A Hypothetical that (Some) Liberal Opponents of Waterboarding Will Not Answer
I have asked this question before, but it’s a partially new crew here now, so I’m reviving it:
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?
Conservatives, your mission in this thread is simple: try to keep the liberals on point.
It’s a question of morality, and it is a relevant question. My answer is clear: an unequivocal “yes, it was worth it.” I might add that I wonder how realistic the hypothetical is. It was reported as fact, and I tend to believe it — but part of me is slightly skeptical.
But the reality isn’t the issue. We are exploring our moral differences here, in a hypothetical. Arguing against the hypothetical by saying that the assumptions aren’t realistic is dodging the moral question. It makes you look like Hillary Clinton doing the two-step on licenses for illegals — you’re refusing to answer a direct question and everyone can see that.
Oh, dodging the question is what every liberal opponent of waterboarding will do. Because, as I said in a recent thread on this issue, “[a]dmitting any ambiguity kills the sweet, sweet high of self-righteousness.”
P.S. Fritz is the only waterboarding opponent who is off the hook. He has given an answer.
Here is the question again in case you missed it, liberals: based on the above hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?
The liberals will dodge the question. They do every time.
Every time.
UPDATE: My admiration for my commenters has increased. Despite my confident assertion that liberals always avoid this question, many liberal waterboarding opponents actually take the question head-on in the comments below. I have changed the title to add the word “some” in parentheses.
A couple of commenters haven’t been heard from, though, as of about 10:50 a.m. on November 12. Itsme pointedly evaded answering. And I’d like to see an appearance from Oregonian in the thread.
UPDATE x2: When I say that I am asking a purely moral question, I mean for you to assume that waterboarding is legal — so that questions of violating the law need not enter into your analysis.
*crickets*
Comment by Pious Agnostic — 11/11/2007 @ 3:51 pm
Patterico,
I read through Fritz’s posts on the other thread and tend to agree with his points.
You want a bottom line answer for what is a no-brainer question. Okay I’ll bite - yes, it was worth it.
But I think you miss a more important question as i see it in terms of this debate.
“As a CIA or US military personnel in authority knowing that (a) the suspect has information on an imminent attack, and (b) knowing that waterboarding has been classified as torture, would you employ this method to save thousands even if it meant forfeiting your freedom for the next 20 or so years?”
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 4:04 pm
I hope I would — if I really thought it would save thousands of lives.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:07 pm
I don’t think Fritz’ answer is valid, nor do I think that your rephrasing of the question from Patterico’s to a varient of Fritz’ valid either.
It is not an answer to avoid confronting the issue by putting someone’s else’s willingness to be imprisoned on the line.
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 4:07 pm
Pious Agnostic,
Give them more than 13 minutes to respond . . .
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:08 pm
OK, I won’t dodge it. Assuming the hypothetical is true, it wasn’t worth it.
It is unworthy of a moral and democratic society to engage in torture. Period. Even to prevent a catastrophic terrorist strike. Tragic as they are, we can as a society recover from terrorist strikes. If we become a society that embraces torture, we lose a measure of civilization and humanity forever.
Everyone has their own idea of what torture is. From what I gather about waterboarding, it constitutes torture when done against the unwilling. So, I have to conclude it was improper.
Let me change the question. Same facts, except instead of waterboarding, the interrogators chopped off his fingers one by one, and then his foot, and was about to do the other foot when the suspect finally broke and spilled the information needed to avert the tragedy. Was it worth it?
If you say yes, you disgust me.
If you say no, then you agree that at some point torture becomes improper even if it would avoid a catastrophe. Our only disagreement is where do you draw the line. I include waterboarding, and you don’t.
Comment by Stace — 11/11/2007 @ 4:09 pm
It is not an answer to avoid confronting the issue by putting someone’s else’s willingness to be imprisoned on the line.
SPQR,
The question was your own willingness to do so.
I think it’s a fair question, even if I don’t completely understand the point.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:09 pm
Same facts, except instead of waterboarding, the interrogators chopped off his fingers one by one, and then his foot, and was about to do the other foot when the suspect finally broke and spilled the information needed to avert the tragedy. Was it worth it?
Absolutely.
I’ll even change the facts more. Instead of thousands of lives, it’s one life: my daughter’s.
I’d chop off every finger and every toe of a guilty person, who had knowledge that could save my daughter. I’d cover him with honey and stake him to a red ant pile. There’s no torture so barbaric that I wouldn’t do it. To save my daughter’s life.
Stace, I appreciate your forthright answer. You say you would condemn thousands of people to death — just to avoid sanctioning an act that people voluntarily undergo all the time just to see what it’s like.
And if I don’t, I “disgust” you.
[UPDATE: Actually, the “disgust” line related to chopping off fingers and toes. Sorry to Stace for misreading her comment. — P]
That makes my point better than anything else could. Self-righteousness has been elevated far above common sense, or any conventionally held views of morality.
Who agrees with Stace? Anyone else have the courage to answer the question?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:16 pm
Pat, as I understood Fritz’ argument, the answer to the whole issue was to depend upon the willingness of interrogators to individually risk prosecution for their actions. Not merely as an answer to the ethical question for debate.
I put up several reasons why I found that approach invalid and I still question whether it is a response or a rhetorical flourish.
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 4:17 pm
(I’d do the same to save my son or my wife or anyone else I deeply love. I just pick my daughter as a random example.)
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:17 pm
I think Fritz said he’d say it was worth it in this hypo — didn’t he?
I’d be surprised if he didn’t.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:18 pm
Stace writes: It is unworthy of a moral and democratic society to engage in torture. Period. Even to prevent a catastrophic terrorist strike. Tragic as they are, we can as a society recover from terrorist strikes.
So you are okay condemning people to death–maybe even those close to you–and doing nothing to prevent it?
Comment by Paul — 11/11/2007 @ 4:20 pm
Stace,
What if the group of people in the building included everyone you hold dear? Everyone in your immediate family? Your spouse? Your parents? Your children?
You’re telling me that you would let them all die so that KSM — the admitted planner of a mass murder — wouldn’t be waterboarded for 2 1/2 minutes?
I really want to know if you have thought about this and aren’t just glibly saying something to “stick to principle.” Is this really what you are saying?
Really??
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:23 pm
I mean, you can’t really mean it.
Can you?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:23 pm
Question for Stace: Let’s return to the “buried alive” scenario. You know who did it. You know he knows where the person is buried, alive. And you know that you only have so long to get the information out of him before the buried alive person is dead.
That person is your child.
What are you willing to do to get that information out of the perp?
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2007 @ 4:27 pm
You know, Patterico. To give a little respite to some of these people, there are people in the world who in general can’t really handle serious responsibility - they don’t have the temperament for it. Some people don’t really have a semblance of true self-knowledge.
So some of what people here is indeed silly posturing, some of it is ignorance of what they themselves are capable of in true extremis, and a lot of it is the prattering of people who can’t be trusted to run a pet sitting business.
** shrug **
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 4:27 pm
“My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?”
Is it worth it only if he gives reliable information?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 4:28 pm
Here’s another question.
Define torture.
Is shoving a red hot fireplace poker into your lower intestines torture?
Is pulling fingernails out with pliers torture?
Is having your body stretched on a rack so that every ligament is torn and every joint dislocated torture?
Is having your flesh flayed from your body and salt poured into the wounds torture?
Is have alligator clips attached to your genitalia and then an electric shock applied torture?
Is being strapped to a board with your head firmly tied down, then having a single drop of water landing on the same spot over and over for several hours torture?
Is being given a drug that numbs your skin, then being placed into a padded chamber with no light, no sound, or smell for several hours considered torture?
Is being strapped to a board, a cloth placed onto your face and water then poured onto the cloth considered torture?
Consider that with the exception of the last entry, all the methods listed either cause physical damage to the body, or cause severe mental damage.
Having your head strapped down and a drop of water hitting it about every second will cause most people to crack within an hour.
This was demonstrated on the TV show Mythbusters. On average the volunteers who submitted to this, and knew the could stop it at any time, lasted less then an hour. When used coercively, you know you can’t get free and it will last for hours.
The other non-physical method is called Sensory Deprivation. Most people can only last about 30 minutes. I don’t know if this has ever been used, but spending several hours in such a chamber would probably drive you utterly insane.
Waterboarding as used by the U.S. is only done as a last resort and only lasts a few minutes. All the other methods last for hours.
In most cases physical torture is used to destroy a person, rather then gain information. (It is also used for that as well)
A professional interrogator does not like to use physically coercive methods. It causes a normal person real anguish, and a person who doesn’t feel that anguish is probably someone you don’t want as an interrogator in the first place.
Being waterboarded is not fun, but it does no physical damage and no lasting mental damage. (You are scared to death for a brief time, but people pay money to be scared at the movies all the time)
So think this through very carefully. Should waterboarding be used as a first resort? Probably not. Should it be used on a subject constantly. No since the subject will get used to it.
Should it be banned? No. There may be times when lives are at stake an nothing else will work. There should be oversight, and the interrogators should also be subjected to this so they will know what it feels like and understand when they need to stop.
Now for the last question.
Is being forced to listen to Country music torture? (I think so!)
My $.02
Comment by Evilned — 11/11/2007 @ 4:30 pm
I just think it’s interesting to see the lengths people will go to, in order to maintain their self-righteous little view of themselves as the only people who care about morality. It’s the “can you believe it has come to this, that we are really debating whether to torture people?” attitude.
But I want to hear from the regulars. Blah, Oregonian, etc. They’ll dodge the question, because they know that the answer they want to give — the one Stace has given — would make them look crazy.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:30 pm
Is it worth it only if he gives reliable information?
Let’s keep on track and keep the hypo restricted to that.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:31 pm
I read Fritz’s comments the same way SPQR did. Fritz was willing to let captives be waterboarded but only if the people who did the waterboarding were nevertheless found guilty of torture. Granted, Fritz was agreeable to giving them a pardon for their acts, but it’s easy to approve waterboarding if at the same time you get to adhere to your belief that waterboarding is illegal.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 4:33 pm
#11
Pretty much, yes he did.
“I think they should be prosecuted. They should plead guilty. In the penalty phase they should present the mitigating factors involved in the case, i.e., how many lives they saved. Then, if that aspect of their case holds up, the President should pardon them.
Comment by Fritz — 11/10/2007 @ 12:11 pm ”
Patriots die for their country often. They often fight against odds they know they will not survive yet do so for the greater good.
The choice to torture someone or not for information should come from the same well of conviction. The only difference is that in the case of using torture or not, it will likely be a person in authority (senior officer or civilian) that gives the okay.
Laws cannot be written for every single hypothetical. Nor will they make us more secure or moral. We better hope we have tough men and women who really can make a tough call as I mentioned.
“I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country” shouldn’t be replaced with “I wish there had been a clearer law that could have kept me out of the pokey”
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 4:33 pm
If you take time to develop the “solid basis to believe” proposition, you have time to vet the waterboarding through channels. Won’t victims say anything to make it stop? One rarely hears proponents acknowledge a reliability downside. People who are waterboarded as an experiment or as part of their training know that they will not be hurt in the end.
If the interrogator has proven, substantial experience and training and has never elicited the kind of discredited claims Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi made while waterboarded, then KSM is a righteous candidate.
Comment by steve — 11/11/2007 @ 4:35 pm
“Let’s keep on track and keep the hypo restricted to that.”
Of course its worth it. That question was answered years ago:
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/18/by-the-power-of-stipulation-i-have-the-power
So tit for tat. Here’s my hypo: lets say he doesn’t give any reliable information which leads to nothing but a wasted rise to orange alert a diversion of intelligence assets. Worth it?
Or here’s another one: On suspicion that he has recently purchased firearms and is a general weirdo, the police waterboard a young asian american student. He confesses his plans to go on a shooting rampage, and is thus imprisoned for those attempted murders. Worth it?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 4:39 pm
You people are changing the rules. The question isn’t what Patterico would do to save his daughter, or what I would do to save my loved ones. Or even what I hope someone would do if the building held all my loved ones.
The question is what the U.S. government can do to extract information from people in custody.
If you think it is really OK for your government to hack off limbs or other forms of extreme torture, in any circumstance, rightly or wrongly believing it will provide valuable information, then I am speechless.
Instead of putting a challenge to liberals, Patterico, I will put one to you. Put up a simple post on your front page saying “I believe the United States Government should be able to use extreme forms of torture, such as dismemberment, when it appears it will lead to information that may save lives.” It’ll be interesting to see how the blogosphere reacts to that.
I will agree that whether waterboarding constitutes torture is fairly debatable by honest people with different views. I come out on the torture side, but I can see how someone could put the line in a different place and include waterboarding with acceptable coercive techniques.
But I really have trouble accepting that some of you truly think anything goes with respect to extreme torture, even in just certain special cases, and then accuse me of having suspect morality.
Comment by Stace — 11/11/2007 @ 4:40 pm
Some people aren’t able to see past the hypothetical to the reality of death. They are just like Dukakis and his dispassionate response to the rape question. There is no doubt in my mind I would commit torture to save the lives of my children or the children of people I don’t know even if I knew I would go to jail if I did. It would be horrendously immoral NOT to do so.
Comment by tmac — 11/11/2007 @ 4:43 pm
Put up a simple post on your front page saying “I believe the United States Government should be able to use extreme forms of torture, such as dismemberment, when it appears it will lead to information that may save lives.”
That wasn’t the hypo, Stace. The hypo assumes that we *know* the torture did save lives, and asks if it was worth it. Not that “it appears” that the torture “may” save lives.
