Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Christopher Hitchens has a disturbing article in Vanity Fair recounting his experience being waterboarded by two former SERE instructors whose job was to help Navy SEALS learn how to resist the technique as long as possible (which is never long). The whole thing is worth reading. I'll copy a couple of passages:
This is because I had read that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, invariably referred to as the "mastermind" of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, had impressed his interrogators by holding out for upwards of two minutes before cracking. (By the way, this story is not confirmed. My North Carolina friends jeered at it. "Hell," said one, "from what I heard they only washed his damn face before he babbled.")
His conclusion:
I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.
Incidentally, it is well known that such torture techniques lead to a lot of false confessions and false information because the victim simply tells you anything they think you want to hear, whatever they think will stop the torture. Now think about all the times the government has raised the terror rating to pink (or whatever) over the last few years, claiming that they had "credible information" of an impending terror attack that never happened. Balko explains why:
Ron Suskind notes in his book The One Percent Doctrine that many of the false alarms we've had over impending terrorist attacks in recent years came from the use of these techniques against low-level al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah (he was basically the organization's travel agent), who told his interrogators whatever he thought they wanted to hear to stop them from torturing him. So we got all of those false warnings about pending terrorist attacks on "shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, and water systems."So this administration's stubborn, tunnel-visioned quest to expand presidential power has caused it to adopt inept interrogation methods, in part because what better way to show the Congress, the human rights groups, and the UN that they have no power to stop this White House than to adopt the most brutal techniques available? Who cares if they work! In the process, they've managed to elicit false information from terror suspects, leading to false panics and the waste of potentially billions of dollars in heightened security expenditures after those false alarms have gone out.
And if you dare to question this, you're obviously a terrorist-loving, America-hating traitor.
Politics
Comments
I read that article earlier when PZ posted it. I'm glad Hitchens repudiated the tired old "ticking time-bomb" argument, as that argument rarely applies to real life cases and is more of a thought experiment than a practical guide for ethical behavior. Sam Harris' use of the argument has irked me to no end. So it's nice to see the other pro-war "New Atheist" point out how absurd it is to apply that argument to real world situations.
Now if Hitchens would just come to his senses on the Iraq war...
Posted by: Wes | July 3, 2008 10:10 AM
I know the government has been saying waterboarding isn't torture, but have any smart people said it? This is a trick we learned from the Spanish Inquisition after all (and there are people who say we have nothing to gain from religious extremism).
Tortured prisoners will talk and they will say whatever it is they think will make the bad man stop. All of those confessed "witches" from Salem come to mind.
A DoJ official had himself boarded early on in the debate. I am told he wrote a compelling report against the use of waterboarding and was ignored.
Posted by: Preston | July 3, 2008 10:13 AM
The Vanity Fair article has a video where Hitchens gets water-boarded. It was weird to watch.
My first reaction was disappointed confusion. I love the episodes where John Criton is tormented in the Aurora Chair in Farscape at the end of season 1; it's terrifying to watch the moist and slow, painful degradation of the hero. Same goes with the Cardassian-induced torment of Jean-Luc Picard ("There.. are.. four lights!"). I kind-of expected the same sort of behavior.
The video is more subtle. There's no screams, whimpers, or sounds of any sort from Christopher. It's over almost before it begins. Three or so splashes of water, and he releases the dead-man's switch. No noise from the victim.
After giving the video a bit of thought, I think that I do find the whole technique far more terrifying, even if it isn't as dramatic to watch. Everyone now knows about water-boarding, and everyone who's paid the least bit of attention knows that the United States does it. I fear that our international representatives are more vulnerable to those techniques, because obviously the U.S. approves of such techniques, so there won't be much international outcry.
From the article, it seems that Chris was expecting a little bit of the same thing. Just a little will power, maybe a dash of defiance, and he could last a few minutes.
Heck, to Joe Blow, Chris just got his face wet and gave up, the pansy. Maybe Joe ought to use a little water to fix up his delinquent kid. Or maybe Joe is a kid and a bully, and thinks it might be funny to subject another kid to this.
Hollywood's products are meant to activate an emotional response as an observer. Torture is meant to activate severe distress in its victim. The video shows the horrible banality of evil.
/I hope I have a point in this ramble. Pfeh.
