make me believe that mild sleep deprivation isn't torture.

Anonymous

"f I was Iggy's advisor, I'd tell him to hold a presser, own up to the fact that he was once swayed by the 9-11 events and thought that the torture of those responsible for such evil could be justified."

Nope. That's just what the Conservatives want. To make this all about Ignatieff, even though he wasn't even in politics at the time. Better to highlight Harper's unfailing support for the American neoconservatives, including the Iraq invasion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

with the NDP's latest salvo, this would be the best way to redirect the fire towards Harper.

If Iggy was to own up to that mistake, please tell me what the rebuttal would be for the NDP and the Tories? there would be none.

having said that, you can rest easy because I don't advise Iggy and he it looks like splitting hairs is the strategy of the day.

Anonymous

"If Iggy was to own up to that mistake, please tell me what the rebuttal would be for the NDP and the Tories? there would be none."

Because none is needed. Shifting the focus on Ignatieff is the goal.

I don't even know why we're even talking about this now. The prime minister of Canada is Stephen Harper and his government has been responsible for the Canada's actions in Afghanistan since 2006.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Anonymous, I agree that it would shift the focus on Iggy. I'm arguing that it would be a good focus. Iggy's biggest problem is that Canadians don't know what he stands for. This detainee problem would be a good opportunity for Iggy to take a stand on human rights but the man is handicapped by his ambiguous stance on interrogation techniques. If that perceived handicap is not addressed full on (like Obama did on race relations), it will blunt the impact of his attacks on Harper.

The NDP knows this and they also know that they are the only ones (BQ doesn't count in the ROC) that can maximize the opportunity created by Colvin. Iggy simply can't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

Ignatieff supported the Iraq war and the democratic goal in Afghanistan for precisely idealistic reasons. He even talked about 'a world where it would be possible to go and freely discuss anything with Iraqi intellectuals in Baghdad coffee shops', something like that. The hallmark of 'neoconservativism' was arguing that a breathtakingly idealistic goal of democracy in Iraq was at the same time realism in the long run. The assumption that these people are evil characters in a black and white world where they – the political other – are monstrosities seeking oil for blood and perfectly callous or even desiring of death and misery for Iraqis demonstrates a depressing and thoroughgoing provincialism and deficit of imagination.
Mulletaur

Wrong. Read what he has written, Jack.

kcm

Why on earth are people quoting Ignatieff all over the place like they've decyphered a particularly difficult code or something? The fact is you have to have read the book[s] to even get a feeling, let alone firm opinion on his musings around torture. My feeling is at worst he's probably guilty of inconsistency and waffling on the subject…there is no clear cut evidence to hang the guy.
At least he's taken a position [ or two, or three] on a very thorny issue…let's give him some credit for that at least.
Meanwhile we have a PM who's never asked what his views on the subject are. Who's never even had to explain his evident fip fop on Iraq…much less apologze for it. I guess Ignatieff is paying the price for his temerity in attempting to define the issue…inconsitency has been his bugbear i guess. He might have been wiser to have kept his opinions to himself…wiser, but a whole lot less braver.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

kcm, the problem is the ambiguity around his words on the use of torture. You either reject it outright or you do a Cheney and embrace it as a viable tactic.

the in-between kind of response we have here leaves Iggy wide open to such questions and they are legitimate.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I'm not sure kcm's at all wrong on this. (Which is the long way of saying I think he's (he's?) right. Wherry, incidentally, has tried often to get a clear and elaborate statement from the PM and other government officials on the rightness or wrongness of torture. They have, after much coaxing, said it's wrong, but by their treatment of concrete cases they clearly feel it's no big. On Iraq, my column (http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?con… is partly about how Harper "cut and ran" when his Bush-Howard line became unpopular. Which, I maintain, is why President Bush did not include Harper in his goodbye calls in January of this year.

In short, I do not think Harper has shown himself to be morally superior to Ignatieff, or any clearer in his thinking, on these crucial matters.
wilson

'Who's never even had to explain his evident fip fop on Iraq…much less apologze for it'

Duceppe got an 'I was wrong on Iraq' out of PMSH in the 2008 debates.

Ignatieff is paying the price for switching careers.

Anonymous

"Duceppe got an 'I was wrong on Iraq' out of PMSH in the 2008 debates."

Not even close to atonement for what Harper did. He attacked the government of the Canadian people for making the right decision.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

In fact, what Harper said was that Iraq was "a mistake;" he was never made to say whose, by his opponents or by my lot in the year since. He is careful only to take questions when we are full to bursting with questions about topics he wants to take questions on. Not a complete excuse for our failure to seek more.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

What can one do if the PM refuses to take questions on an important subject? Nothing, I presume, but reiterate that the PM is dodging the issue. Which you and some others do, but not most. Stonewalling by any politician is an offense against the public opinion itself and should be condemned ipso facto; silence is worse than a gaffe. I'm glad there are some opinion-makers with long memories, but sad that they are so few.

RayK

I think that's right. We get some dogging of our politicians on these questions, but not nearly enough in the way of "their not answering the question" stories. A difficult story to write perhaps, but one that's worthwhile.

Sadly, I think the same thing is going on with Ignatieff. He dismisses questions about his writings on torture by saying that he's always been opposed to–quote-unquote–"torture", but he pretends as if there's no context.

