Is This Waterboarding Session Worth It? A Hypothetical
Allah writes:
Watch the Brian Ross video and listen to him patiently explain how information coerced from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed proved to be quite reliable indeed. And ended up saving god knows how many Californians’ (blue state!) lives.
They want us to debate honestly on this. Fine. I’m willing to, if it’s a genuinely honest debate. The first step of which is for us to concede we don’t want innocent people or even not-so-innocent people who are guilty of ordinary crimes to be mistreated, and for them to concede that in some instances these tactics are important and effective. If we start from the position that no one should be tortured even if we credibly believe it will prevent airplanes from being flown into skyscrapers, then we are at what is known as an unbridgeable impasse.
I’ll readily concede that I don’t want anyone to be “mistreated.” I think that word covers different things for people with higher-value information who refuse to give it up, as the KSM example demonstrates.
I have hinted at this before in posts with many other issues. But now I’d like to throw it out there without any other distractions.
Let’s assume the following hypothetical facts are true. U.S. officials have KSM in custody. They know he planned 9/11 and therefore have a solid basis to believe he has other deadly plots in the works. They try various noncoercive techniques to learn the details of those plots. Nothing works.
They then waterboard him for two and one half minutes.
During this session KSM feels panicky and unable to breathe. Even though he can breathe, he has the sensation that he is drowning. So he gives up information — reliable information — that stops a plot involving people flying planes into buildings.
My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?
While this is not being done for retribution, it may provide some perspective to note that, in the hypothetical, the plot stopped by obtaining the information is much like 9/11. And in the real 9/11, real people in the Twin Towers who were confronted with fires and smoke had the sensation they couldn’t breathe, but that’s because they actually couldn’t — and it lasted more than two minutes. Then they were crushed by the collapsed building, and taken away from their families, due to the actions of this man. If we don’t get the information, similar things would happen again, perhaps to hundreds or thousands of people.
So: is such a waterboarding session worth it?
What if you waterboard a person and get no useful info? Is it still worth it? Yes. It can be the only way to find out. And you are not doing any permanent damage to him.
Comment by Bill Millan — 9/29/2006 @ 7:08 am
Bill M:
Proving that someone does not have information is important as well. You have scarce resources (time, interrogators), and if someone is a dead-end, you don’t want to waste those resources on them.
The key point, however, Bill and Patterico, is that it is rare that your sole source of information is derived from torture/mistreatment. Thus, in the posited case of KSM, you already knew that he had done other things and that he was not just a grunt, but a planner.
That’s an incredibly important factor to consider in the debate, and is rarely mentioned. We are not interested in a confession. We are interested in corroborating other information, or deepening what we know.
It’s a vital difference, and why making sure that information derived from torture/mistreatment is not used for criminal purposes applies. The purpose is not to torture/mistreat for mistreatment’s sake. We leave that to the radical practitioners of Islam, who saw people’s heads off b/c they can.
The point is, we have information about people, places and things—but we don’t have enough. And the person in question (KSM in this case) may be reasonably adduced to have additional information. They are not ODCs (ordinary, decent criminals), they are illegal combatants, with the aim of causing massive harm to lots of people. How do we access that additional information? What are we prepared to do to gain that access?
And it comes back to the implications of Bill M’s question: we have limited resources. We have limited time, we have limited numbers of interrogators, we have limited numbers of lives we are prepared to sacrifice to keep our consciences clean. I wonder how many folks in the WTC on 9-11 would have said that they’d prefer NOT torturing a Mohammed Atta, never mind water-boarding him, on 9-10?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 9/29/2006 @ 7:25 am
You have to begin by asking yourself what KSM would likely do to you if you were his captive and he thought you had useful information. Moral self-righteousness and “we’re better than them” be damned. You do what you need to do or you will lose. This is not rocket science.
Comment by MikeD — 9/29/2006 @ 7:40 am
[...] Cutting right through the moral preening, Patterico gets right to the bottom line: when is it OK with you to use “extreme” measures to prevent terrorist events? Let’s assume the following hypothetical facts are true. U.S. officials have KSM in custody. They know he planned 9/11 and therefore have a solid basis to believe he has other deadly plots in the works. They try various noncoercive techniques to learn the details of those plots. Nothing works. [...]
Pingback by Plus + Ultra » Blog Archive » Patterico’s Hypothetical; ‘When Would Waterboarding Be OK With You’? — 9/29/2006 @ 7:46 am
It is the right thing to do, in this case. btw, been noticing that the lefty argument ‘torture does not work’ came and went in a couple of weeks. Of course it works. It only stops working when there is no more information to be had.
Interrogation is a tough business and I’m grateful to the pros who are in the arena, and embarrassed for the moral poseurs who only second-guess.
Comment by TimesHater — 9/29/2006 @ 8:02 am
Whether you choose to draw the line at waterboarding or elsewhere, we need to have a list (maybe a secret list) of things that are “torture” and things that are not “torture.” Most of the discussions that I’ve read gloss over the fact that there are a lot of shades of gray in the list of coercive measures. Another point is, how will you know when you have got to the real story? There will always be the temptation to squeeze a little harder ’cause we’re not quite sure we have the real story yet.
According to MacGruder’s Law, the longer conflicts last, the more savage they become. No more Mr. Nice Guy, the gloves come off. Ours has lasted five years.
Comment by dchamil — 9/29/2006 @ 8:14 am
In his article, AP writes:
(my emphasis)
It’s the “credibly” that is troublesome for me. Who is the judge of that credibility? What line is drawn? How much has to be on the line before we start “torturing” people? One life? Ten?
Once we try to start defining these parameters, we begin a walk down a slippery slope. And, if defined, are these new rules of engagement ones that we are willing to subject our soldiers to? Are we ready to subject them to “torture” as well?
Comment by greg — 9/29/2006 @ 8:23 am
Sorry, it’s “Magruder’s Law.”
Comment by dchamil — 9/29/2006 @ 8:25 am
Yes, it is worth it.
But please allow me to be Devil’s Advocate (not assistant devil’s advocate).
Do you think that the person who did the waterboarding is a “freak”? A person who, for whatever reason, is comfortable inflicting pain and terror on another human being? Would you like a waterboarder as your next door neighbor? We are beings of sensibility as well of sense. It’s one thing to fight an armed enemy man to man and another to abuse a helpless prisoner.
What’s wrong with just killing them as we find them on the old military priority: a) perceived level of threat b); value of target c); opportunity?
Comment by nk — 9/29/2006 @ 8:36 am
Greg, the slippery slope is exaggerated. And to the extent it’s a valid argument, so is this: when people we implicitly trust to do a job, such as protect our security within our laws, are subjected to restraints which unreasonably limit the actions they may take in doing the job, the restraints will be ignored. If we want to live under the rule of law, then the laws must be those we can live with. If waterboarding would prevent our enemies from killing thousands of our citizens, and we decline to waterboard because the handwringers lack the courage to make a hard decision, and the attack comes, killing thousands, would we take pride in the fact that we we listended to the handwringers and didn’t use waterboarding?
And our treatment of detainees in our custody isn’t what protects Americans from ill-treatment at the hands of others. That protection comes from the big stick we carry, not our promise to be nice guys. The idea that adopting the new rules will subject Americans to torture or abuse is a lie.
Comment by TNugent — 9/29/2006 @ 8:40 am
nk has identified the best reason to decline to use torture.
And no, I would not think of the person who did the waterboarding as a freak. I would thank him for performing a difficult and unpleasant but necessary service. Not much different than the police sniper who shoots the hostage-taking criminal before he kills the hostage.
Comment by TNugent — 9/29/2006 @ 8:43 am
I agree with Pat that bright-line rules are bad. I’m not sure the issue isn’t quite complicated though.
1. Torturing people for good reasons can lead down a slippery slope. The end of that road is living under Saddam Hussein.
2. The people inflicting the torture likely suffer some psychological harm.
3. The use of torture against innocents is very bad.
My views on the KSM thing are that *of course* this was a charming and effective idea. I’d go further: Suppose you have a kidnapper who took a child somewhere and dumped the child’s live self in some sort of dungeon, where the child would eventually die. If you had certainty that you had the right guy for it, and that the child was alive and would become dead, I would endorse *any* means necessary to get the information.
(Law enforcement can’t do that for what may well be good reasons, but I nonetheless believe it is entirely ethical to start snapping off toes and threatening to move up.)
It’s a question of pain vs. gain, sure. But the pain suffered through torture is indeed broad-based and can come back; we shouldn’t discount those arguments entirely. That doesn’t mean torture is never indicated; it just means we need to be damn careful and thoughtful about its use.
Since we don’t know exactly what’s going on, it’s hard to know what to think. I’m certain, though, that at least some of those things categorized as torture are appropriate and effective. I’m nonetheless concerned about the program in its entirety.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 9/29/2006 @ 8:51 am
Greg: Name me one U.S. soldier held by the enemy that was provided even the basic benefits of the Geneva Convention. Provide me one name that was not tortured far beyond anything a U.S. soldier would consider inflicting on anyone. I doubt that waterboarding is really torture since it is not designed to harm anyone phycially. It and far worse would not be used on our soldiers in training if it was torture.