Posted by: Tenax | July 3, 2008 10:31 AM
And you also have to remember that there is no way for the "interrogator" to know whether the "subject" is telling the truth or not - so they will not stop unless you tell them what they expect. It is effectively impossible to gain any real new information through torture. It's just a nasty way of getting somebody else to confirm your existing suspicions. It's nothing more than a futile exercise in confirmation bias. (Well, it is also a means to completely destroy a human being, and a means to express and enjoy power, but I mean from an intelligence standpoint.)
Posted by: Dunc | July 3, 2008 10:32 AM
Despite my disagreements with a number of positions Mr. Hitchens holds, I have always respected his integrity and journalism. That he was willing to undergo this torment willingly so that he understood and could convey what he was talking about just raises my respect for him.
We need more voices like his in the public sphere. Even when I vehemently disagree with his points I have to admit that he's making real arguments and rational points instead of trying to yell his detractors off the stage.
As I said, my respect for the man has jumped a notch due to this article.
Posted by: kodiak | July 3, 2008 11:27 AM
After years of weaseling on the topic, the waterboarding of Hitchens has elicited the confession that waterboarding is torture after all. I am impressed that he went through with it, and wrote a fine article about it.
Posted by: llewelly | July 3, 2008 12:11 PM
Well, they could always use "lie detectors". Our government is proficient in using them, you know. They were also researching psychic abilities at one point, maybe they still are.
Surely we can trust our government when they're making sane decisions like these.
Posted by: jpf | July 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Well, of course waterboarding is torture, and of course Bush is torturing indiscriminately. And this should added to list of his war crimes.
Still, I have no compunctions about torture "done right".
IF, Zeus forbid, Al Queda has, say, a suitcase H-bomb planted in Manhattan, and IF we hold one of theirs in a position to know -- is there anyone here who would say we shouldn't torture the fellow until we get the information out of him?
Frankly, I would think that using psychoactive drug cocktails would be way to go, but if it came down to it, I would have no problems with tearing the fellow in half, so long as it is not done indiscriminately and only in an appropriately nightmarish situation.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 3, 2008 12:27 PM
While I understand what you're saying, Gingerbaker, and your use of *IFs*, I would take that thought experiment just one step further, and assume that along with the terrorists who are wiling to die planting that H-bomb suitcase, there are at least two or three terrorists who are willing to be tortured into giving false information when they are "captured" and interrogated.
The bad guys know we're going to torture them if we get them. Why wouldn't they have several teams dedicated to spreading bad intel upon torture? Why would we assume otherwise?
Torture is insanely stupid. Why we didn't learn this from Algeria and Indo-China, I'll never understand. The only reason, as Dunc points out, is "to express and enjoy power."
Posted by: Jonathan | July 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Ginger,
As I said above, the problem with those "ticking time bomb" scenarios is that they are extremely rare in real life. They certainly are not a response to any argument that we should prohibit torture, and that torture is immoral. There's nothing stopping us from saying that torture is wrong and should be illegal, but the extremely unlikely event of a "ticking time bomb" could be considered mitigating circumstances.
It's possible to dream up situations in which just about any immoral behavior might be excusable. You could dream up a scenario in which deliberately killing an innocent child is necessary, but such highly unlikely scenarios aren't a good response to someone who claims killing children is immoral. Such an imaginary scenario might be philosophically enlightening in that it forces us to confront gray areas or inconsistencies in our ethical outlook, but I don't think it's appropriate to bring up such scenarios when real life situations are what's being discussed.
Posted by: Wes | July 3, 2008 12:48 PM
I agree with everything you said, Wes, except the final bit.
Iraq and Gitmo, etc are real life and are a demonstration of the worst our country has to offer.
But we live in a post 9-11 world. And the impetus for our loss of civil liberties is the nature of our worst fears. And a suitcase bomb or a container ship filled with explosive is what keeps many good men awake and sweating at night.
So, I believe, the nightmare scenario is, unfortunately, all too real a part of life. I hope that it remains only imaginary, but I gather that many think it is just a matter of time.
I think it is important, therefore, that we do not exclude this scenario from our minds when we condemn the atrocities done in our name in Iraq, in CIA prisons,or allegedly to the 25,000 nameless souls on rendition ships on the open sea.
I suppose it doesn't really matter. The terrorist will still be tortured in the nightmare scenario regardless of whether our "official policy" is changed on torture.
So the hard part, after one accepts that under at least one scenario that we MUST use torture, is where to draw the line. How many lives must be in jeopardy to justify doing something immoral?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 3, 2008 1:20 PM
"...I would have no problems with tearing the fellow in half, so long as it is not done indiscriminately and only in an appropriately nightmarish situation."
