Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

The Market Likes Torture: Should Uncle Sam?

posted by Dave Hoffman

hollywood.jpeg

National Review commentator Jonah Goldberg offers this essay defending torture. I think Goldberg’s piece is an unusually foolish and corrosively cynical pastiche, dressed up as home-spun common sense. But go ahead, give him a read. Then come back for my thoughts.


Goldberg starts with a lazy swipe against politically engaged actors and actresses:

“Hollywood is against torture, which ranks somewhere in the parade of horribles ahead of SUV ownership and perhaps even voting Republican. No doubt Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin have delivered many a dinner-table stem-winder against the Bush administration’s defense of “coercive measures” in extreme circumstances.”

This is a rich image – naive liberal actors (!) posturing from the comfort of a boozy dinner. But it is a fantasy. “No doubt” Streisand lingered over dessert at that entirely made-up dinner talking about Jonah Goldberg’s refusal to serve in the military, despite his strong push to intensify military activities in Iraq. “No doubt” over an expensive after dinner wine Baldwin called Goldberg to task for ad hominem arguments that make little sense. Wow, making up hypotheticals can be fun, even outside of class and exam-writing!

With that lead, Goldberg switches topics, and examines

“what people mean by torture. If you mean hot pokers in unwelcome places, pretty much everyone is against it, save perhaps in the famous ‘ticking-time bomb’ scenario. But the meatier part of the argument is in the more nuanced area of ‘coercive measures,’ ‘stress positions,’ and what one unnamed official once described to the Wall Street Journal as ‘a little bit of smacky-face.’”

Most folks of good-will realize this is a line-drawing problem. We now know quite a bit about torture as practiced by the CIA, and there is no need for euphemism. Is water-boarding torture? Until Goldberg answers that question, it is irresponsible to stake out a spectrum between a slap and a violation with a poker, and throw up your hands as to the middle ground.

Goldberg continues that elites who condemn all non-poker- scenarios out of hand are too rigid. Why? Because torturing evil men to save good people is a powerful narrative move in many major studio releases, including Patriot Games, Mississippi Burning, and Rules of Engagement. On its own terms, the argument is confused, as some of the examples given (an actor “shot a POW in the head to get another man to talk”) would violate Goldberg’s categorical rule. But let’s dig deeper.

My great-aunt, who had Alzheimer’s before she passed, used to watch violence on television and get terribly upset. “Those people are hurting each other,” she would cry. It is this inability to distinguish violence on television and in the movies from real life that makes us worried about children’s consumption of the product. But for mentally competent adults, a taste for cinematic violence simply is different from a taste that the United States beat, drown, starve and freeze real people to get information from them. Maybe the public wants the United States to torture people, by which I mean torture as it is defined in the McCain Amendment, but it sure seems uncomfortable with the topic when specific examples are given.

This relates, I think, to another example Goldberg unwisely seizes – that from NYPD Blue. Goldberg exults that “Andy Sipowicz, played by Dennis Franz, smacked around criminals all the time.” He sure did. But as the fictional detectives themselves acknowledged on the show, coercion was illegal and morally wrong. From an early exchange between a veteran and a new detective:

John Kelly: What’s on your mind, James?

James Martinez: I wanted to ask you, when you sent me outside, you gave me your gun and so forth, uh… I wanted to ask you what happened in there, why the guy gave it up.

John Kelly: You mean, did I beat it out of him?

James Martinez: Yeah, if that’s why he confessed.

John Kelly: I didn’t beat him.

James Martinez: Then why’d he give it up?

John Kelly: Because he’s guilty, and he knew I was willing to beat it out of him to get the truth.

James Martinez: So if it came to it, you would have beaten him?

John Kelly: Let me put it to you like this. I never raise my hand to a guy if I think he’s guilty or if I’m trying to find out if he’s guilty. But if I’m sure he’s guilty and the case is gonna walk unless I raise my hand, I do what I gotta do.

James Martinez: Even though you’re breakin’ the law?

John Kelly: Okay, you’re askin’ me if I believe in the Constitution. Yes, I believe in the Constitution, and I hang on to that as long as I can. But in the case of a murderer like this, who’s gonna walk, I leave my gun and my jewelry outside, along with the Constitution.

James Martinez: And if you’re wrong about this guy?

John Kelly: Well, then God forgive me. (pause) If you… if you want, I can make somethin’ up prettier than that, James. But that’s the way it is.