The average U.S. soldier is more likely to share his rations with a captured enemy than he is to torture him. That is a fact.
Personnaly I think we should follow the Geneva Convention. Anyone captured on the battle field, engaged in combat, without a uniform should be shot on the spot, no exceptions. That would lead to no prisoners at Gitmo.
Comment by Scrapiorn — 9/29/2006 @ 8:56 am
WHy don’t we do what Oliver Stone recommends…
Yea, that’s the ticket - Terrorism is manageable and can be lived with…that’s until someone in Mr. Stone’s family becomes a victim of it…Terrorists should not be treated in the same fashion as POW’s - the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to them because of the unconventional way they wage war. If someone can get get info out of them via waterboarding or some other “unconventional” method, then do it. Look at what they do to their “prisoners”…
Comment by fmfnavydoc — 9/29/2006 @ 9:13 am
Patterico asked, “So: is such a waterboarding session worth it?”
The answer is obviously: Yes in a New York second. And, if you can’t see that, your head is in a warm dark place.
Comment by Black Jack — 9/29/2006 @ 9:17 am
Dude, your side already won. Give it up. You’re not going to convince us that you’re not torturers, and we’re not going to convince you that human decency is relevant.
[Shorter Kimmitt: I will not answer the question posed by the post. -- P]
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 9:22 am
Kimmitt:
I think it’s more along the lines that you’re not going to convince us that you, Kimmitt, are relevant.
To anything.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 9/29/2006 @ 9:24 am
A major component of my objections to torture is that I suspect it’s lazy intelligence work. They’d rather torture the supposed “suspect” they have in costody than actually do legwork figuring out how to find independently verifiable information.
The fact that nobody’s caught bin laden, and yet millions upon millions of dollars have been spent capturing, interrogating and releasing (or indefinitly holding) these “suspects” tells me that if we give them the go-ahead to torture, torture is ALL THEY’LL DO.
See this article, for example, where the U.S. is paying $5,000 a head for anyone the Pakistan Police claim is a “terror suspect,” holding them and torturing them for months, and then dropping them off at bus stops without apology or aid once their methods have proved fruitless (or, worse, making them “disappear” forever in some cases.)
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-29T092850Z_01_L28760021_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-PAKISTAN.xml&src=092906_0620_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters
Rather than put themselves at risk doing actual intelligence operations, they’ll just start detaining and torturing anyone who might have the slightest connection to terrorism.
Considering the amount of resources being spent on torture and detainment of “suspects” now, without formal authorization of such tactics, am concerned that once they’re given authority, the CIA will start making people disappear into torture chambers one of the primary pillars of their operation.
Comment by Phil — 9/29/2006 @ 9:37 am
As a side note, I think there are a lot of interesting parallels between jury nullification and torture. As to both, there are always good arguments for certain factual situations when such acts are morally justifiable, but huge problems with giving such acts legal legitimacy.
Comment by Phil — 9/29/2006 @ 9:41 am
Kimmitt, knock it off. Are you really a “kementze”, the veil Turkish women wear? Kimmitt/kementze, an unimaginative (girly) enemy provocateur’s alliteration?
Comment by nk — 9/29/2006 @ 9:43 am
Yes, it was worth it.
Comment by Christoph — 9/29/2006 @ 9:50 am
One can easily predict how P’s question will be answered… you simply have to know whether someone thinks American lives are precious enough to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others.
For those who aren’t so enamored with saving the lives of their fellow Americans, whether it be our troops in Iraq or Americans here at home, waterboarding and other forms of ‘coercive interrogation’ are off limits. Although they’ll never admit it, people on this side would rather have Americans die than be thought of - by Europeans, their fellow liberals, and the likes of Kofi Annan - as insufficiently sensitive to the ‘human dignity’ of those we are fighting. For them, it’s more important to occupy the ‘moral high ground’ than it is to do what is necessary to keep as many Americans alive and safe from terrorist attack as is possible.
For those, like me, who feel that there’s not too much that should be taken off the table, we’re okay with waterboarding the likes of KSM. Heck, if our guys have a good reason for thinking that a captive has ‘ticking bomb’ information, I wouldn’t have them stop at waterboarding.
After all, I’d never want to have to face the loved ones of someone killed by terrorists knowing there was something we could have done… and just failed to do it.
And the Democrats wonder why their position of “I’m sorry Mr. Jones for your loss, we could have stopped it, but, you know, we have to occupy the moral high ground” isn’t a winner with the American people?
Comment by steve sturm — 9/29/2006 @ 10:07 am
Dude, your side already won. Give it up. You’re not going to convince us that you’re not torturers, and we’re not going to convince you that human decency is relevant.
We’re not “torturers” nor advocating torture.
See, you have to redefine the word to make your “point.”
Don’t you find that the least bit troubling in regards to your political beliefs?
Comment by The Ace — 9/29/2006 @ 10:12 am
No question, it was worth it.
To those that complain that we may become like the enemy–
If we tried for a thousand years, we could not become as hateful and degenerate as the Islamic Fascists are today.
(hat tip to Jerry Pournelle’s “Go Tell the Spartans”)
Comment by +Lord Whorfin — 9/29/2006 @ 10:20 am
I personally would like to be waterboarded to see what the deal is. It only lasts a few minutes and it, supposedly, does no lasting harm. How much worse can it be than that walk to the field after school where you know you’re going to get your butt kicked and then getting your butt kicked?
It makes it so much better to know what you’re debating.
I’m a little surprised that whoever waterboards hasn’t offered to have somebody “Live-blog” being waterboarded.
I can think of at least two or three bloggers who I’d bet would do it and I know Bill O’Reilly would do it, as long as he gets sole rights to broadcast it. Heck, right before he went under he’d be hawking “I watched O’Reilly get waterboarded” T-shirts, mugs and mouse-pads.
I gotta partially disagree with you Ace, we are “torturers”, we’re just not torturers. You’re right that we don’t advocate torture, but we do advocate “torture”.
At least I do.
Comment by Veeshir — 9/29/2006 @ 10:28 am
Kimmitt: “You’re not going to convince us that you’re not torturers, and we’re not going to convince you that human decency is relevant.”
First, you already believe that Bush, Republicans, et al, are scum of the earth, evil, etc., so you ‘believing’ we’re ‘torturers’ tells us only adds another adjective to your ever-growing list why the other side are bad people and you are not. Yawn.
The most fundamental human decency in this matter is to ensure the survival of our fellow citizens, women, men, and children. Human decency is indeed very relevant - those with whom you disagree are at least decent enough to do the hard things, make the hard decisions, required to best stave off the next 9/11. You on the other hand epitomize indecency by saving your greatest criticism for those who are at least trying to stop our enemy and by having no plan save for criticism of those who do.
We are facing an enemy that in 2002 told us clearly what they are going to do unless we stop them. They claimed the ‘right’ to kill “4 million Americans, 2 million of them children”, and to maim hundreds of thousands more. They did not provide the option of negotiation or dialogue.
Reasonable people understand that our enemy will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They are relentless, dedicated, and excruciatingly patient - we are not. Additionally, the focus taken by you and your ilk in this matter make it clear that our enemy is far more dedicated and serious about killing us than you seem to be about stopping them.
Comment by Dr. Deano — 9/29/2006 @ 10:36 am
Dude, your side already won. Give it up. You’re not going to convince us that you’re not torturers, and we’re not going to convince you that human decency is relevant.
Why don’t you answer the hypothetical question, including the part about preventing a 9/11?
Your comment is a form of begging the question, i.e., assuming the truth of waterboarding being always wrong without actually addressing the issue directly, which is typical of how your type argues.
Comment by Gerald A — 9/29/2006 @ 11:07 am
Waterboarding is so old…and it lasts for only a few minutes. I feel, while we’re talking hypotheticals, that WAKEBOARDING would be much more effective. Think about this whole torture thing…wakeboarding is way cool (easily acceptable under the Geneva Conv.) and too much fun! We give KSM a few beers let him catch a few Southern California rays then spend a few HOURS wakeboarding….well he’ll want more of that action!
Then we hold all the barganing chips….”No more wakeboarding little sheikie until you give us some good info”. How could he refuse? Plus, and this will placate our liberal friends, little shiekie will see the bright side of our degenerate western culture.
I just love hypotheticals.
Comment by Larry — 9/29/2006 @ 11:10 am
Why dont you answer the hypothetical question, including the part about preventing a 9/11?
A fair question, which deserves a fair answer: because the debate is about whether or not the US should institute a policy of systematic torture of detainees, not whether or not the US should occasionally engage in black ops and/or the President should pardon those involved in rare and extreme cases.