The problem is this: Once you decide it's ok in any situation, the rest is just negotiation and semantics, not to mention the prejudice and paranoia of the tormentors (and their constituents).
This isn't an endorsement or opposition to torture or the war. Just the issue as I see it.
Posted by: bullet | July 3, 2008 1:20 PM
The article has actually made me respect Hitchens less, since in it there is no apology for the invective he's hurled over the past several years at people who have been condemning waterboarding as torture, with Amnesty International heading the list. He's been rather fond of the euphemisms "rough interrogation" and "extreme interrogation" up until now. That Hitchens had to undergo the procedure to decide that it really is torture demonstrates a near-total lack of empathy.
By the way, has he ever backtracked from his insistence that Mohammed Atta met with a high Iraqi intelligence official in Prague?
Posted by: Pieter B | July 3, 2008 1:29 PM
A person should be judged morally not by how others treat him, but by how he treats others. By sanctioning torture, our nation under Bush has given up any claim to the moral high ground.
Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 3, 2008 1:30 PM
In thinking about this question, I keep going back to the actual 9/11 attacks. I cannot conceive of a moment when torture would have helped. Once the planes were in the air, which would be the "ticking time bomb" scenario in this case, it would have been too late. In fact, we know the pilots of the last hijacked plane, United 93, were informed of the WTC attacks, and to be wary of cockpit intrusion, and they did not believe the message. The captain asked for confirmation and the hijacking happened before he could get a response.
That is the nature of these types of attacks - surprise is key. The attackers deliberately, in the case of 9/11 at least, used a method that was not predicted or presaged. There would have been almost no way for any government agency to realize there was an imminent attack if they simply captured one of the hijackers. In fact, some people believe the 20th hijacker, who would have been on United 93, was in custody at the time of the attacks, and authorities never realized his importance (although his involvement in the actual attacks is open to question). Which is why, I believe, we have not seen this type of attack attempted again - any planeload of passengers, never mind the crew, would be very aware of the potential disaster and would not respond as the passengers and crews on 9/11 did (or, more accurately perhaps, they would respond as the United 93 passengers and crew did when they realized the truth).
Meanwhile, the information that intelligence agencies did have about odd behavior (specifically at flight schools) was not pieced together, but if it had been, it would have been in plenty of time for traditional law enforcement techniques to have uncovered the plot without resorting to torture.
IMHO, the "ticking bomb" scenarios are so rare as to make preparation impossible. I really believe they have been used by the administration to justify torture whenever they feel like it (i.e., if it is justified to torture when an imminent threat is known, why shouldn't we just always torture, because we never know when we will uncover just such an imminent threat through the torture itself). If we are to be a just society, we must recognize that respecting the human rights of all, even those determined to destroy us, may require us to lose the relatively rare opportunties to "effectively" torture in order to stay committed to our core values. Isn't the question "how many lives are acceptable to sacrifice for the ideals of our country?"
This entire discussion reminds me a bit, sort of in reverse, of the decision the British authorities had to make during WWII. Through the allies breaking of the German code, the British learned of an imminent raid on Coventry that would be sure to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. But if they attempted to evacuate the city, the Germans would learn we'd broken their Enigma code. For the good of the rest of the Allied populations, the British sacrificed Coventry. Whether that was a good discussion has, I am sure, occupied myriad debate teams ever since.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 3, 2008 1:50 PM
Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." - Herod the Freemason
Patrick Henry, the well-known and respected slaveowner and hypocrite, you mean?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 3, 2008 1:59 PM
but since it's universally recognized torture yields suspect confessions, does that paradoxically mean hitch's admission that waterboarding is torture is invalid?
Posted by: khefera | July 3, 2008 2:24 PM
"IMHO, the "ticking bomb" scenarios are so rare as to make preparation impossible."
It's even worse than that: as a conjecture of specific events such scenarios are virtually impossible. In every variant of the hypothetical, you know that there is a bomb planted in big city X, you know it's set to go off in X amount of time, and you know the suspect(s) you have in custody know where the bomb is. The probability that you'd be missing only one piece of information (where the bomb is) in that whole mess is vanishingly small. In reality, you likely either wouldn't know if the bomb threat was a dud, whether the suspect actually knows where the bomb is or is even affiliated with the group, or some combination, which is a much messier situation and obviously renders any argument for torture moot.
And for heaven's sake, how would torture help in such a scenario anyway? All the guy has to do is give false information to stall and make sure the bomb goes off. People who use such an obviously false hypothetical as an argument are either extremely gullible or desperate to justify the use of torture anyway.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 3, 2008 2:49 PM
Torture must remain a crime, with a serious penalty. If the situation ever becomes dire enough (as with the ticking time bomb scenario) that torture appears necessary, then it should be necessary enough to willingly incur that penalty. If you torture someone, you go to prison. But if you were right in what you did, you go to prison a hero. If you're not willing to pay the penalty for torture, then you don't get to torture. That should be the deal.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Tyler said:
"And for heaven's sake, how would torture help in such a scenario anyway? All the guy has to do is give false information to stall and make sure the bomb goes off. People who use such an obviously false hypothetical as an argument are either extremely gullible or desperate to justify the use of torture anyway."
Well, I don't think I am particularly gullible, and I am not desperate to use torture. I want to reserve its use as well as to draw a bright line where it must be proscribed.
Besides, if the doomsday scenario is nearly completely unlikely, then so would be the use of torture. No blood, no foul.
On 9/12 I actually made a joke about investing in sodium pentathol futures but Bush likes other methods, I guess.
And you! I'm never sending you off to a dark room to torture someone with that attitude of yours. Letting him stall. Indeed! :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 3, 2008 3:20 PM
CFPT Doom said:
"The attackers deliberately, in the case of 9/11 at least, used a method that was not predicted or presaged...
Meanwhile, the information that intelligence agencies did have about odd behavior (specifically at flight schools) was not pieced together.
Forgive me, CPT Doom, I don't want to hijack the thread any more than I have perhaps already, and I agree with your arguments in your post, but the two above statements of yours are contrary to the facts.
This site may be the best in the world if anyone is interested in the subject of 9/11: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 3, 2008 3:33 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 3, 2008 3:42 PM
CPT_Doom and Tyler DiPietro--an excellent pair of posts explaining why the doomsday scenario is a false justification for torture. Well done.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 3, 2008 3:45 PM
JH:
"CPT_Doom and Tyler DiPietro--an excellent pair of posts explaining why the doomsday scenario is a false justification for torture. Well done."
Horsefeathers.
None of us has access to any real facts about this sort of thing. And trying to dismiss the predominate doomsday scenario of our age using of arguments of personal incredulity is wishful thinking at at worst.
Do you really think that a terrorist plot involving a weapon of mass destruction is so far fetched that our government should not plan for it? Or that using torture in that one, particular scenario would not be worth the effort?
To paraphrase mroberts, that's thickheaded.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 3, 2008 5:40 PM
"Well, I don't think I am particularly gullible"
Well, if you think this is compelling logic:
"Besides, if the doomsday scenario is nearly completely unlikely, then so would be the use of torture. No blood, no foul."
...then I must say that you are severely mistaken. The obvious other possibility is that we are using torture outside of the doomsday scenario and using the latter as an excuse.
"Do you really think that a terrorist plot involving a weapon of mass destruction is so far fetched that our government should not plan for it? Or that using torture in that one, particular scenario would not be worth the effort?"
No and no, respectively. I said that using that particular, virtually if not entirely impossible scenario as a justification for a general policy is stupid.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 3, 2008 7:12 PM
Sorry, hit post before I finished.
"None of us has access to any real facts about this sort of thing."
When is the last time such a scenario has occurred in the history of the entire world?
That's what I thought.
"And trying to dismiss the predominate doomsday scenario of our age using of arguments of personal incredulity is wishful thinking at at worst."
I used very specific reasoning about why such a scenario was virtually if not entirely impossible. You, on the other hand, are simply resorting to an argument from ignorance.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 3, 2008 7:15 PM
To reiterate Gretchen's point, would the illegality of torture prevent you from using such methods in the scenarios you envision? If I were confident breaking that law would save many lives, I know I'd unhesitatingly do so, and gladly face the consequences afterward. To hold back because I feared prison would be cowardly; if successful, such action would likely result in a pardon anyway.
Thus even your far-fetched scenario provides no compelling justification for legalization of torture.
Posted by: Davis | July 3, 2008 7:30 PM
Thanks Gretchen, that's always the way I've thought about it. Laws don't change the physics of the universe, people still speed and kill each other and embezzel money. Thinking of some obscure, unlikely reason that something could be justified is no reason to make it legal.
If you had the opportunity to kill Hitler as a child, would you? Do you think killing children should be legal?
If you could prevent a bomb from going off by torturing someone, would you do it? Do you really think torture needs to be legal?