It’s not changing the rules to ask a follow-up hypo asking if your answer would be the same if the people saved were members of your family. It’s actually the logical next question — and it seems you’re dodging it.
So: it’s not OK to waterboard to save thousands of strangers, but you won’t answer whether it’s OK to do it to save a few people *you* happen to be close to?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:49 pm
Won’t victims say anything to make it stop? One rarely hears proponents acknowledge a reliability downside.
I agree, steve, though I hope you’ll acknowledge that I have.
But I want to stay on track here. You answered the question yes, as I understand it, steve — and I think that’s the right answer.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 4:50 pm
“I’d chop off every finger and every toe of a guilty person, who had knowledge that could save my daughter. I’d cover him with honey and stake him to a red ant pile. There’s no torture so barbaric that I wouldn’t do it. To save my daughter’s life.”
So you chop off the first finger, and that gets nothing. Same with the 10th. Might as well keep going eh? Worth it?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 4:52 pm
You people are changing the rules. The question isn’t what Patterico would do to save his daughter, or what I would do to save my loved ones. Or even what I hope someone would do if the building held all my loved ones.
The question is what the U.S. government can do to extract information from people in custody.
That’s not changing the rules, Stace, what we are asking is a follow-up question. You stated that waterboarding is torture and should not be used under any circumstances. So asking even if involved saving your loved ones, even though it would mean condemning poibly thousands of peope to death, is a fair question.
Which you didn’t answer.
Comment by Paul — 11/11/2007 @ 4:52 pm
Oops…”poibly” should be possibly.
Comment by Paul — 11/11/2007 @ 4:54 pm
Why stop at waterboarding. These people want to go back to the 7th century, so I say put them on the rack. Makes them give up information faster and they are crippled by the process so we can let them go beg on the streets of Mekka
Comment by Not a Yank — 11/11/2007 @ 4:54 pm
Very, very, very few people are going to withstand this degree of torture without breaking. Almost none of those people are the sort who would kidnap a man’s daughter. If it’s a child molester in particular, these are the most selfish, narcissistic people on the planet and there is no way they could withstand torture.
But let’s say you’re right. Let’s say the person will not break under any circumstances and all you do is cut off all 10 fingers of the person who has taken and refused to return your daughter leading to her death. Is it worth it?
Hell, yeah.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 4:59 pm
I would give my immortal soul and spend eternity in the pits of hell to save my daughter. It says nothing about what I would do for the rest of the world. I have not given all my possessions to the poor and do not struggle every day to feed the hungry and heal the sick.
The question is: Sometimes loving most times selfish human beings that we are, creating hierarchies of care for our fellow human beings, what regard do we give to a terrorist, inarguably a human being but also inarguably a conscienceless murderer, to the detriment of one or more other innocent human beings?
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 5:08 pm
I think we found the question Stace is going to dodge.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 5:10 pm
“Very, very, very few people are going to withstand this degree of torture without breaking.”
See, there you go, changing the hypothetical.
“Let’s say the person will not break under any circumstances and all you do is cut off all 10 fingers of the person who has taken and refused to return your daughter leading to her death. Is it worth it?
Hell, yeah.”
After you’ve chopped off the first, you probably already figured out your story and how you’re going to dump his body, right? Time to get medieval. No matter how many times they beg that they don’t know where your daughter is. No matter how many times they tell you something which gets you to stop the torture while you check it out.
“I think we found the question Stace is going to dodge.”
I think thats the entire point of this exercise.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 5:15 pm
Stace,
While cutting off his fingers and feet is certainly more gruesome and painful, I don’t think it would as effective an interrogation technique as waterboarding. The panic induced by the sensation of drowning is what works in waterboarding, but it doesn’t leave any permanent damage.
Comment by Mike S — 11/11/2007 @ 5:16 pm
Patterico, forgive me… I would definitely not say this on my own because I’m better than that.
I showed my girlfriend your comments, whitd, and even she thinks you’re [redacted]. And heck, I agree. She’s my kindler, gentler half and fully recognizes the value of doing whatever it takes for a parent to save their child. And I’d stack up her humanity or Patterico’s against yours in a heart beat.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 5:19 pm
“I think we found the question Stace is going to dodge.”
I think thats the entire point of this exercise.
So, whitd, will you please try to answer it? Although I think I put forward a better argument in my last comment on the previous thread.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 5:21 pm
Maybe second to last. There was that Nazi stuff digression.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 5:22 pm
Oh gee guys, sorry I took the time to go buy cat food. What a tool I must look like.
First of all, I had to get past the specious and offensive premise that “liberals refuse to answer” a particular hypothesis. As far as I can see there has been a LOT of discussion at more than one thread on this topic, with people weighing in from all points of view.
And I think to put it in terms of “conservatives keep the liberals on point” sets up a false dichotomy. It assumes that the “correct” answer is the result of a political viewpoint, which it’s not.
Third, you oversimplify the question in a way that doesn’t lead to any sort of helpful answer. Would you kill a child to save a family? A neighborhood? A city?
(Or the hilarious Balloon Juice question to conservative Republicans quoted by Andrew Sullivan : Would you have sex with a man if it prevented a terrorist attack?)
At some point you’re going to say yes. Does that really further the conversation?
Comment by Itsme — 11/11/2007 @ 5:23 pm
One problem: this isn’t a chicken or egg question: there is a specific sequence of events.
Let’s suppose that we strongly believe that captured terrorist Ahmad al-Patterico can give us specific information about an imminent terrorist attack, so he is “aggressively questioned” by the CIA. However, the CIA obtains no actionable intelligence from Mr al-Patterico, either because he never had any or he was able to deflect the questions with lies.
In such a case, was the waterboarding worth it?
That’s one problem with the initial argument: the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was justified after the fact, after he spilled his guts on some valuable, actionable information. But the decision to employ waterboarding was taken based on the calculation that KSM had or would surrender such information — and sometimes such calculations are wrong.
You can’t justify waterboarding, or any other questionable means of interrogation, based on having obtained good information; you have to justify it solely on the basis that you think it will be useful and productive, and your actions have to be legally justifiable regardless of whether useful information is obtained.
Comment by Dana — 11/11/2007 @ 5:25 pm
I object a bit to the form of the hypothetical. Suppose we ask this question about lottery tickets. If you buy a lottery ticket and you win a million dollars was it worth it? Obviously yes. But if you win nothing was it worth it? Obviously no. So since you cannot know in advance which lottery tickets will be winners this does not tell you much about whether buying lottery tickets is a good idea.
So in this case if you know in advance that waterboarding KSM will save thousands of lives then as I said in the other thread I would do it (in other words it is worth it). But you don’t know this in advance so even if it worked out in this particular case that does not mean it is good policy.
And for what it is worth personally I am extremely skeptical of the claim that waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives.
Comment by James B. Shearer — 11/11/2007 @ 5:27 pm
“So, whitd, will you please try to answer it?”
I answered above in #23. Simple utilitarianism.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 5:29 pm
Dana,
I think the hypothetical assumed there is a reasonable likelihood KSM has information because of his terrorist history and relationships. That’s a contemporaneous evaluation, not a decision made in hindsight, and it’s probably the best we’re going to get in any real-life situation.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 5:30 pm
Hey waddya know, I’m not alone here after all.
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 5:33 pm
Then I disgust you. Not only would I be ok with it being done, I’d do it myself if need be.
And if my Significant Other (assuming I get one, natch) or child (should I sire one) were the only person in danger? If just that one or two people would be saved by brutal acts to extract information?
You can’t imagine what I’d do to keep friends or even strangers who merely happen to be peaceful civilians safe. Don’t even attempt to think about what I’d do if it were someone I loved.
Stace, if you were standing in front of me, and you said “I have a nuclear bomb somewhere in this city. All I have to do is walk over to the computer and push one button, and it will go off” and I had a reason to suspect you might actually have a nuke?
Trust me. You’d tell me where it was, because lying to me would end up being much, much worse than anything I’d do to get you to talk in the first place.
That’s part of why torture works. Yes, you might lie to get it to stop, but when the people torturing you find out you lied, they come back and they express their displeasure all over you.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 5:44 pm
However, if the only person in danger was Blah, I might just ask if you wanted a soda and something to eat, and if you were sleeping ok.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 5:45 pm
Hey waddya know, I’m not alone here after all.
But you didn’t answer the question posed by our host.
Comment by Paul — 11/11/2007 @ 5:47 pm
Dana #41:
You can’t justify waterboarding, or any other questionable means of interrogation, based on having obtained good information; you have to justify it solely on the basis that you think it will be useful and productive, and your actions have to be legally justifiable regardless of whether useful information is obtained.
Good point.
Comment by Itsme — 11/11/2007 @ 5:50 pm
You know why I said that Ops could torture if they were willing to accept legal responsibility, including 20 years in Leavenworth if they got it wrong? In my view the “ticking-bomb” justification of necessity is, to paraphrase Luben, a fatuous, intellectual fraud, insteresting for ethics classes, useless as a determinite of how one ought to act in the real world.
Someone on another thread wondered how my system would work when the Ops in question would have to have waterboarding equipment on hand, be trained in its use, etc… That’s the point, in my view: they don’t actually believe in the “ticking-bomb”, they’re interested in creating a culture of torture and they wish to legitimize its use, meaning that in the long-run it’s going to be used much, much more. This is what happened to the GSS in Israel. This is the corrosive effect I’ve mentioned before.
I want to make torture so fraught with danger and risk for the torturer, the personal cost so high, that the strictures of the “ticking-bomb” assumption are rigedly held to.
I’m also very cognizant that any use of torture is likely to have a train of responsibility that goes straight to the top.
I’m a conservative opponent of waterboarding.
Comment by Fritz — 11/11/2007 @ 5:52 pm
No whitd #43. You avoided and evaded in #23.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 5:52 pm
No they don’t.
I’d happily go to jail for doing what I thought was needed to save American Lives.
The rights of whoever has the information take a back seat to the rights of the potential victims to not die. If the price that needs to be paid is my freedom, then it’s a bargin at twice the price.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 5:54 pm
“You avoided and evaded in #23.”
I quote again: “Of course its worth it”
I make fun of the question. I think its useless and idiotic. But I quite clearly answered it. I’m a liberal opponent of waterboarding and, contrary to the title of this thread, I answer the question.
And then i call it stupid.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 5:56 pm
No need to.
Others have. The link to crookedtimber.org was a riot
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 5:59 pm
Going back to the question at hand, I would say yes. Under the circumstances I would be willing to torture and to be responsible for my actions.
I think Patterico is trying to show that there are such things as exceptional circumstances. We used a nuclear bomb on Japan. Afterwards, we justify it by the lives saved, others condemn the action.
There should be strict controls on interrogation, but at times, as much as I hate to say it, the ends justify the means. It should always be rare, and tightly controlled, but the possibility should be allowed.
I love the ideas of absolutes, but in this world they are rare.
Comment by Dr T — 11/11/2007 @ 6:04 pm
So you think somebody should be allowed to die so a terrorist will not fear (without risk of) drowning. Live well and prosper.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 6:05 pm
Fritz #50,
What you’ve described is a system that encourages risk-takers to go overboard and cautious conservatives (and I don’t mean that in a political sense) to avoid these techniques. Thus, you’ve done exactly the opposite of what you intend.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 6:06 pm
blah #54:
The link to crookedtimber.org was a riot
Oh my God, it really is.
I swear I didn’t get my hypo in #40 from them !
Comment by Itsme — 11/11/2007 @ 6:07 pm
My #56 was to whitd’s #53.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 6:07 pm
Patterico -
This sounds a lot like the famous case involving Lt. Col Allen West:
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200312040845.asp
Here’s an excerpt:
After about 20 more minutes of useless questioning, West grabbed the man, held him down near a box full of sand used to discharge jammed weapons, and said something like, “This is it. I’m going to count to five again, and if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to kill you.” West held the man down, counted to five, and then fired his pistol into the discharging box about a foot from the Iraqi’s head. He began talking. Over the next few minutes, the prisoner gave very specific information about the plot. He named the conspirators, gave times and dates of the assassination plan, and even described how attacks would be made.
West and his men went back to their base camp. The lieutenant colonel immediately went to his boss, woke him up, and told him what he had done, and about the information he’d gotten from the Iraqi.
…
The local election was postponed, the ambushes were avoided, ….
West chose to save the lives of his men, knowing that it might end up with him facing a court-martial because intimidation tactics of that sort were not permitted. Of course, waterboarding was apparently a standard US practice somewhere else.
Comment by jim2 — 11/11/2007 @ 6:10 pm
“So you think somebody should be allowed to die so a terrorist will not fear (without risk of) drowning.”
I said “of course its worth it.” The “simple question” asked by the post is: “was the waterboarding session worth it?”
Can you put those two together?
It seems like not only is the question moronic, so is everyone with a boner for it.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 6:11 pm
Patterico,
I think we’re asking the progressives the wrong question. Let’s ask them: NK has managed to give you a poison that will kill you in twenty-four hours. He has hidden the antidote somewhere. You have taken him prisoner and he is totally in your power. What would you do to him to get him to tell you where it is?
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 6:13 pm
Others have answered it both ways. Nice sidestep, but you’re only fooling yourself if you think that serves as the answer Patterico requested of you.
Comment by Steverino — 11/11/2007 @ 6:17 pm
There are times when people are gonna do what they’re gonna do. It will be illegal, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Should we therefore rewrite the policy? No. It’s not worth it. If you get caught, maybe you’ll go to jail, maybe you’ll get a pardon. Maybe you won’t get caught. That’s the way it is now, that’s the way it should stay: sloppy.
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 6:25 pm
“I showed my girlfriend your comments, whitd, and even she thinks you’re [redacted]. And heck, I agree. She’s my kindler, gentler half and fully recognizes the value of doing whatever it takes for a parent to save their child.”
Whatever it takes? Even the hypothetical in the crooked timber link?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 6:31 pm
“That’s the way it is now,”
No it’s not. That’s the way it used to be.
And that’s the way it should be again.
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 6:32 pm
DRJ your #57 is exactly what I have argued in previous threads - assuming that Fritz is serious. And he’s never responded to that point.
But I’m returning to an earlier point of view that it is not a serious argument but a rhetorical fraud, a rhetorical flourish … a rhetorical dare so to speak.
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 6:33 pm
“… based on the above hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it?”
My answer is that it was worth it.
However I also say that this ought not to be done, and it ought to be illegal.
To say that something was worth it in a particular case is not to say that it ought to be allowed in the general case. And because of the slippery slope, it may not be possible to make exceptions for special cases while keeping necessary broad prohibitions intact.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 6:34 pm
Of course, this is why we have laws. This is why we have due process. You shouldn’t be allowed to torture people based psychic guesses or hypotheticals. If we can torture KSM, we can shoot the ominous black kid who looks threatening when he enters the 7-Eleven.
Perhaps in your ideal world, laws exist to be suspended when we’re frightened and not thinking straight. But that would be your world, not mine.
Comment by Terrence — 11/11/2007 @ 6:35 pm
Terrence, that’s ridiculous and literally a logical fallacy on your part. The non sequitur.
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 6:36 pm
Patterico, David Blue wins the “First one for a complete straddle with a bad dismount” award.
Comment by SPQR — 11/11/2007 @ 6:37 pm
To expand on my comment #62, it’s pointless to appeal to anything more than a progressive’s appetites. They kill their own children in their mother’s belly.
Comment by nk — 11/11/2007 @ 6:39 pm
I don’t understand what was evasive about my previous post, as one of those foolish anti-torture liberals, so I will take the liberty of repeating and enhancing it.
(begin repeat)
Sorry to come late to the party. Weekend commenting is a little erratic.
Although I don’t agree with the premises insofar as they relate to the efficacy (or, rather, the accuracy) of torture, I’ll play the game and take that up later. However, there is one part of the introduction with which I don’t agree: I am not at all sure that a German Army private who shot American soldiers was “behaving wrongly”. Do I think a Wehrmacht colonel who ordered the massacre of civilians or torture of prisoners was behaving wrongly? Yes, because there was a pre-existing understanding that these acts (much less Auschwitz) were criminal and reprehensible. But judging a private by the morality of his cause is more than a little dicey: would you care to apply it to Vietnam? The Mexican War? Interestingly enough, this has relevance to my explanation why we should not be using torture, even at some cost to ourselves.
First: the United States is not only a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, we were one of the sponsors. If we decide that under suitable provocation, we can break these treaties (which brook no exceptions), they are basically worthless. It’s ridiculous to hold other states to positions we have abandoned. Indeed, we would probably owe apologies (in some cases post-execution) to Germans and Japanese who should benefit from our new understanding of the “but we really need it to win” exception to torture. Incidentally, we are sending a clear message that our signature to all other treaties is worthless without even the courtesy of formal withdrawal. What sort of leadership we show in the world and cooperation we get from the civilized countries (a group I would say no longer includes us) is zero, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the pro-torture set largely coincides with the we’re-so-big-we-make-our-own-rules set. In combating international terror, I don’t think that’s going to work.
Second, I also would like to point out that the record of states which resorted to torture isn’t that good. Given who won WWII and who lost, the appeal of Japanese methods of interrogation must lie in the realm of abnormal psychology and not military success. Nor did torture save the Nazis, the Soviet Union, the Shah of Iran, the Argentine junta, the Chilean junta, etc. Even our BFFs the Israelis must wonder if their extensive program of torture developed more counter-terrorist intel than it radicalized the Palestinian population. We have already followed the USSR in a blunderous invasion (their commitment in Afghanistan was comparable in sicope to ours in Iraq). Why we should follow them onto the ash heap of history, I can’t fathom.
(end repeat post)
I expect everyone on this thread knows of the Milgrom experiments and the Stanford prison experiment, so where are you getting this idea that our torture is going to be so much more valuable and so much more accurate than other people’s torture. I’m rather amazed that one the received reckoning here, some poor slob of a German teenager with American bullets falling all around him is immoral, but an American torturer is OK because his cause is just. The more we torture, the less reason I see to believe our cause’s justness is anything more than an us-versus-them distinction. Indeed, the Nazi torturers didn’t think they were the black hats (figuratively, I guess they were, literally); they were doing what was necessary to save European culture from Judeobolshevism. As far as I know, they considered Anglo-American soldiers as dupes, not criminals, so in that one respect, they were more generous than Patterico.
Now, let me just mention one thing about the premises. There was no Doctors Plot against Stalin. The whole thing was a daisy chain of tortured confessions originating in Stalin’s paranoia. Since torture transgresses norms, torturers are impelled to find the Ticking Bomb that makes their act not criminal. The idea that the Library Towers plot existed, was moving forward, and could be stopped only by torture is self-serving.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 11/11/2007 @ 7:01 pm
Andrew J. Lazarus, you don’t see a distinction between starting a series of aggressive wars to conquer the world, executing whole populations of conquered and indigenous peoples in camps, enslaving people, and torturing someone to accomplish these goals… than either in the personal example protecting your child from being killed by an evil abuser or in the terrorism example, stopping thousands of civilians from being slaughtered by people who want to enslave you, repress your women, and conquer your nation?
You see no essential differences?
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 7:10 pm
I think it’s a little unfair to force liberals to ask this hypothetical, since a subset of torture opposers oppose it on the grounds that torture never produces reliable and timely information, or that its failure rate is so high that if you were to torture everyone who you reasonably thought could cough up information, the amount of false information would be a major hinderance.
A better scenario would be this:
You’ve captured KSM and his password-protected laptop. The laptop’s contents are encrypted. Other information sources lead you to believe than an attack is imminent…imminent enough that decrypting the laptop might get the info too late. Would liberals support waterboarding KSM until he gives the password? Would those who support waterboarding, but not “real” torture agree with torturing KSM?
This scenario is useful since it eliminates the problem of “What if they give us false info and how would we know it?” An answer could be verified in seconds.
Comment by Mike — 11/11/2007 @ 7:12 pm
Christoph, you and your buddies move in and out of sidereal view as convenient. The prohibition of torture involves relatively objective indicia. Allowing exceptions for the good guys when they really need it vitiates the concept. Sure, from outside the Nazis were the most reprehensible force in modern history. But I don’t think it’s much use condemning their torture because they were evil, a premise I doubt they would grant. They were evil because of their acts. Not vice versa.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 11/11/2007 @ 7:19 pm
SPQR 71. : “Patterico, David Blue wins the “First one for a complete straddle with a bad dismount” award.”
It’s not a straddle. I come down simply on one side. Don’t do this or allow it.
Since Patterico asked for a straight answer to his question, I provided one.
But in my opinion, the answer to that question does not determine whether such things should be permitted or allowed.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 7:21 pm
(I should clarify). I meant, a particular case should not determine if such things should be made legal, or if they should be allowed practically, in tension with the law but as a commonly accepted practice. I’m not in favor of formal legalization or tacit acceptance. Except in some particular classes of exceptions, I’m in favor of barring such things in theory and also in practice.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 7:34 pm
David Blue,
Is your position that waterboarding should never be allowed - no matter how likely it is that the subject has useful information and no matter how many people are in danger?
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 7:36 pm
I don’t think the hypo is realistic: there’s no way to know at the time the information is gathered that it is reliable, absent outside corroboration, and with corroboration, the information from KSM wasn’t necessary. At best you could get information which would lead you to corroboration.
But my view of the hypo isn’t relevant to the moral question. It’s something I have to say as preface, but it’s context, not an answer.
There are, I think, two internally consistent answers to the hypo.
I don’t believe it was worth it.
Waterboarding is an *evil* act. By stooping to it, the person doing it debases himself, deprives himself of a bit of humanity. Those who endorse it to the same, to a lesser degree. Intentionally inflicting severe trauma on those who are helpless to resist is *wrong*, even if done in the name of a greater good.
And yet … killing people is evil. War is evil. But sometimes it’s a necessary evil — sometimes the choice is between the evil of war or some other evil which may be worse. So saying that it’s *evil* isn’t per se dispositive. Sure, it’s evil. But is it a *necessary* evil?
This is where my disbelief in the realisticness of the hypo is troublesome. Of course, if my distrust of the hypo is right, it’s not a necessary evil. But if my distrust of the hypo is wrong, it’s a tougher call.
If it’s the *only* way the information may be obtained — if we know, without an ounce of doubt, to the closest degree possible to absolute certainty, that there is no other way — then it’s a necessary evil, smaller than the evil it would prevent. But if there is any doubt, or any other avenue of approach, than it’s merely *more convenient* than the other options, and therefore unnecessary.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 7:38 pm
Patterico: I don’t completely agree with what Stace said in #6, because I’m not disgusted by those who come down on the other side, but I lean in that direction.
It’s a hard question. When is it ok to do evil in the name of stopping evil? “Never” is an internally consistent answer, and it is one that on some level I admire; but I also think it does not work in the real world, and while there was a time when I would have aspired to that answer, I do no more.
But … doing evil *always* harms the evildoer: it changes him psychologically, if nothing else. If we engage in torture because we decide it is a lesser evil than would be prevented by engaging in it, we will pay a price; our moral sensibility will suffer. And we must factor that in when we make the decision.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 7:44 pm
Hmm. A clarification. “But I lean in that direction” does not mean I lean in the direction of disgust; it means I lean in the direction of being opposed to torture at any time … because it is evil, and it will harm us to do it.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 7:45 pm
DRJ: “David Blue,
Is your position that waterboarding should never be allowed - no matter how likely it is that the subject has useful information and no matter how many people are in danger?”
I weaken on nukes, and possibly on other weapons of mass destruction. A serious super-bug is a fearsome thing, possibly worse than nukes. The anthrax letters are not the worst that can happen.
I think it should be possible to get a warrant to torture if there is a serious suspicion that a nuke is going to go off. History has show that we are able to keep intact a “taboo” or consequential difference between nuclear and conventional weapons, so I think there is reason to hope that permission to torture in this most terrible case would not morph into a general tolerance of harsh interrogation methods.
It is my position that otherwise waterboarding and similar or harsher practices should not be allowed in law or in fact.
I accept that this does imply more success for our terrorist enemies, and that does mean more military and civilian casualties for us. And I say we should pay that price.
The short answer to your question then is: yes.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 7:49 pm
I’m not trying to dodge the question (and I’m not a liberal) but my answer is I’m not sure. I say this respectfully, because I really am not. I’ve been presented these types of moral quandries before: for instance, in the service was asked whether I would kill or release prisoners if I was on a mission and did not have the resources to detain them. Note that these types of questions are not just theory. What I was asked in 1984, actually happened in Afghanistan last year with the seal platoon. And they decided to let the prisoners go. And payed for it.
I do have a counter-question (and I’m not asking it for effect, but in an honest manner of issue analysis…and if you can answer it, despite my not having thought out an answer to yours…all for the better): Would you also say “yes” if more serious torture had been used in the same exact situation with same results? Would you also authorize it for use on kidnappers if the victim was still unrecovered?
Comment by TCO — 11/11/2007 @ 7:56 pm
David Blue,
I’m confused about your exception for nuclear weapons or superbugs. We may know someone like KSM is a terrorist and that he almost certainly knows about terror plots. The point is we want him to tell us what those plots are. Maybe he only knows about a plot to send one anthrax letter to the President, a plot that would almost certainly be unsuccessful. But what if he knows about a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in San Francisco?
The point is, you don’t know in advance what the results will be so you have to make your decision in theory, knowing that the wrong decision may cost people their lives *or* it may subject KSM to a waterboarding session.
Therefore, do you still say that waterboarding should never be allowed - no matter how likely it is that the subject has useful information and no matter how many people are in danger?
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 7:59 pm
Pat: What about violation of due process or search and seizure rights in the Bill of Rights? Are those also ok, if the end result is saving a life?
Comment by TCO — 11/11/2007 @ 8:07 pm
Or another hypo: would this have been ok if we had an officer or a military strategist in a conventional war. If the result is that the torture will save several of our soldier’s lives?
Comment by TCO — 11/11/2007 @ 8:08 pm
DRJ: “David Blue,
I’m confused about your exception for nuclear weapons or superbugs.”
OK. I’m always willing to try and be clearer.
DRJ: “We may know someone like KSM is a terrorist and that he almost certainly knows about terror plots. The point is we want him to tell us what those plots are. Maybe he only knows about a plot to send one anthrax letter to the President, a plot that would almost certainly be unsuccessful. But what if he knows about a plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in San Francisco?”
Unless we have sufficient specific reason to believe that it’s a nuke plot or a superbug plot that he would give up to use if we tortured him - and by “sufficient” I mean “sufficient to get a judge to authorize torture on that specific basis” - I would say no: torture ought not be be allowed in law or in practice.
Instead, we should (do our best to avert disaster as always, of course, but ultimately) take damage.
DRJ: “The point is, you don’t know in advance what the results will be so you have to make your decision in theory, knowing that the wrong decision may cost people their lives *or* it may subject KSM to a waterboarding session.”
If there is no specific information, if we just don’t know what he would tell us, I would say we ought not to allow waterboarding in law or in practice.
DRJ: “Therefore, do you still say that waterboarding should never be allowed - no matter how likely it is that the subject has useful information and no matter how many people are in danger?”
The short answer is yes.
The slightly longer answer, which I’m sure invites another charge of “straddling with a bad dismount” is yes - with the proviso that without nukes or a superbug you’re probably not talking about unlimited casualties. (With “no matter how many” implying it could be millions.)
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 8:16 pm
A bunch of us answered the stupid question directly.
How about a round of applause?
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 8:17 pm
Sure thing.A round of applause for everyone but Blah, who continues to be unable to have any worth-while input on anything.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 8:20 pm
David,
What about Patterico’s follow-up question: Would your answer change if you knew the plot involved your family, even if you didn’t know what the plot was?
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 8:27 pm
Also, David, would your answer change if there was a law that said waterboarding was not torture? I realize you think it is but what if Congress specifically considered that issue and voted otherwise - would that change your opinion?
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 8:33 pm
DRJ: “David,
What about Patterico’s follow-up question: Would your answer change if you knew the plot involved your family, even if you didn’t know what the plot was?”
My answer is for what the people, the nation, the tribe, the state should do - it’s not for what a particular individual should do.
I think there are all sorts of cases where every sort of crime - including murder, torture, armed robbery and so on - is right for an individual with a sufficiently strong obligation to someone like a family member.
The plain answer to your question is yes. Of course my answer would change.
But the answer of the people, the tribe (broadly speaking), the nation, and in turn the state - that should not change.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 8:36 pm
“Would your answer change if you knew the plot involved your family, even if you didn’t know what the plot was?”
Would you torture my family to save yours? Or an iraqi family?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 8:37 pm
The more I read this hypothetical the more it irritates me. As one person noted, the facts were known only AFTER the torture was conducted.
And the call for “conservatives to keep the liberals on point” is distracting. Is the implication that only conservatives get it?
Lastly, let’s throw out another real world scenario. A country is convinced through intelligence and spies that another country possesses WMD and is closely tied to AlQuaida. Lots of posturing and justification is made to justify invding the country and overthrowing the government to find that neither assumption was true.
It seems that a lot of liberals advised against invading Iraq. What exactly did the conservatives have right in that example??
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 8:39 pm
DRJ: “Also, David, would your answer change if there was a law that said waterboarding was not torture? I realize you think it is but what if Congress specifically considered that issue and voted otherwise - would that change your opinion?”
This wouldn’t change my opinion about what the people and the state ought to allow.
Legal abortion hasn’t changed my opinion on whether that is OK. The law may say we are not killing any innocent human beings. But I say we are and we ought not to. It’s that simple.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 8:41 pm
David,
You’ve been a good sport about answering my questions and I appreciate it. Thanks.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 8:43 pm
VOR,
The facts about the specific plots may not have been known in advance but KSM’s ties to terrorism and his history of participation were known. IMO that was the basis for and the critical facts that underlie this hypothetical.
Maybe you are like David Blue and you need more than that to justify waterboarding. In other words, maybe you need information that would satisfy a judge for purposes of a warrant. So be it, but in general that’s been the standard for criminal law purposes and it’s never been the standard for national security purposes.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 8:46 pm
blah says:
A bunch of us answered the stupid question directly.
blah, look up the meaning of the word “us.”
You didn’t answer it.
Nor did Itsme.
aphrael did, as did David Blue.
If I’m wrong, show me the comment where you answered it — but also just remind me: your answer was yes or no?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 8:46 pm
DRJ,
See comments #2 & #21 if you are interested in my opinion.
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 8:51 pm
DRJ,
Sorry that should have been #22
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 8:53 pm
DRJ, you’ve been a good sport about asking straight not loaded questions, and about taking straight answers for what they are. I thank you for that.
Comment by David Blue — 11/11/2007 @ 8:55 pm
This question really does show how different people can think and (allegedly) reason on questions of morality.
To me the answer is so obvious that yes, it was worth it. And yes, I would personally cut off the toes of someone threatening my family and would approve of the government doing the same to terrorists.
Someone earlier pointed out that libs are more than happy to support the killing of unborn babies but have a hard time deciding if torturing a bad guy is morally okay.
To me that shows that the libs are sick puppies…too cowardly to make the tough decisions that need to be made to live in a civilized world.
Very sad….
Comment by Stacy In Tucson — 11/11/2007 @ 8:56 pm
This has been one of the more challenging and insightful threads, and…
#94 -”This wouldn’t change my opinion about what the people and the state ought to allow. Legal abortion hasn’t changed my opinion on whether that is OK. The law may say we are not killing any innocent human beings. But I say we are and we ought not to. It’s that simple.”
Well said and point well made.
Comment by Dana — 11/11/2007 @ 8:57 pm
“You didn’t answer it.”
Anyone that approved the crooked timber link already answered you.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 8:58 pm
Did they put the women’s panties on his head first? (Sorry, there’s a disconnect in what constitutes torture these days.)
Short term, worth it.
Long term, it depends on the public’s reaction to this, which depends on how it’s “announced”. If the public’s reaction is to destroy their own society for having done such a deed, I begin to wonder if that society was worthy of being saved in the first place.
Would I sleep well after having done it? Probably, in this case. Unlikely if it turned out that the intel was wrong and he had no plot to reveal. You can’t know that going in, though.
If someone told you life was easy they lied.
Gandhi:
Comment by htom — 11/11/2007 @ 9:00 pm
I would do what was necessary to prevent the deaths of the innocent or our troops, while not the liking the necessity. If I did not do so, I could live with the knowledge that I chose to let people die to keep our terrorist enemy safe and comfortable. If punishment was necessary for doing what I did to the terrorist, I would very grudgingly accept it. Doing the same to an honorable enemy’s POWs would not be permissible. I, against most creeds/beliefs, place a different value on different types of people when in war or personal danger. It is easy in a peaceful rule of law society to attach equality to all human life. In the mad dog environment of war, choices have to be made and the “them or us” aspect of human relations takes precedence; sad, but true, if you wish your culture to survive. My survival instinct includes the survival of all I hold dear, which goes way beyond my immediate family.
Comment by amr — 11/11/2007 @ 9:04 pm
Here’s some more hypos:
Same situation as Pat’s but the odds are 50% of getting such info. 10%? 99.9%. Is waterboarding worth it?
Same percentages and situations, but with finger-chopping as the compulsion?
A more different hypo: no Jack Bauer situation, but 100% certitude that waterboarding will give evidence that will allow conviction of a murderer (perhaps a different person than the one who’s being tortured). Same as above, but with variations of percentage and finger-chopping.
Comment by TCO — 11/11/2007 @ 9:06 pm
The answer to the conundrum is simple… liberals are fools and actually have no self-consistent positions, nor do they feel the obligation to have them.
Many prominent Democrats have said that they assume that they assume the President or military officers would break the law if required in a national emergency. The fact that these Democrats ARE LAWMAKERS, and yet have made no laws to help us in this situation, tells you all you need to know about their seriousness and trustworthiness.