The hypothetical is irrelevant to any policy debate which takes place in reality. I have enough trouble sorting out the moral questions associated with the real world without taking on questions of how many angels I can torture with the head of a pin.
The most fundamental human decency in this matter is to ensure the survival of our fellow citizens, women, men, and children.
No, the most fundamental human decency in this matter is to ensure the freedom of our fellow citizens, women, men, and children. To throw that away out of baseless fear is to spit on the sacrifices of those who fought and died to give us that freedom.
[Shorter Kimmitt: I still won't answer the question. -- P]
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 11:44 am
Kimmitt: who is arguing for torturing our ‘fellow citizens’ or doing anything that would negatively impact their freedom? How am I spitting on the ’sacrifices of those who fought and died…’ by wanting to torture non-citizen terrorists for the purpose of gaining information that can help keep alive the descendants of those who died for this country? I’m guessing, but I think they’d be rather grateful.
Comment by steve sturm — 9/29/2006 @ 12:07 pm
Ah Kimmitt, I see that you are a “citizen of the world”
.
Since you’re a citizen of the world, you’re going to extend and ensure all those freedoms to every man woman and child in the world–even the raving lunatics who slice their prisoner’s heads off while wailing Allahu Akbar.
I’m sorry buddy, but extending U.S. constitutional protections is limited to U.S. citizens in my book. So go write yourself a world constitution, and come back when it’s done–if you can get anybody to agree to its obligations as well as its privileges. I expect it will be a while before you can manage that.
The old Orwell qoute to the effect that the Kimmets of this world can sleep safely in their beds at night because there are rough men ready to do what needs to be done to protect them is still true.
Comment by Mike Myers — 9/29/2006 @ 12:08 pm
“To throw that away out of baseless fear is to spit on the sacrifices of those who fought and died to give us that freedom.”
You tellingly fail to address the issue within the actual context. Your argument requires you to ignore the very real threat from radical Islamics that have already killed thousands of Americans, other westerners, and even more of their own co-religionists.
Contrary to what you espouse, it is perfectly rational to want to stop those who have killed and maimed us and vowed to kill far more of us. It is also wholly irrational to not do everything humanly possible to stop them.
The only baseless fear around here is the oft cited fear that those who earnestly want to stop Al Qaeda and their supporters from doing what they said they are going to do are taking away our freedom.
Comment by Dr. Deano — 9/29/2006 @ 12:16 pm
Actually, Mike, I was thinking more about Orwell’s observation about how many of Kimmitt’s predecessors were “objectively pro-fascist,” and exhaustively reviewed Western failings over that of the fascist states.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 9/29/2006 @ 12:18 pm
#9, nk:
“abuse a helpless prisoner”. “Helpless” at that moment in the literal sense may be accurate. But what if he possessed information that would prevent devasting attacks, reveal the identities and whereabouts of his fellow killers, or help us disrupt or eliminate enemy cells or entire groups of plotters, planners or fighters?
In those cases, the description of him as “helpless” is not so compelling a description.
Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/29/2006 @ 12:31 pm
Kimmitt: who is arguing for torturing our fellow citizens
Oh, I see. Terrorists who happen to have US citizenship will somehow be immune to our policy of torturing terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up.
Your argument requires you to ignore the very real threat from radical Islamics that have already killed thousands of Americans, other westerners, and even more of their own co-religionists.
I hold that torturing detainees as US policy is not only immoral but also bad policy, so this is irrelevant.
exhaustively reviewed Western failings over that of the fascist states.
I like to think my predecessors were the sorts that fought in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, as versus the conservatives of that period, who saw Franco as the lesser of two evils.
It’s kind of weird; either y’all need us to be invading everything left and right or doing nothing at all. Conservative Manicheanism, I guess — just like either we institute torture as US policy, or we do nothing whatsoever.
[Shorter Kimmitt: Yes, I *know* it's a simple, straightforward hypo. I don't care. I'm not answering. But I also hope you won't notice I'm not answering. -- P]
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 12:36 pm
Patterico offers the perfect example - one man, we know he has information that is truthful and will give it up. Problem is, how often does that happen in real life?
What about non-perfect examples, such as the mistaken identity rendition that happened recently?
How about getting people who were involved in a plot, but have no timely/pertinent/true/useful information to offer?
How about people who offer lies in response to torture? See Zubuydah.
How about people who simply refuse to say anything? See Binalshibh and the threat to his family’s life.
There are some situations where people would agree any methods are fair. The classic kidnapped kid/KSM one above fits that. Does the bill?
And one more question. What happens the first time an attack does occur and it is discovered we had some people in custody who had information but, for whatever reason, were not subjected to torture. How far does the line slide down then, for fear of missing another plot?
bin Laden may have lost the war, but he has sure effected changes in the US.
[My hypo is not that interrogators *know* in advance he has information, or that they knew it will be reliable. Just that they had a solid basis for thinking he has critical information, and nothing else has worked. (I'm also asking you to assume that they turned out to be right; we have hindsight and indeed he did have useful and reliable info. But the interrogators don't know it at the time.) I internally predicted that folks on the left like Kimmitt and Phil would not give a straight answer. And as it turns out, I was right. I wonder why? -- P]
Comment by Brian — 9/29/2006 @ 12:40 pm
Kimmitt: as I am sure you know, the Constitution does protect American citizens from torture, even those who are suspected of being terrorists. The debate is whether we should torture non-citizens in order to protect Americans. Tell me: how did it go over when you told your family and neighbors and friends that you’d rather them die than have the likes of KSM waterboarded?
[He hasn't told them that. He won't say that out loud. He won't even answer the question as a hypo. He squirms to find ways to wriggle out of it. He hopes his evasion isn't transparent.
But it is. -- P]
Comment by steve sturm — 9/29/2006 @ 12:44 pm
Brian wrote:
More often than you might think. The number two in al Qaeda in Iraq was recently captured and he provided the locations of eleven other members, seven of whom were described as high-ranking.
Comment by Dana — 9/29/2006 @ 1:13 pm
How about people who offer lies in response to torture? See Zubuydah.
What you can’t seem to grasp is we’re not talking about torture here.
If you think waterboarding is torture, you don’t know much about the topic.
Comment by The Ace — 9/29/2006 @ 1:20 pm
“how did it go over when you told your family and neighbors and friends that you’d rather them die than have the likes of KSM waterboarded?”
So now you’re threatening Kimmitt’s family with death if he doesn’t agree that torture is appropriate? Why am I not surprised.
Comment by Phil — 9/29/2006 @ 1:21 pm
My apologies; I assumed the ‘we know he has useful info’ part in my description of your example.
Comment by Brian — 9/29/2006 @ 1:23 pm
The Ace:
The methods used for Zubuydah are the methods now approved of - waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud noises and harsh lights, etc. (Medication was also withheld; I do not know if that is now accpetable.) You can argue they’re not torture - I feel they are - but the question is still what happens when people lie to make it stop?
Comment by Brian — 9/29/2006 @ 1:26 pm
When the Patriot Act was passed, we were told that it was to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism. Now, we see those tools being used to prosecute american citizens that run meth labs. Slippery slope people. remember that.
Now, we’re redefining torture so we can legally utilize techniques that were recently classified as torture so that we can garner information ‘necessary’ to save american lives. How long will it be before we’re waterboarding the local drug addicts to find the meth labs? slippery slope people. remember that.
Comment by dksuddeth — 9/29/2006 @ 1:27 pm
Dana:
How do we know it’s more often?
Comment by Brian — 9/29/2006 @ 1:27 pm
How often? How about every single time there is a captured terrorist known to have time sensitive intel that can save American lives.
I suggest the current situation is this … waterboarding is off the table for all military interrogation. Some CIA interrogators are allowed to use the procedure secretly only under explicit orders from the president.
Comment by boris — 9/29/2006 @ 1:39 pm
I live in Los Angeles. Is Kimmett really saying that he would rather see thousands of Angelenos die rather than scaring KSM?? I am so tired of this discussion of “torture” vs torture. It shames the memory of people who have actually been tortured by the likes of Sadaam, Amin, Mugabe and the rest of their ilk. Scaring someone is not torture. Slapping someone is not torture. Yelling at them is not torture. If these people took the time to understand what was actually invvolved in waterboarding, i would like to think they would be embarassed by their position but I am not counting on it.
I love it when people like Phil suddenly we are now threatening Kimmitt’s family when the truth is we are trying to protect people like kimmitt in spite of themselve. Self righteousness from these people is a joke. I guarantee you that, faced with the death of his own loved ones, Phil and Kimmitt would be the first to not only “torture” but actually torture.
Comment by Mike A. — 9/29/2006 @ 1:39 pm
the US should occasionally engage in black ops and/or the President should pardon those involved in rare and extreme cases
Looks like McCain rule, make it illegal then do whatcha gotta do when you gotta do what’s gotta be done.
Comment by boris — 9/29/2006 @ 1:59 pm
Oh, I see. Terrorists who happen to have US citizenship will somehow be immune to our policy of torturing terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up.
In the hypothetical given, which you won’t answer directly, KSM is not a citizen. So this is a red herring.
Comment by Gerald A — 9/29/2006 @ 2:16 pm
So, if the President is to be granted the power to order assassinations and similar black ops, what if he concludes that it’s necessary to engage in warrantless wiretaps? Naturally, it’d be okay then?
Folks who argue that things should be illegal, but that if it’s necessary, a wink and a nod are perfectly alright, are almost always the same folks who, when that wink and nod happens now, argue that Bush has committed a crime that puts us light-years down the path to fascism.
Coincidence?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 9/29/2006 @ 2:18 pm
And as it turns out, I was right. I wonder why? P
Because we aren’t stupid enough to fall for an easy rhetorical trick.
[Shorter Kimmitt: any question that would expose my position as unreasonable is by definition a rhetorical trick. -- P]
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 2:25 pm
I’m going to assume you’re asking if, in the case of the hypothetical, waterboarding would be morally justified, not if it would be legally justified.
I believe it would not be. It would be a lesser evil than the evil it was trying to prevent, but it would still be an evil.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t do it; because sometimes what is required of leaders is that they choose a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil, and in this case I would hope they would do it.
But I would also be disgusted with them if they held up their evil act and tried to paint it as good.
[Pardon me, but how bizarre. You say you'd want to see it done, but you say it would not be morally justified. That's like saying shooting someone is evil, and you'd want to see it done if it was in defense of a child's life -- but it wouldn't be morally justified -- you know, because shooting someone is evil. That is a fascinating, revealing, and incoherent answer. That's why I asked the question: I am genuinely interested to see how people on the left would answer -- and annoyed (though not surprised) at the phony attempts to dodge it. At least you answered it, even if your answer is in my opinion bizarre. How could you encourage someone to do something that is not morally justified?!?! -- P]
Comment by aphrael — 9/29/2006 @ 2:30 pm
we are trying to protect people like kimmitt in spite of themselve.
No, you are trying to torture people. If you were interested in protecting people like me, we’d be discussing hypotheticals having to do with port security, the Russian nuclear arsenal, and reinforcing the folks looking for bin Laden. The fact that we are not engaging in a policy discussion regarding these low-hanging fruit but instead looking to repudiate our ideals as a nation makes crystal clear precisely what this entire discussion is about.
[Shorter Kimmitt: I will not answer a question, however fair and relevant it may be, where the answer would open me to possible ridicule, however justified. -- P]
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 2:33 pm
“Personally I think we should follow the Geneva Convention. Anyone captured on the battle field, engaged in combat, without a uniform should be shot on the spot, no exceptions. That would lead to no prisoners at Gitmo.”
Yo, what he say . . .
I get VERY tired of “those people” who want to give all “our rights” to our sworn enemies who have NO intention of following the Geneva Convention “rules”.
And, our sworn enemies prove it every day with their savage behavior.
So, for “those people”, the Constitution really is a suicide pact.
They might change their minds if they were looking deep into the eyes of their loved ones.
When their loved ones’ heads were no longer attached to their bodies.
With apologies to the Eagles, the masters of the song-writing “hook”:
“Just remember this, my girl, when you look up in the sky
You can see the stars and still not see the light”.
Comment by Dan Pursel — 9/29/2006 @ 2:40 pm
“But I would also be disgusted with them if they held up their evil act and tried to paint it as good.”
Sort of like Bill Clinton sending in the FBI at Waco. It killed 86 men, women and children, but it sure ended the stand-off.
Comment by Black Jack — 9/29/2006 @ 2:44 pm
Kimmitt,
One thing that always gets my goat is the appeals to our better nature, how we must be better than the enemy, etc. You are simply arguing that we should be super-human. I think you need to examine if you really want us to be that way. And I will never live my life nor expect others to live their lives pursuant to “our ideals as a nation”. WTF does that mean?
Comment by Jack Wayne — 9/29/2006 @ 2:54 pm
“You are simply arguing that we should be super-human.”
No, I’m arguing that we shouldn’t, as a matter of policy, torture people we detain.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 2:57 pm
Brian asked:
Well, the information was obtained, in the example I gave you. Unless, of course, you think that Mr al-Saeedi simply provided the information over coffee and scones.
Comment by Dana — 9/29/2006 @ 3:09 pm
Torture or “torture”?
Kimmitt, would you please define for us what your definition of torture is, and tell us what if anything other than asking questions, you believe should be permitted to induce non-uniformed combatants to provide information that might save the lives of American soldiers or civilians? Are there any coercive interrogation techniques that do not meet your standard of torture?
Comment by Diffus — 9/29/2006 @ 3:13 pm
The lurking observer noted:
Well, former President Clinton, in his interview with Chris Wallace, said that he had ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden — but it is illegal for the president or any other government official to order the assassination of anyone. Yet somehow, in all of their glee over Mr Clinton’s interview performance, I have yet to see even one of our liberal friends (you know, the ones who were horrified that the NSA’s warrantless wiretaping program was illegal) express shock that President Clinton would have ordered such a patently illegal act.
For the record, President Clinton did the right thing with that order, but for our liberal friends to admit something like that is to expose the hypocrisy of virtually everything they have said.
Comment by Dana — 9/29/2006 @ 3:16 pm
Kimmitt wrote:
Please, specify: is this your position in every case, regardless of whom is captured and regardless of the circumstances?
Comment by Dana — 9/29/2006 @ 3:19 pm
Black Jack — that’s actually a very good example; I don’t think I’ve ever said that was “good”. It was probably the lesser of two evils; but even that, I don’t know for sure.
Comment by aphrael — 9/29/2006 @ 3:26 pm
Dana - I’m sorry, I don’t see how admitting that it was right for President Clinton to have ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden would be to expose hypocrisy. Can you spell it out for me, please?
Comment by aphrael — 9/29/2006 @ 3:26 pm
Kimmitt says “no you are trying to torture people”.
No, Kimmitt, if I was going to really torture people, I’d go straight to the Saddam Hussein playbook—not pussyfoot around with water boarding. [The items below are all things that Saddam's thugs did.]
Dropping people on a chain hoist slowly into a tank of sulfuric acid—now that’s torture
Sticking people’s hands into woodchippers–now that’s torture
Getting creative with an electric drill on
people’s anatomy–now that’s torture
Raping a man’s wife and daughters in front of them–now that’s torture
Liberal wussies who moan and groan about waterboarding as “torture” are the same kinds of people who have corrupted the English language in their urge for political correctness to the point that when a 6 year old school boy leans over and kisses a six year old school girl, that’s “sexual harassment” and the little boy gets expelled under a “zero tolerance” policy.
I must say Kimmet, you’ve tested the tolerance of a lot of us on this thread.
Comment by Mike Myers — 9/29/2006 @ 3:27 pm
Doesn’t keeping the tourure option open, even if we don’t use it, make it incredibly difficult for the enemy to plan and execute the big attack? When you involve large groups of people, plans have to be shared. If one person is captured, or even suspected of being captured, the plans need to be scraped. We saw a little of this in Afghanistan when one of the high level Taliban was captured delivering arms because they had no one else they could trust to do it.
Comment by tyree — 9/29/2006 @ 3:59 pm
Kimmitt: “I hold that torturing detainees as US policy is not only immoral but also bad policy, so this is irrelevant.”
That we are living with a serious and credible threat against millions of Americans is ‘irrelevant’???
I’m glad you made it clear who resides at the top of your priority list.
Comment by Dr. Deano — 9/29/2006 @ 4:01 pm
wow, im suddenly reminded of hermann goering.
Comment by dksuddeth — 9/29/2006 @ 4:22 pm
Patterico: “My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?”
Yes it was.
Comment by David Blue — 9/29/2006 @ 5:23 pm
dksuddeth,
I’m not really interested in debating with anyone who can’t bring themselves to answer the question in the thread.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 5:34 pm
Kimmitt,
You are clearly frightened to answer this question.
And I believe I know why.
People like you enjoy the pretense that these issues are simple. “I can’t believe we’re talking about TORTURE!” you screech. “It’s TORTURE, people! TORTURE!!”
And when someone asks you a question that threatens your simplistic, self-righteous stance, you use every trick in the book to avoid answering it.
I can respect someone who forthrightly says: “The waterboarding session described in the post is still not worth it, and here’s why.” I am going to whack that person hard for their position, but at least they have the guts to stake out a position.
I can also respect (a lot) someone who says: “I am very uncomfortable with the idea of routinely legalizing torture, but the waterboarding described in the post is worth it.” I am going to hit such a person with some uncomfortable follow-up questions, but at least they are meeting the question head-on.
I cannot respect someone who comes on here with preening self-righteousness, acting as though these are simple questions — who then shamelessly and transparently dodges a fair, realistic hypothetical that is designed to get moral views clearly on the table.
You fall into that last category.
So far.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 5:41 pm
Phil says:
As a side note, I think there are a lot of interesting parallels between jury nullification and torture. As to both, there are always good arguments for certain factual situations when such acts are morally justifiable, but huge problems with giving such acts legal legitimacy.
Phil, this is an interesting point, but I wish you’d forthrightly answer the clear hypo I pose in the post. You imply that you’re OK with the hypothetical waterboarding, under these precise circumstances. Can I pin you down on that? Are you?
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 5:43 pm
No, I’m arguing that we shouldn’t, as a matter of policy, torture people we detain.
Comment by Kimmitt
We don’t.
So what is your point?
Comment by The Ace — 9/29/2006 @ 6:22 pm
You can argue they’re not torture - I feel they are - but the question is still what happens when people lie to make it stop?
A variety of things.
However, this assumes that the people doing this usually don’t know what they’re doing because you can point to an exception to what are likely normal circumstances.
Comment by The Ace — 9/29/2006 @ 6:24 pm
“What about non-perfect examples, such as the mistaken identity rendition that happened recently?”
Actually, that incident (a deportation rather than a rendition, as I understand it, and due at least as much to left-darling Canada as to the US) is actually an example which argues in favor of CIA waterboarding. Who wouldn’t rather a relatively quick interrogation process, including waterboarding, by CIA agents; rather than months of brutal torture, with risk of death, in a place like Syria? (Obviously I am not in favor of any harrassment of the innocent, but neither I nor CIA waterboarding practices created that problem.)
Comment by dwpittelli — 9/29/2006 @ 6:32 pm
I’m sorry for not paying more attention.
“I’m not really interested in debating with anyone who can’t bring themselves to answer the question in the thread.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 5:34 pm”
“My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?”
YES.
Comment by Dan Pursel — 9/29/2006 @ 6:38 pm
In war, any practice engaged in by the other side can be engaged in by oneself, provided that it is:
1) Militarily useful.
2) and does not injure noncombatatants disproportionately to the military effect sought.
If this is not the case, then the “evil” side would win wars with its evil.
Further, this is how the law of war has always been practiced. Our bombing of Germany was acceptable because Germany bombed London. (As it happens, Germany may have done so because of an accidental RAF bombing of a German city.) And our nuking of the USSR would have been acceptable had the USSR nuked us.
As in this last example, if we had had any other policy, the USSR would have been far more likely to nuke us. Even Hitler understood such tit-for-tat — despite Germany’s superior nerve gas technology, he did not use gas, because he knew that gas would then be used on him.
Am I saying we should behead or maim terrorists, go as far as they do? No. As waterboarding is reportedly so effective, there is little point in using more brutal methods. (I suppose the PR value of video execution and torture could conceivably give potential terrorists pause, but it would be outweighed by the negative light it would put us in; we are not like Klingons, probably could not credibly pretend to be so, and could not maintain world hegemony if thought to be so.)
Comment by dwpittelli — 9/29/2006 @ 6:45 pm
I did, just look further up.
Comment by DKSuddeth — 9/29/2006 @ 7:02 pm
In fact, i’ll answer it a bit more clearly for you P. Torturing ANYONE (or condoning it) to get information to save lives, especially american lives, puts YOU in the not so unique position of declaring that you value some lives more than others. You tell the world (and god) that you will gladly treat one or two peoples lives like nothing in order to save hundreds or thousands. This is completely opposite of what Christ tried to teach all of his followers during his time on earth.
Torturing another living being, no matter the results, is telling God that you have zero respect for the gift of life.
Comment by DKSuddeth — 9/29/2006 @ 7:08 pm
link?
Comment by boris — 9/29/2006 @ 7:11 pm
Torturing ANYONE (or condoning it) to get information to save lives, especially american lives, puts YOU in the not so unique position of declaring that you value some lives more than others. You tell the world (and god) that you will gladly treat one or two peoples lives like nothing in order to save hundreds or thousands. This is completely opposite of what Christ tried to teach all of his followers during his time on earth.
DKSuddeth,
You are a sniper and a man is holding 10 children hostage. Ten minutes ago he was holding 20 children hostage, but he then declared his intent to kill one child a minute, and has done so for the last ten minutes.
You now have a clean shot at him. Are you telling me you wouldn’t take it?
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 7:14 pm
DKSuddeth,
When we shoot a terrorist in combat action we do the same thing. So you are a complete pacifist (or you have not thought through what you are saying). Not that there is anything wrong with being a pacifist, but you will never get a majority to embrace pacifism, and if any nation did, it would soon cease to exist.
Comment by dwpittelli — 9/29/2006 @ 7:15 pm
[Waterboarding a terrorist] to get information to save lives, especially american lives, puts YOU in the not so unique position of declaring that you value some lives more than others.
Yes, I value hundreds of American lives more than two minutes of panic and discomfort for a terrorist. In fact I myself would volunteer to be waterboarded for 1 minute to save hundreds of lives. Such a situation is completely inconceivable, but nevertheless it completely absolves my conscience of any remorse for advocating the use of waterboarding on terrorists to save American lives.
Comment by boris — 9/29/2006 @ 7:20 pm
Patterico: The entire question is a pointless, hypothetical dodge.
Here are some other hypotheticals I’m not interested in answering:
If you could prevent either the death of your child or a plane crash with 700 people on it, which would you pick?
You are in a burning building and can either save an infant or 1,000 puppies and a Van Gogh. Which do you choose?
These two hypotheticals have precisely the same relevance to the current debate as the one you present. It’s just that your KZM question has a superficial resemblance to things which are currently going on and the ones above do not. In a world in which the US operates a network of secret prisons, habeas corpus can be suspended by Executive whim, and judicial review is being eviscerated, debating how to handle extreme cases, or how many angels can be waterboarded on the head of a pin, is nothing other than an attempt to obfuscate and dodge the issue, and I decline to pretend otherwise.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 7:30 pm
debating how to handle extreme cases, or how many angels can be waterboarded on the head of a pin, is nothing other than an attempt to obfuscate and dodge the issue, and I decline to pretend otherwise.
Comment by Kimmitt
You’re an intellectual coward, that’s why.
Comment by The Ace — 9/29/2006 @ 7:49 pm
Kimmitt, you have excoriated the Administration for taking actions that may well be entirely in line with my hypothetical. Now we can debate the reality of my hypothetical in a separate thread, but for right now I’m just interested in principles, and you are notably interested in dodging a highly relevant question.
It’s disingenuous for you to argue that this is some idle hypothetical when it goes to the very heart of this debate. You might disagree with that position, and we could debate that too, but to dismiss it with an airy wave of the hand will not convince rational people who are on the fence. It will only convince them that people like you are not serious.
Which is useful in and of itself. You very reluctance to answer the question speaks volumes — more, truly, than any answer could.
When people ask me about torture in the future, I will likely often point to this thread, and the inability of the self-righteous like yourself to answer a simple question like this. It helps our position more than you know.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 7:58 pm
In fairness, I’ll give you and others another chance to answer the question. But I think this may well be worth a separate post — and it will be a very instructive one. I pose a clear hypothetical involving two minutes of unpleasantness vs. the deaths of thousands, and the self-righteous opponents of “torture” can’t bring themselves to say which is worse.
Quite amazing.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 8:00 pm
P, there is a HUGE difference between taking a kill shot and subjecting a person to a torturous condition. For the record, as a US Marine for 6 years, i’m more than capable of taking the shot.
I’m not a pacifist. Killing with a sniper shot is not the same as subjecting another human being to 90 seconds of terror, all for the sake of hopefully gathering some sort of intelligence that MIGHT stop a terror attack. I refer back to the slippery slope argument when you condone torture in SOME instances.
Valuing someone elses life over anothers because of nationality goes against gods will, but I understand that not everyone understands gods will. Sacrificing yourself for hundreds of others is exactly what gods love is about. There is nothing wrong with that. If torturing another arab terrorist to save american lives absolves your conscience of all remorse, fine. So be it, but it leads me to believe that you don’t understand God.
Comment by DKSuddeth — 9/29/2006 @ 8:12 pm
P, there is a HUGE difference between taking a kill shot and subjecting a person to a torturous condition.
There is. And I don’t mean to sound flippant when I say this, but one of the differences is that I would choose the 90 seconds or two minutes of waterboarding over death — in a second.
And I don’t mean to minimize the terror that I understand waterboarding would cause. Nor do I think it should be used as a punishment.
I’m just questioning your logic. I don’t see how you can say:
and turn around and say you’d take the shot as a sniper.
It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 8:30 pm
Patterico: there are times, alas, when the only available options all involve moral wrongs.
When I’m faced with such instances, I have to choose from among the options available — but I have to do so knowing that I am choosing to do something which is wrong.
The fact that the other options are worse doesn’t make this option not bad.
[I think i've voiced this argument here before, in the context of war, and got about the same response then that you're giving me now. Which suggests to me I need to work on a better way to explain it. :)]
Comment by aphrael — 9/29/2006 @ 10:45 pm
You might disagree with that position, and we could debate that too,
Sure, let’s do that.