Posted by: Drekab | July 3, 2008 8:05 PM
"Do you really think that a terrorist plot involving a weapon of mass destruction is so far fetched that our government should not plan for it?"
Problem is, there's absolutely no way to codify that scenario into law in a meaningful way without allowing for eventual abuses- because, while it may be valid, it will also be exceedingly rare and unpredictable in its circumstances.
It's comparable to creating laws against forcing women out of their clothing against their will- sure, you can always raise hypotheticals like "what if she doesn't know her clothes are soaked in kerosene and she's dancing in a field of sparklers?" And of course, in that _paticular_ situation, the answer is, yes, forcibly ripping off the offending garments should be acceptable. And there may be any number of other extremes where it should be allowed, as well.
But if you try and encompass that idea into law, the closest you're going to come is something like "unless the clothing in question imperils the woman in question." Which allows for a wide interpretation just asking for abuse.
Gretchen has the right of it here- in such extreme circumstances, we should be able to count on individual judgment to over-ride the simple strictures of law, regardless of consequences. Or, to use Drekab's example: killing Hitler is always right, regardless of the penalty- but that in no way should allow for a "except for really, really bad guys" exemption to the murder laws of any state. Because there is no way to reasonably construct such an exemption.
Although, I also have to admit- I find these kind of discussions a bit idealistic/naive, depending on the people involved- the idea that the law serves to do anything more than limit or reign in the incidents of excessive behavior on the part of government seems a bit pollyannaish. Any one who can look at Tuskegee, Iran-contra, or Gitmo and can, with a straight face claim that any random piece of legal guidance is somehow going to be a straight jacket in a situation where Jack Bower is counting down the clock is just fooling themselves.
Posted by: uriel | July 4, 2008 3:12 AM
The point is that since you don't know where the bomb is, you can't tell whether the victim is giving you false information. And since real terrorists are unlikely to use the Incredibly Obvious Bomb, you can waste a heck of a lot of time looking for one in the wrong place. By the time you realise you've been led up the garden path, it's too late.
Besides, the current crop of terrorists don't seem too keen on using time bombs anyway. They're great for extortion plots in Hollywood movies ("I demand ONE MILLION DOLLARS!"), not so good for actual terrorism.
Posted by: Dunc | July 4, 2008 5:02 AM
CPT_Doom:
That's a myth, I'm afraid. The British did have intelligence warnings of a large-scale air raid somewhere in the Midlands (Operation Moonlight Sonata), but no clear indication of precisely where it would be (the intercepted Enigma message listed several possible targets) until it was too late. No sacrifice involved - just the fog of war.
E.g., see: http://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/blitz/defend-cov.php
and: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 4, 2008 12:16 PM
"Gretchen has the right of it here- in such extreme circumstances, we should be able to count on individual judgment to over-ride the simple strictures of law, regardless of consequences."
But making laws that we hope to someday break makes no sense either.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 4, 2008 12:19 PM
"When is the last time such a scenario has occurred in the history of the entire world?"
You don't know, and I don't know. Do we?
We do at least know that there have been terror plots foiled, at least during the Clinton administration. But they have not released all details about the exact methods of information retrieval yet have they? Or do you have a source that no one else has, perhaps?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 4, 2008 12:23 PM
Tyler said:
"I said that using that particular, virtually if not entirely impossible scenario as a justification for a general policy is stupid."
First of all, I do not agree that the doomsday scenario is "virtually impossible". The prisoner need not know where the bomb is. He merely needs to share information that will lead to the discovery of the device.
Secondly, I have not argued for a general policy. I have argued for a restricted policy that allows torture. I can not see how anyone of good conscience would not allow for all measures to be taken to save life on a massive scale...
And now for Devil's Advocate. If we are going to be a country that wages war, and we can accept that, then to disallow torture seems hypocritical.
Ethically speaking, what happens during warfare seems to me to be infinitely worse than torture.
In war, innocent people, bystanders, children are harmed. And their injuries - besides death - can be more devastating than what can be accomplished in a torture chamber. The effects of war injuries frequently cause physical depredation and pain for the rest of the victim's life.
In contrast, torture at least tries to discriminate innocent from guilty, injures and kills far fewer numbers of victims, and generally causes pain and injury of a temporary nature.
I am confident that people here do not support the Iraq "war". I'll bet that most here will be brave enough to courageously stand up and proudly express their conviction that they are against all wars of aggression.
But, I wonder how many people here feel so squeamish about torture they would ban it in any configuration, but who still feel that that the US should maintain a military?
