Bagram detainees

Eric Schmitt in “Afghan Prison Poses Problem in Overhaul of Detainee Policy” (New York Times, January 27, 2009) discusses the problem posed by the confinement of over 500 detainees at the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Most have had no access to lawyers, some have endured harsh interrogation techniques widely classified as torture, and many if released will resume their efforts in support of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or other violent groups if released.

Tragically, the United States now reaps what it has sown. Respect for human rights is so fundamental to our identity as a nation and as human beings that ignoring egregious violations in order to avoid possible future attack is immoral. That argument may appear naïve if based on a deontological claim to respect human rights under all circumstances and regardless of the consequences. However, utilitarian and virtue based analyses lead to the same conclusion.

Utilitarian ethical analysis asks, what is best for all? One sums the costs and benefits, short and long run, for everyone and the option that leads to the best result is the most moral. Too often utilitarian calculus values some people more than others, e.g., one’s fellow citizens, religionists, or tribal members more than those who belong to other groups. Utilitarian calculus similarly errs if it focuses on only near-term consequences rather than including both near and long-term affects.

Indefinite incarceration of suspected terrorists and other enemies may prevent those individuals from perpetrating violence against others. Over an extended period, the costs of detention escalate. These costs include financial ones, the psychic violence inflicted on guards, the animosity that the injustice of no trials engenders among the detainees’ families and communities, and the recruiting incentive that this approach provides to terrorist organizations. As Israel learned to its chagrin, this indefinite detention is a self-defeating approach to the problem of terrorist violence.

Virtue ethical analysis emphasizes the kind of person that one wants to become, how he or she would act. Often, one obtains insights about virtuous action by looking at a moral exemplar. Did Mohammed ever indefinitely detain suspected enemies? Would Jesus treat a suspected terrorist in this fashion? Detention with no hope of justice creates a type of people – both those who establish and enforce the system and detainees – on whom I would not want to model my life.

The United States committed serious moral errors when it began sequestering suspected terrorists and other enemies in prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram, Afghanistan. (For my comments on torture, click here) Now the United States must identify the best option for moving ahead. That option should set reclaiming the moral high ground as the first priority. If the U.S. wishes to have any realistic hope for a peace without unending violence, protecting people from future harm must take a back seat to that priority, no matter how counter-intuitive that contention appears. Doing otherwise, as the Israelis sadly learned, is self-defeating, and further narrows the set of available options. The price that we pay for past mistakes is living in the immediate present with an increased level of threat. However, even as the injustice that we sowed yields renewed violence, so will sewing justice plant seeds that will one day blossom into greater levels of security and increased levels of justice for all. This is the paradoxical promise of the Abrahamic faiths.