There are two possibilities here:
1) You are trying to use a particular hypothetical to elucidate a border case of choosing between two evils.
2) You are demagogueing the issue to make your political opponents appear weak.
I submit that (2) is not only more likely, but also far less insulting to you. As part and parcel of the torture discussion, you are not referring to any moral philosophers who discuss this issue, you are not, yourself, laying out a series of methods by which we might begin to weigh necessary evils against unnecessary evils, and you are not suggesting a mechanism for selection of the targets of torture nor for keeping the torturers accountable so that they remain within the confines of legal torture activity. I do not believe that you are this intellectually unserious. I believe that you haven’t put in the effort, because you do not intend for this discussion to have a serious result. Which is fine, but it’s really kind of disingenuous to claim otherwise when you’re called on it.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/29/2006 @ 10:45 pm
On some level, this is a religious argument for me, I think. I believe that I am responsible for my choices, and for the effects of my choices; and if my choice to torture someone causes pain and suffering, then I have done evil, and I will pay the price for that evil — even if the other choices on the table all involved greater evil and a greater price to be paid by me.
Does that make more sense?
Comment by aphrael — 9/29/2006 @ 10:48 pm
SORRY BUT THIS IS B.S.
Brian Ross is normally a good reporter but what he is stating is impossible. He states that the information garnered by torturing KLM, who was captured on March 1, 2003, help prevent the L.A. Terror plot where the alleged perpetrators were arrested in February 2002.
Simply, the claim is they prevented an attack in early 2002 based on info they got from KSM in 2003.
That sounds IMPOSSIBLE to me.
Comment by hotpotatomash — 9/29/2006 @ 10:53 pm
As part and parcel of the torture discussion, you are not referring to any moral philosophers who discuss this issue, you are not, yourself, laying out a series of methods by which we might begin to weigh necessary evils against unnecessary evils, and you are not suggesting a mechanism for selection of the targets of torture nor for keeping the torturers accountable so that they remain within the confines of legal torture activity. I do not believe that you are this intellectually unserious. I believe that you haven’t put in the effort, because you do not intend for this discussion to have a serious result. Which is fine, but it’s really kind of disingenuous to claim otherwise when you’re called on it.
This is all a lot of nonsense you’re spewing in a vain attempt to make it seem like *I* am the one being called on something, when in fact *you* are the one trying every dodge in the book to avoid answering a simple question.
I assume it’s because you’re answer would be that, in your view, the waterboarding I describe in the post is not justified. That would be a fine argument to make if you had the guts to make it. But you don’t. You’re afraid to say it out loud, because you realize it will make you seem like an unreasonable person to reasonable bystanders. But to say anything else would be to sacrifice your precious self-righteousness, and you can’t bear that.
So, your choices are: 1) be revealed as someone who puts abstract principles above the lives of countless innocents, or 2) relinquish your posture of righteous moral certainty.
Neither one is too attractive, eh? So let’s try 3) attempt to squirm out of it with unconvincing reasons why this perfectly reasonable question is unfair.
Sorry, nobody’s buying it. It’s clear to all of us that you’re trying to avoid #1 above.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 10:56 pm
hotpotatomash,
It’s a hypothetical. Let’s get everyone on record and move on to step two.
But it’s like when I asked a question about violating oaths for jury nullification — people squirmed out of that one too.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 10:58 pm
aphrael,
I think I understand what you’re trying to say; you’re just saying it badly.
Say you support a war. Doesn’t mean you like war. I get that. I agree.
But to say that it’s not morally justified — which is what you said above — I think that’s a puzzling and confusing way to put it.
You saw my sniper hypo, right? Nobody likes shooting someone. But taking the shot to save 10 children — it’s morally justified, dude. If you don’t think so, then we disagree about what that phrase means.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 11:01 pm
Leftists:
Do you see how Kimmitt avoids the question? Are you with him? Two minutes of waterboarding vs. thousands of lives — is this a tough choice for you?
It’s attitudes like that that should lose you elections.
Comment by Patterico — 9/29/2006 @ 11:03 pm
For God’s sake, if there was a nuke about to go off in my city and a completely innocent person had information about it, but refused to reveal it for some unknown reason, I’d torture that person like no tomorrow until I got the info. Even if it was a woman or child.
Gee whiz people. Grow up.
Comment by Christoph — 9/29/2006 @ 11:06 pm
sorry, i didn’t realize it was hypo. i watched the ross video and i’ve watched bush interview with Couric where he makes same claim. This is there big story why they need all the changes in the law. but it doesn’t jive unless i’m missing something.
Comment by hotpotatomash — 9/29/2006 @ 11:12 pm
Or maybe I’d let 200,000 people die, tens of thousands of children be burned to death, more becoming sick and dying slowly over the next week with radiation poisoning. Maybe I’d do that.
Either one, however, sucks.
Comment by Christoph — 9/29/2006 @ 11:22 pm
The more I think about my above answer here, the more disgusted I am with it.
In the event of an innocent person and especially a child, what I would really do is beg, plead, and cajole, but if it came down to it, let the nuke go off killing me, my entire family, and everyone I know plus a couple hundred thousand people most of whom love their lives and families and didn’t deserve nothin’.
It would probably be the wrong thing to do, but I guess that’s what I’d do.
The point, if there is one, to my rambling is that life is friggin’ hard and most of us are spared these choices.
The people in our security services are not always spared these choices. Sometimes they have to decide between causing some bastard mass murderer enemy of our civilization a few minutes of discomfort and/or fear and thousands of our fellow citizens’, children’s included, lives.
That’s the real world, as dirty as it is. The people who work in our security services are by and large decent and courageous. I support them.
Comment by Christoph — 9/30/2006 @ 12:35 am
I assume it’s because you’re answer would be that, in your view, the waterboarding I describe in the post is not justified.
…
Leftists:
Do you see how Kimmitt avoids the question? Are you with him? Two minutes of waterboarding vs. thousands of lives — is this a tough choice for you?
Like I said, unserious demagoguery. You’ve proven my point far more eloquently than I could ever have attempted to.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/30/2006 @ 1:04 am
Kimmett,
You’ve proven my point far more eloquently than I could ever have attempted to.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 3:01 am
Margin check
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 5:26 am
New hypo.
A ship of alien scientists (studying human psychology) abducts you and your 12 yr old daughter. They offer this choice. You may subject your daughter to 1 minute of waterboarding or they will slowly dissect her.
You are given no opportunity to ask your daughter which she would prefer.
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 6:01 am
Your daughter is straqpped to the table tilted head down, some unknown material covers her mouth, an alien scientist hands you a pitcher of water. Meanwhile several of the other aliens prepare their dissection implements.
Make the call.
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 6:05 am
I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but I’ll answer. Having two daughters and realizing the only purpose for them forcing a decision like that is to see what limits they can find… I try to kill them and hopefully succeed or die in the attempt. Anyone placed in that type of position (by aliens, terrorists, whatever…) should realize that they will keep going until they find out what line you won’t cross. You’re both probably going to die at that point, so why give the satisfaction? Completely different situation as neither my daughter or myself has information or hope of actually satisfying them. If your asking whether I think it would be better to waterboard her myself or watch her die a gruesome death…. waterboard in a heartbeat. But unless I’m certain she will ultimately survive, I fight. What would you do?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 6:42 am
If your asking whether I think it would be better to waterboard her myself or watch her die a gruesome death…. waterboard in a heartbeat. But unless I’m certain she will ultimately survive, I fight. What would you do?
Add this to the scifi scenario then, you already tried to fight but it was so futile they simply ignored your effort. Further you witnessed another subject waterboard their child and were released without further harm. Sheesh, make it a rhetorical X file show why doncha.
Maybe the aliens just want to find out if human society has started to come to terms with reality yet. Based on MSM radio and TV coverage they probably wonder if any humans have achieved common sense.
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 7:17 am
Doesn’t this answer you already? I don’t think I avoided the purpose of your question.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 7:20 am
I don’t think I avoided
Didn’t claim you did, that’s why I included that part of your response … in a heartbeat. In essence I simply removed the qualifiers.
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 7:23 am
Actually, the whole quote you used should answer you. If she’s going to be released without further harm, she gets waterboarded. I don’t understand the:
frustration that implies. Waterboarding is temporary fright and discomfort… dead is dead. Am I missing something?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 7:26 am
Am I missing something?
Sense of humor?
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 7:27 am
Lemmee check… looking…. looking…. crap, thought I had that on but the battery was dead. Thanks.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 7:31 am
Anytime
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 7:32 am
I did warn you I wasn’t sure if you were serious or not, lol. I worked all night and can’t sleep yet, synapses are getting boggy. Since you posed the question, I’d be interested in how you would answer it.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 7:37 am
Don’t think any sane person would refuse to save their child’s life in a situation where 1 minute of panic and discomfort would work.
Certainly as ridiculous as the hypo was, parents have been faced with such choices and the correct action is obvious.