James Martinez: Okay.

Later episodes made clear that the detectives knew that if they were ever caught beating suspects, the bosses who had asked for the beating, the witnesses whose testimony would have been avoided, and the public that endorsed the entire system would turn together in revulsion against the behavior. Even though we know what is being done in our name, we simply don’t see ourselves as a society of torturers. And that is to the good. Goldberg’s view is corrosively cynical, and too permissive as a result. We can know some coercion is rarely necessary – the ticking bomb problem – without condoning it, because we know that almost all of the time, it isn’t necessary, and its harms far outweigh its benefits.

Goldberg continues:

Hollywood plays a role in shaping culture, but it also reflects it. It both affirms and reflects our basic moral sense (which is one reason why it dismays some of us from time to time).

It is hardly imaginable that Hollywood would — or could — make long-running TV shows or successful movies where the protagonist is a soaked-to-the-bone racist. Why? Because audiences would reject the premise and so would filmmakers.

I agree that the studios releasing widely-distributed movies cater to the market, and the market has less of a taste than it used to for explicitly racist films. I also agree that media is a taste-maker. But so what? Let’s assume that movies encourage the belief that torturing is morally uncomplicated, and celebrate “good” torture. (This passes, in Goldberg’s view, for nuance.) Unless Goldberg thinks that market outcomes tell us something about inherent worth, instead of expressed preferences, we could easily conclude that law should work to be a contrary taste maker – that law’s goal should, in part, be to turn its face against the market-clearing amount of entertaining torture we’ve been given by the studio system.

Just when I thought I had Goldberg pinned down to an actual point, he shifts direction again:

My guess is that when presented in cinematic form, even larger numbers of people [than the 61% who supported some forms of torture in a recent poll] recognize that sometimes good people must do bad things. I’m not suggesting, of course, that the majority is always right. But it should at least suggest to those preening in their righteousness that people of good will can disagree.

What was the point of Goldberg’s column? Let’s review: First, Hollywood liberals, democrats and Andrew Sullivan want you to adopt a broad meaning of torture. Be careful with those crazies. Second, you have probably enjoyed movies with scenes of torture. This suggests that you want your government to torture people, up to, but not including, the “red hot poker” exception. Only Nazis use red hot pokers.

Deeply silly.

And this is a columnist for a major metropolitan paper, and a writer for one of the leading conservative thought-organs in the country. It makes me wonder how much longer the conservative movement can survive its exposure to power. Robert Caro, in his biography of Johnson, argued that power doesn’t corrupt, it reveals. I hope not.


 December 11, 2005 at 12:24 am   Posted in: Current Events   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. DML - December 11, 2005 at 2:31 pm

    truly amazing and unfortunate that goldberg & his ilk are published, read & agreed-with by otherwise well-meaning adults. it seems that this near-nonsensical, vague justification of torture (and corresponding rebuke to hollywood) does, in fact, reveal both goldberg & his readership’s touchstone: cultural — as opposed to neo-con or economic — conservatism. the thinly-veiled disgust for hollywood is all too apparent. but if it is violence in hollywood productions that needs to be regulated, let’s stick to that narrow point. it is a better argument to advocate for preventing gratuitous violence in entertainment, as well as in foreign policy, than to argue that because we accept fictional violence as entertainment, we have no basis for opposing real-life violence. in any event, it does seem that goldberg & his ilk (o’reiley, coulter, etc.) make the same decision to offer reckelss, contrarian, shock-value entertainment rather than intelligent treatment of worthwhile topics.

  2. Tony - December 11, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    Latest on torture of the Iraqi population

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17537904-23109,00.html

  3. Pooh - December 11, 2005 at 5:19 pm

    It does seem strange to argue on one hand that violence in movies and TV is damaging our children, and then on the other hand to suggest that that same violence supports torture. (Not specific to Goldberg, as I don’t know whether he is of the ‘Hollywood bad for the children’ ilk.)

  4. Bruce - December 11, 2005 at 5:22 pm

    Most movies and television shows stack the deck before showing the protagonist engaged in anything morally dubious. When someone engages in vigilante justice, for example, it’s almost always against someone the viewer has already seen commit a crime, from the film’s omniscient perspective. Same with torture or beatings by protagonists. Until we have omniscient interrogators, the analogy won’t wash. And of course if they’re omniscient, then they won’t need the information in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress