Book Review: Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House

• Published date: 01 June 2012
• Author: Pamala L. Griset
• Date: 01 June 2012
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016811422185
• Subject Matter: Book Reviews

J. Waldron

Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. 1,

357 pp. $37.50. ISBN 978-0-19-958504-5

Reviewed by: Pamala L. Griset, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

DOI: 10.1177/0734016811422185

Jeremy Waldron’s 2010 anthology, Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White

House, published by Oxford University Press, is a fascinating and detailed account of the morally

repulsive act of torture.

Waldron holds the post of University Professor at the New York University School of Law. He is

well known for his writings on legal and political philosophy, and in recent years he has applied those

principlesto the study of terrorism. Thisvolume collects six of his previouslypublished essays andtwo

previously unpublished essays.This compilation of new and previously publishedworks is highly rec-

ommended for serious students of the issues surrounding terrorism, torture, and public policy.

The underlying theme of the collect ion is that ‘‘torture was and rema ins a moral as well as a

legal abomination’’ (p. 4). Torture metastasizes beyond the actual event of the torture itself, and

it infects all parts of the body politic. Powers that had previously been withheld from government

have now been fearfully assigned to it. People become even more deferential to their leaders when

they are afraid, and a terrorist event is a perfect opportunity for the rulers to increase their power

over the ruled. As the power of the state increases, so, too, do the means of oppression.

It is common to hear about the trade-offs between individual liberty and public safety, and it is no

secret that reducing liberty provides a fertile environment for increasing government power. Profes-

sor Waldron believes that all the talk about balancing individual rights and security is based on trea-

cherous logic. Waldron convincingly argues that we do know enough about the probability of

reducing risk to justify decreasing civil liberties. We should not reduce liberties unless we have real

predictions of effectiveness.

Waldron advocates that all laws relating to security be undergirded by moral, legal, and consti-

tutional principles. All the talk about balancing, he says, is just cover for justifying the diminution of

personal freedom. If civil liberties are human rights, they should trump other considerations.

The belief that an increase in government power equates to more protection for its citizens is fanciful

and magical thinking, Waldron asserts.

The laws relating to torture did not change after September 11. Torture has long been prohibited

by international law (including treaties that the United States signed and ratified) and by domestic

legislation. These laws continue to prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Waldron condemns former President George W. Bush’s attempts to disguise various forms of

torture as mere interrogation methods. For example, the near-drowning technique of waterboarding

was condoned by the President and labeled as something short of torture. Other brutal and humiliat-

ing techniques were used repeatedly on detainees. Basic humanity and human decency were given

short-shift in the Bush administration’s ‘‘war on terrorism,’’ Waldron says.

Waldron makes a powerful point about the differences between inter- and intracivil liberties.

He uses the metaphor of airplane travel to explain intrapersonal losses of civil liberties: most people

accept a loss of privacy at airports for a hope of greater protection on their flights. Interpersonal

losses of civil liberties, however, occur when only certain people lose their liberties in the hopes that

it will make the rest of us feel safe. A good example of interpersonal loss of rights happened shortly

after September 11 when many men of Arab descent were detained without probable cause. When

security gains for the majority are balanced against the loss of liberty for a few, more attention needs

to be paid to the balance between the few and the many, not just security versus liberty.

Book Reviews 269