Imagine telling the spouse, “could have saved her but …”
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 7:52 am
Well, the question posted in the topic seems pretty straight-forward too… but I don’t think Kimmett would answer yours either.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 8:00 am
It reminds me of Patterico’s question about who is worse, Osama or Bush & Actus couldn’t say definitively that OBL was worse. It’s a strange, strange world lefties live in.
Comment by sharon — 9/30/2006 @ 9:46 am
he’s proven you won’t answer the question and why you won’t answer the question. The truth is that you’re a coward who is afraid to state your position and defend it.
I’m sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Let me be more explicit. I’m not playing the rhetorical game because it is bullshit.
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/30/2006 @ 11:03 am
Then let me be more clear. You’re a coward. You argued every which way around the topic while avoiding any answer. If you “weren’t playing”, why post at all? Why try to derail the thread into what you wanted it to be about? Why do you even come back to this thread if it’s “irrelevant”? Not only are you a coward, you’re a lying coward.
And as for your condescending nonsense about how we are torturers with no respect for human dignity… That’s right up there with “I’m rubber, you’re glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!” (Thought I’d put that in terms you would be more comfortable with.) Man, I hate idiotic lefty trolls. We need a recruitment drive.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 11:32 am
I’m not playing the rhetorical game because it is bullshit.
No, it is reality. It is what happened with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Anyone who refuses to confront that fact is straining to avoid what this debate is about.
It’s functionally identical to this:
You’ve been shown up, Kimmitt. The hypo is the most direct response possible to your accusations that Bush is wrong to engage in “torture.” It could not possibly be more on point and relevant — and your refusal to answer could not possibly be more telling.
Are there any lefties here with the courage to answer the question? aphrael is about the only one so far. How about Phil? Where is the infamous Macswain? Everyone seems to have gone silent.
So very interesting, that.
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2006 @ 11:34 am
P: you missed an important point in 86, 87 — DKS said he was *capable* of taking the shot. He did not say he *would* take the shot.
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 11:55 am
To answer the question is waterboarding worth it — YES!
To answer the “moral high ground” crap, there is no moral high ground in war. You either win or you lose, you survive or you die, you kill or be killed.
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 11:58 am
Let’s examine your participation Kimmett:
But you didn’t give a fair answer, you dodged and tried to redefine the debate.
How on Earth do you come up with this? Should every policy be made up as you go along?… or even after the fact? You have to examine hypotheticals to anticipate what the policy on something should be.
People cannot be free if they are dead. If you don’t protect their safety, what good is their freedom?
You’d like to think this, but you’d be wrong. Your predecessors were Northerners who returned escaped slaves because they weren’t worth anything and it was tearing up the country. Yes, traitors.
Here we go again with redefining torture, trying to redefine the topic of the post, and whining because we’re not talking about what you think is important. Clear enough for you?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 12:00 pm
The point I think a lot of people here are missing is that the purpose of interrogation is to get information. Whether the information is true or not (i.e., they lie to end discomfort) is irrelevant to whether information was gained or not.
The interrogator has a responsibility to vet the information once it’s been gotten. That is, he has to determine if it supports or negates other information or adds new facets to the investigation, whether it is fact or fiction.
Getting no information means the investigation goes nowhere.
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 12:03 pm
Thats an odd way of looking at it. So an interrogation where someone tells a lot of lies is more successful (meet the point) than one where someone remains silent?
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 12:07 pm
Waterboard KSM. Better yet, write the procedure into code.
Just don’t invade countries to prevent dictators from doing it to their enemies.
Defining “enemies” is the bitch –
Let’s say I’m a Canadian citizen and legal U.S. resident with an American wife and two children born in Boston.
I can be picked up and detained indefinitely, with no right to a lawyer, no right to challenge my detention or to see the evidence against me, and no right for my family to even know the location of my secret prison.
I can be branded “an enemy combatant” for actions as innocent as sending money to the wrong Islamic earthquake relief charity, since this is now classified as “providing material support for terrorists.”
Is the America we had ten days ago, gone (or going)?
Comment by steve — 9/30/2006 @ 12:11 pm
actus: “So an interrogation where someone tells a lot of lies is more successful (meet the point) than one where someone remains silent?”
Yes. Think about it. Even a bunch of lies are usually designed to hide a truth. They also give an indication of the liar’s thought processes.
Useful (or useless) information can be gained which is better than gaining no information.
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 12:15 pm
Dubya,
Actually, the interrogator doesn’t make that determination. Their goal is to get as much information as possible, that’s true. But they are aware that you reach a point of diminishing returns where the information is more distracting than helpful. Interrogators are trained to recognize this and back off. Analysts then vet the information and tie it together with anything related with degrees of confidence. But it’s not always the same people. Depends on where you’re at and what experience levels you have available. Just sayin
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 12:18 pm
Thats an odd way of looking at it. So an interrogation where someone tells a lot of lies is more successful (meet the point) than one where someone remains silent?
And actus appears in the thread — but predictably does not answer the question posed in the post.
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2006 @ 12:18 pm
hey i live in CALFORNIA in part where were very conservative we still farm the land and yes we LOG IT TO
Comment by krazy kagu — 9/30/2006 @ 12:18 pm
I put it elsewhere. Its worth it. Whats 2.5 minutes of anyone’s discomfort to a life saved?
[Actually, you didn't put it elsewhere; this is the first time you've said it. But thanks for answering -- it's a rare straight answer from you. -- P]
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 12:21 pm
Waterboard KSM. Better yet, write the procedure into code.
steve,
Is that a serious answer? You raise several other points regarding the Bush handling of the war on terror that merit discussion, but here, we’re talking about torture, and I asked a question. You answer it, but then segue into a rant that suggests your answer was sarcastic.
This is a serious question that merits a serious answer. You’re a smart guy and I’d love to have the discussion with you.
I’ve said before that I’m not unpersuadable on the torture question, but this hypo presents a strong argument that I can’t seem to get lefties to confront. How can I be persuaded if everyone dodges one of the main arguments in favor of the Bush position?
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2006 @ 12:21 pm
This i have to disagree. I don’t think its that serious a question to pose it in isolation, and with hindsight.
It’s because nobody confronts it. No-one faces this situation.
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 12:26 pm
It seems the definition of torture is situational: that is if someone can make political points out of a particular definition they will define feather-tickling as torture.
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 12:34 pm
It’s because nobody confronts it. No-one faces this situation.
And so actus predictably weasels, with an utterly laughable excuse.
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2006 @ 12:37 pm
Uh. weasel? I answered your question: its worth it.
[You're correct. I'd missed that. -- P]
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 12:38 pm
How can I be persuaded if everyone dodges one of the main arguments in favor of the Bush position? -Patterico
I’m perfectly serious. An answer requiring less nuance than you hoped for is still an answer. And the “lefties-can’t-confront-me” device a self-conscious snare.
So why is my hypothetical “a rant?”
Comment by steve — 9/30/2006 @ 12:39 pm
Like the scene in goonies where chunk goes off and confesses to “everything.”
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 12:45 pm
It could not possibly be more on point and relevant
I thought we were debating this, rather than “dismissing it with an airy wave of the hand.” My thesis is that in the absence of meaningful context, the hypothetical presented is clearly demagoguery, rather than an attempt to get at underlying truths. To counter, you either have to explain that you have already presented context, or that there is no onus on you to present a coherent position for me to respond to, when you ask me to respond to your position (in the form of your presented hypothetical).
How can I be persuaded if everyone dodges one of the main arguments in favor of the Bush position?
You can’t, if you accept that this hypothetical is in any way related to the Bush position. You’re starting from a false premise, and that’s the (oft repeated) point of my portion of this exchange.
if someone can make political points out of a particular definition they will define feather-tickling as torture.
I submit that forty-eight hours of feather tickling pretty much is torture. Duration as well as action define unendurable sensation, not to mention shocking of the conscience.
To put it another way, putting goggles and earplugs on a person for eight hours helps them get a good night’s sleep. Putting them on for forty-eight hours induces psychosis. Context is key (which, if anything can be gathered from this discussion, is what we’ve learned).
Comment by Kimmitt — 9/30/2006 @ 12:46 pm
Huh? Is that supposed to have meaning somehow? I seriously have no idea what you’re trying to say there. And it doesn’t take a lot of nuance to say yes or no, ask actus. What’s your answer? Yes, waterboarding is worth it in the situation described… or No, it is not worth it. Is that so hard?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 12:52 pm
Gee, Kimmitt, you must’ve studied the situational ethics that was the rage in the 70’s. Did you smoke a lot of pot then too?
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 12:53 pm
I thought we were debating this … in the absence of meaningful context
Let see if I can paraphrase this nonsense …
The KSM situation doesn’t count because in hindsight we know the intel he revealed saved lives. In general we don’t know that for sure so it unfair to use as guidance for future action.
Any future hypothetical situation would necessarily lack context because it hasn’t happened yet so speculatiive situations don’t count.