(And just so you know, I would like the US to completely disband our military forces.)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 4, 2008 12:46 PM
"But making laws that we hope to someday break makes no sense either."
No, you're right, it doesn't.
But in this case, clearly, we would all hope that breaking any such law never comes up at all- That's the ideal. Any one who is eagerly looking forward to a ticking bomb scenario is at best a bit defective.
Absent that, the ultimate question is one of basic priorities: Should the law provide easy exemptions for any and every situation, regardless of how amenable such definitions are to abuse? Or do we provide clear guidelines, in the hopes that, in the case of unexpected extremes, self correcting mechanisms like judicial restraint and jury independence will correct for the the inevitable grey areas?
Personally, I prefer the latter...
But, that aside- even if the equation boiled down to one of one's legal responsibilities vs. the lives of thousands, I would hope that any reasonable actor would acknowledge that, whatever the penalties, saving thousands is worth any penalty one would have to endure.
So, codified exemptions allowing torture should be beside the point. If it somehow boiled down to kneecapping someone and spending prison time for it vs. saving a major metropolitan area- I would hope any rational actor would choose the former. As unlikely as that is.
Posted by: uriel | July 5, 2008 4:17 AM
By the by- I apologize for being redundant with some of my phrasing there... It's late here. ;)
Posted by: uriel | July 5, 2008 4:21 AM
I too call bullshit on the doomsday scenario. Torture is clearly wrong and evil. I think Hitch showed guts in taking this dare, even though I fear he is using it to justify his impending turnaround on Iraq. I'm sure i'm not the only one who admitted their poor judgment on the Iraq war soon after it became clear no WMD were going to be found. After 3 years of flogging this dead horse did it really need a waterboarding for Hitch to admit he was wrong as well.
Posted by: jo5ef | July 5, 2008 8:50 AM
Jo5ef:
I too call bullshit on the doomsday scenario
"Torture is clearly wrong and evil.
"I'm sure i'm not the only one who admitted their poor judgment on the Iraq war soon after it became clear no WMD were going to be found.
Bingo! We have a winner.
Jo5ef agrees with the mob that the doomsday scenario is false, although he along witheverybody here has not a shred of evidence to support such a dangerous concept.
And he universally castigates torture, but evidently still feels justified in using a military force, with all its attendant goriness, to wage wars.
The perfect storm.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 5, 2008 9:38 AM
uriel said:
"Or do we provide clear guidelines, in the hopes that, in the case of unexpected extremes, self correcting mechanisms like judicial restraint and jury independence will correct for the the inevitable grey areas?"
I think we should make laws that do what we want them to do, and which would draw bright lines between what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
I think that devising a good law would be better than one which basically says, "No torture, period*" where * = Nod, nod, wink, wink jury restraint expected here.
But either of these approaches is preferable to what the Bush administration has been /is doing. Which is to indiscriminately use torture on anybody, and then lie about it, and then secretly redefine the word "torture", and then lie about that. Etc, etc.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 5, 2008 10:05 AM
You do realize that the burden of proof lies with you, if you're claiming it's plausible?
Posted by: Davis | July 5, 2008 1:57 PM
I have no problem, in the event of a geniune doomsday scenario, authorizing exceptional actions to prevent the doomsday scenario given that those actions are actually useful. Every independent interrogation expert who has come forward (and several not independent ones) has clearly and repeatedly said that torture does not generate reliable information. In a time-limited doomsday scenario, getting false information is not just inconvenient, but disasterous, as you do not have time to come back and reinterrogate the subject. So, ticking time bomb scenarios are actually great arguments AGAINST torture, because all you're likely to get is wrong information, and wrong information in that case is actually WORSE than no information.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 7, 2008 1:52 PM
It's clear that you know little of the history or consequences of torture. Torture usually (not just often, but usually) does not make efforts to discriminate innocent from guilty. By the time sufficient evidence exists to declare someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there is usually little need for torture. I cannot think of a single regime off the top of my head that only tortured people who had been offered anything close to what we would consider due process. Torture injures or kills a significantly higher percentage of its victims (~100%) than war. Using raw numbers for this kind of comparison is highly misleading; by your logic, I could claim water is more toxic than VX gas, because many, many more people have died from water intoxication. Finally, while the physical injuries from carefully-performed torture may be temporary, the psychological injuries are usually long-lasting or permanent, and are real injuries that take real tolls.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 7, 2008 2:14 PM