Michael Ignatieff very publicly argued for 'coercive interrogation' at a time when the Bush administration was setting up a torture program under the same name. He claimed that–in the heat of the moment–the evil of torture outweighed the alternative. He presupposed that torture must work–otherwise it wouldn't be used.

Opponents warned that in the dark corners of secret prisons torture would be carried under these justifications. Yet Ignatieff continued his very public–entirely hypothetical–defence of such policies. The opponents were right. He was wrong. Coercive interrogation is torture. And at a minimum his lengthy prior justifications of these acts require a convincing and understandable explanation.
Mulletaur

"What can one do if the PM refuses to take questions on an important subject?"

Keep repeating the question until you get an answer. Make the fact that the PM is refusing to answer the question the issue. Sensitize people to the importance of the issue at question and thus the importance of getting an answer. It's not hard.

Anon Liberal

Well said.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

You caught up!

Stephen

Since this lengthy list of quotes more or less ignores each statement's place in Ignatieff's qualitative arguments about what actually constitutes "torture," its quantitative character tends to ignore the obvious.

What would we think of someone who plucked "I am a vegetarian" out of an extended discussion of what actually counted as "meat" ?

That's more or less Ignatieff's position with respect to where we draw the line between so-called "coercive interrogation"–his term, I believe, and "torture."

I do agree, however, that all this talk of whether or not Ignatieff supports outright torture is a distraction: he doesn't support outright torture.

The truth remains, however, that he's still on record as supporting far more serious crimes such as aggression–both in practice and in principle.

If people want to talk about how Ignatieff's positions violate Canada's commitments under international law, they would find that his recorded efforts to find a way around the UN Convention against torture, cruel, inhuman and unusual behaviour actually pale in comparison to his repeated willingness to throw out the UN Charter in support of aggression on behalf of his favoured states (e.g. the US and the UK).

Iraq is only the most obvious practical example.

John W.

Looks like the NDP were very successful in achieving their goals in launching this little missile. All the attention on Iggy and his shortcomings.. Nothing on NDP sinking to a disgraceful Rovian level political hate inspired campaigning. The NDP have sunk below "just visiting" to make the Conservatives seem almost high minded, well, except for the puffin.
Anon Liberal

"forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health" (like blaring rock music to flush Manuel Noriega out of hiding)

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Anon Lib, since you apparently have some knowledge on this, how long can a prisoner be kept awake before it is considered torture and no longer "mild" depravation?

Anon Liberal

I don't know. We should ask some grad students or medical interns.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

you know don't know but you are fine with it?

Anon Liberal

I understand the point you are making, but I can see some instances where certain forms of sleep deprivation would not constitute "torture". You're right though that I can't pinpoint exactly where the line is. That is why it is useful to have these debates and to consider the question in detail. I believe there is some nuance to the question. I guess that's where Ignatieff got in trouble. There is no room for nuance in our dumb-as-rocks, attack-at-all-time public discourse.

tobyornottoby

You barbarian! They played Nancy Sinatra to get Noriega out, and you don't think that was torture?

Anonymous

You can see the role the cabal of neoconservative intellectual degenerates like Diane Francis and the rest of the Posties had in distorting what Ignatieff has said on this issue.

Although his embrace of "Empire Lite" didn't help at all. Words matter, and the word "Empire' should have been a clue to him.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

funny… I personally consider Iggy to be a neoconservative intellectual.

Anonymous

Not enough "big lies." to qualify. And he doesn't smirk when he's talking about serious things. That's the "tell.".

RayK

Whoops, meant to say "was out weighed by the alternative".

kcm

If all that you say is true, then Ignatieff is a moral and intellectual coward. But as PW has pointed out Harper is no model of consistency or moral leadership either. Why should Ignatieff be held up to standards that we don't seem to demand of all our leaders? In any case he's got lots of company in the failed to lived up to ideals, and can' admit it arena.

RayK

"But as PW has pointed out Harper is no model of consistency or moral leadership either. Why should Ignatieff be held up to standards that we don't seem to demand of all our leaders?"

I have no more faith in Harper than Ignatieff, but Harper gets away with this stuff because he can–because he's prime minister. As prime minister, Harper can create news–through announcements and government action–that the media have to cover. Iggy needs to sing for his supper which gives the media a lot more leverage to get answers.

Observant

Could Donolo also provide us with his interpretation of Ignatieff's advocacy of starving the North Koreans to stop the from threatening us with their nukes … as Iggy explained in these YouTube snippets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpCsYc0TE4A&fe…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnRdEHiVwM&NR…

Taking Ignatieff's neo-political concepts in whole, I think the average Canadian would conclude that Iggy is one nasty piece of work.
Loraine Lamontagne

Harper was once a partitionist. I would like to know his views on that now. Someone should ask him. Harper as president of NAC helped fund the legal bills of those opposed to Quebec's language laws. I'd like to know his views about that too.

What Ignatieff had to say before he entered politics is not as important as what he as leader of the LPC has to say now on the subject of torture.

Many comment on putting the focus on Ignatieff as being a bad thing. Right now I hear that he stands for nothing, that he has nothing to offer. I think he should try to get the focus on him and explain his views to the general public. I certainly haven't and don't intend to read all of his writings. He has to appeal to voters. After all, he's here to stay, isn't he?