Give Kimmet a real world real time in context terrorist having explicitly known intel or the question is unanswerable.
Is that about it?
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 12:55 pm
You can’t, if you accept that this hypothetical is in any way related to the Bush position. You’re starting from a false premise, and that’s the (oft repeated) point of my portion of this exchange.
Then give an answer, and we can debate whether it’s related.
There are two questions:
1) How do you answer the hypo?
2) Does it relate to reality?
Lefties like Kimmitt are very uncomfortable answering #1, because they don’t want to admit that either a) they would sometimes favor “torture” or b) that they care more about their opposition to “torture” than the lives of thousands of people. So they harp on #2 all day long, hoping to avoid talking about #1.
I’m done answering your dodges, Kimmitt. Up until now it has been useful to illustrate a point about the left. Now it’s a waste of time.
If you find the courage to actually answer the question, I’ll debate you further. Anything else you say is a further dodge and not worth responding to.
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2006 @ 1:02 pm
Yes, waterboarding is worth it in the situation described or No, it is not worth it. Is that so hard? - Stashiu3
I’ve said “yes” several times. Is that so hard?
Make him our bitch.
[You always respond in a way that leaves open the possibility you are being ironic. How about a serious answer? -- P]
Comment by steve — 9/30/2006 @ 1:05 pm
Is it really that courageous to answer the question? All it does is show what sort of ethical theory you possses. Are you a utilitarian? If so, the answer is quite clear: 2.5 minutes of someone’s discomfort is certainly worth a life saved. It might be worth even less — say, saving someones leg, or someone’s retirement. But at this point we’re just disagreeing on the utilitarian weight to give this 2.5 minutes of panic.
Or maybe you’re more of a conscientious objector type. Some one with a belief in some more moral absolutes, as in ‘there are some things we just don’t do.’ Then the answer also is kind of clear: the debate is over whether this 2.5 minutes of panic falls into that category.
Over all, not much courage in answering the question.
More courage is the following hypothetical: A canadian/syrian citizen, a software developer, is in transit via your country. Canadian intelligence tells us he once cosigned a lease with a terrorist. Or even something less specific. He has ‘connections.’ What would 2.5 minutes of his panic be worth? What would 10 months of his panic be worth?
[Blah blah blah. What do *you* think? I may start deleting comments that don't begin with yes or no. -- P]
[UPDATE: Never mind. I see you did answer above. -- P]
Comment by actus — 9/30/2006 @ 1:14 pm
Not true, reactions are different for different people. The vast majority of people would not be psychotic at 48 hours or less. Also, tickling with a feather beyond a certain length of time (again, tolerances vary widely) becomes useless as the nerves become desensitized to it. We have a tickle-response because our body interprets it as a threat. The sympathetic nervous system kicks in and we get a physical fight or flight response. But because we know that the threat is not real, our emotional reaction is one of relief and laughter. Eventually, the response from the sympathetic nervous system attenuates and disappears. Your body can’t sustain it once you realize that the threat is not real.
Maybe you want to think of another diversion? It seems you will only define torture as “Anything terrorists object to or makes me uncomfortable.” That’s why you can’t give a straight answer, because when it’s said out loud it sounds stupid. News Flash… it is stupid.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 1:15 pm
Pat –
As your lefty opponents keep responding that the hypothetical as phrased is unrealistic, and no one is ever faced with such a situation, let me refine it.
The Atlantic Monthly ran an article within the last three years (issue unknown, but I’m looking), dealing with the morality and efficacy of torture. The author spent a lot of time interviewing a retired member of a third-world security force who believed that torture was both effective and morally justified, especially in the “ticking time-bomb scenario.”
The author pressed for a specific example, and the former intelligence officer said they had captured two men who they believed had information about a planned rush-hour bombing on a crowded commuter train.
After both men refused to provide any intel — and were quite arrogant in their stated belief that they would come to no harm — the interrogator told them they had one final chance to give him the info.
If I remember correctly, the captives laughed at him.
He then drew his pistol and shot one in the head, splattering the other with his compadre’s blood and brains.
The survivor immediately divulged the information, and a massive terrorist attack was foiled.
Now, this is clearly far beyond what Patterico has posited, but it does prove the point that brutal methods do work, and, in an odd way, doesn’t constitute torture, either, inasmuch as they never laid a finger on the guy who gave up the desired info.
Comment by Mike Lief — 9/30/2006 @ 1:46 pm
I wonder what secrets the spattered brains held…
Comment by Dubya — 9/30/2006 @ 1:50 pm
An interesting point. What if he’d shot the guy with the info, and was left with the driver?
But, as I recall, they were both high-level members of the terrorist organization.
Comment by Mike Lief — 9/30/2006 @ 1:54 pm
In the Society of Neuroscience meeting in November, 2003, there was a presentation of the effectiveness of naloxone (an opioid receptor blocker commonly used as an antidote for narcotic overdose) on the increase of the fear response and the lowering of pain tolerance. I talked to the presenter. He seemed like a nice guy. I wonder where he works now. Mike, that shot in the head stuff is for the underdeveloped nations.
Comment by nk — 9/30/2006 @ 2:09 pm
Which is where the interrogation took place. But then again, some commenters wanted a concrete example wherein brutal interrogation techniques resulted in the receipt of valid information preventing a terrorist attack.
Given the same scenario involving U.S. forces, would you accept waterboarding in place of the summary execution in order to prevent an attack?
Comment by Mike Lief — 9/30/2006 @ 2:19 pm
Of course. I already said so. And the administration of naloxone to reduce the amount of fear and pain it was necessary to inflict, and the administration of scopolamine and pentothal to reduce the will to resist.
Comment by nk — 9/30/2006 @ 2:35 pm
nk –
I wasn’t questioning your willingness to use less-than-lethal methods to interrogate prisoners; the question was directed to those commenters who won’t engage Patterico on his terms.
You do know that those same commenters would consider your use of drugs to constitute “torture” (although clearly I would not).
Comment by Mike Lief — 9/30/2006 @ 2:40 pm
nk,
I’ve never heard of naloxone used for this, thanks. I’ve given it for overdose, and it’s like turning on a lightswitch the recovery is so fast. But the half-life is much shorter than the half-life for narcotics and so you have to keep giving it until the drug is completely metabolized or they will go back into overdose. For interrogations, it’s short half-life would limit the amount of time needed to recover afterwards. I’m going to do some checking on this at work to learn more about it. Thanks again.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Sure, torture can “work” in certain situtations. A dictatorship also “works” in that it achieves various results one can argue are positive, in addition to those we perceive as negative. Look at how well Saddam’s government “worked” for purposes of catching trators, assuring loyalty, maintaining stability, etc.
Like torture, a dictatorship isn’t something I’m eager to accept in order to feel a bit safer. But that’s just me . . . it seems like a lot of people here would feel differently.
Comment by Phil — 9/30/2006 @ 2:49 pm
accept in order to feel a bit safer
The hypo didn’t suggest anyone would “feel safer”. Given the nature of the enemy interrogation techniques like waterboarding saves lives.
One suspects who is president has a lot to do with what’s “acceptable”.
Comment by boris — 9/30/2006 @ 2:58 pm
If by “work” you mean it can save “lives” or prevent “Americans” from being “killed,” why, I agree with you, scare quotes notwithstanding.
But we part ways when you make the interesting leap from torture to dictatorship, and from reformulating the hypothetical to take it from waterboarding to prevent a massive attack to torture to make you “a little bit safer.”
You’re torturing the rules of the discussion, Phil.
Comment by Mike Lief — 9/30/2006 @ 3:04 pm
If Congress ever tries to pass a bill that says “known terrorist X knows about a massive attack, and we can stop it if we waterboard him; therefor, Congress herby declares that waterboarding of terrorist X is lawful this one time” then I’ll vote for it.
But that’s never the *actual legislation* that’s proposed, because legislation doesn’t work that way. The *actual legislation* is always, essentially, “let’s allow torture because the president says that it’ll make us a little bit safer.”
Then everyone pretends we’re just allowing waterboarding of terrorist X when we know he has information about a massive attack. But in fact, we’re saying “you’re allowed to torture when you think it’s useful. We know you’ll use this ability wisely, because you promise you will.”
What’s mindboggling is that this is *conservatives* saying they *trust the government* to use the right to torture wisely. I feel like I’m in bizzarro-world.
Comment by Phil — 9/30/2006 @ 3:36 pm
Are you defining waterboarding as torture? If so, we may never be able to come to an agreement. I contend that waterboarding is not torture, although it is coercive. I would say that when you include waterboarding, tickling with a feather for 48 hours, or putting goggle and earplugs on for 48 hours, you are outside the definition of torture and minimize real torture (amputation of digits, electricity, impalement, etc…). Not getting a second cup of hot coffee with breakfast is not torture, although that has been claimed. This thread deals specifically with waterboarding. Do you consider that torture?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/30/2006 @ 3:54 pm