And of course if the lawbreaking should be shown after the fact to have been unneccessary, even possibly so, they would prosecute the ones who broke the law to avert catastrophe.
Hear me, do not ever trust a Democrat with our security - when you put a Democrat in a situation where they can either gain political advantage or do what is right to protect our country, but not both, our country is going to lose every time. Don’t think so? Okay, then simply name the living Democrat whose words and actions prove me wrong!
Comment by sherlock — 11/11/2007 @ 9:06 pm
VOR #98,
Re: your comment #2, we can treat this issue as a balancing test between the protections we are willing to give up vs the powers we want to give our government to protect us for national security purposes. If that’s the issue, then what we have here is a disagreement on where to draw the line. That’s similar to disagreements on other Constitutional rights, e.g., I might allow more use of guns than you would, or I might agree to more restrictions on free speech than you find palatable.
However, the ultimate point is “Where do we draw the line?” and in a democracy we draw the line where the people agree we should. Right now, waterboarding is not illegal and following your statement of the issue in comment #2, that’s all that matters.
From a practical standpoint, I submit we should also consider other factors in this risk-benefit assessment. For instance, how likely is it that there will be a terrorist act vs how likely is it that all civil rights will be impaired for 20 years? If we don’t uncover a terrorist plot, are we exposing ourselves to a significantly greater risk than the risk of altering our civil rights to allow waterboarding?
I think that last issue is what bothers most liberals. That, and they don’t trust a Republican President. I can’t help but wonder how many would have given Bill Clinton these powers.
Comment by DRJ — 11/11/2007 @ 9:06 pm
I would do what was necessary to prevent the deaths of the innocent or our troops, while not liking the necessity. If I did not do so, I could NOT live with the knowledge that I chose to let people die to keep our terrorist enemy safe and comfortable.
Sorry about the error.
Comment by amr — 11/11/2007 @ 9:07 pm
“Anyone that approved the crooked timber link already answered you.”
No, whitd. You had the guts to give an answer. blah didn’t.
Blah has so far proven unwilling to give a straight answer.
We can talk reality later, and I intend to. But right now I just want a straight answer to the moral question.
See, whitd, your assumption is that anyone would say yes.
But Stace said no.
And blah and Oregonian, I predict, will never say yes. They’ll dodge, and dodge, and dodge.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:10 pm
blah?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:14 pm
Here’s another one for you. Let’s say that you can prove without a doubt that some criminal has gotten away with a double murder and a flee from justice. Is it morally ok to punish this person directly if the legal system has fallen down on doing so?
Comment by TCO — 11/11/2007 @ 9:16 pm
Wrong. Exactly wrong. It is motives, not acts, which determine right or wrong.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:16 pm
“No, whitd. You had the guts to give an answer. blah didn’t.”
It doesn’t take guts. Its a stupid question.
“See, whitd, your assumption is that anyone would say yes. But Stace said no.”
Some people aren’t utilitarian. Some have other moral sources. You’ll push anyone other than a few ghandis to say yes. There’s really no point in it.
The real point is how low people will go: up above anyone someone approved of cutting off toes of someoine threatening their family. That one is very insightful.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:17 pm
“The real point is how low people will go: up above anyone someone approved of cutting off toes of someoine threatening their family.”
Please don’t conduct argumenr by mischaracterization. If you can’t refute what I actually say, and must resort to mischaracterization, it reveals weakness on your part.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:21 pm
I’m sorry, I still don’t understand your point. I would think that risk-takers by definition etc… What is your argument?
Oh, and was KSM a “ticking-bomb” situation? For Patterico’s benefit we’ve assumed he was (or thought of a situation where he could have been), but was he really? What about the other two fellows?
Torture is an evil act; categorically evil in a way that a just combat killing is not. That’s an assertion on my part, we can go into it if you’d like. Another assertion on my part: the only way torture can be justified, as far as I know, is that it’s the lesser of two evils.
The U.S. is a propositional nation based on the assumption that all men are created with certain rights. Even men who wish to take our rights themselves have rights. We ought to defend ourselves with as much force as necessary.
Torture is the abnegation of human rights and human dignity.
Comment by Fritz — 11/11/2007 @ 9:23 pm
Quite simply, it should never be announced. The American People, as a collective group, can’t be trusted to deal with the realities of “neccessary evil”. They would 20/20 hindsight the issue and point out the way it could have been done differently while ignoring the fact that there was no way to know of that other way at the time.
“A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow”.
I am continually stunned over how we allow people with sensitive, classified information leak itto the press with no consequences.
We’re farto easy one people who think they know better than the rest, and throw out the window things like “secrecy”. The NSA’s programs, for example.
Were I in control, the people who leaked things like “we tortured the prisoner and got information that saved [insert large number here] American lives” or “The NSA listens in on phone calls and watches bank transfers to find terrorists” would be shot.
Don’t freaking talk about the secret stuff we use to keep America safe. Period. Full God Damn Stop.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:24 pm
No, no. Some acts are wrong regardless.
Comment by Fritz — 11/11/2007 @ 9:25 pm
Fritz, I don’t even believe torture is always evil. It’s motives, not acts.
I mean torture may be justified by justice.
The government should not use it for this purpose. It would be corrupt and misused and damage the people inflicting it. Yet God is just and the wicked will pay each penny for their sins.
I take this to mean — by a very literal reading of the Bible — that the truly wicket will have equivalent to their sins inflicted on them, or a just amount of pain.
It is not the act that is evil, but the motive.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:26 pm
Buddy, you don’t wanna know the things I’d approve of if - for example - my sister was being threatened.
Having toes cut off would be in the dirrection of “least worry” for the poor SOB who would do something as foolish as threaten me or mine.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:27 pm
“. If you can’t refute what I actually say, and must resort to mischaracterization, it reveals weakness on your part.”
This is what they said: “And yes, I would personally cut off the toes of someone threatening my family”
What you actually say is irrefutably high school ethics.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:28 pm
No, no, torture is always wrong. Sometimes it’s just less evil than something else.
Comment by Fritz — 11/11/2007 @ 9:28 pm
whitd,
As for your crooked timber link, we’ll save reality for a future thread. But I’ll give you a hint: you can’t provide a link to a serious news story from a major Big Media source that says the Martian invasion happened. For the KSM hypo, I can.
But that’s a discussion for another day. I bring it up just to show that it isn’t necessarily a stupid question — nor is it one that everyone will answer the same way (as Stace shows) or even that everyone is willing to answer (as question-dodgers Itsme, blah, and Andrew J. Lazarus show).
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:28 pm
Fritz #120
I don’t believe that an act is, neccessarily, always evil, no matter what.
Much like a gun is merely a tool in search of a purpose, so is torture. A police officer can use a gun to shoot someone who is about to kill a pregnant mother of three, or a serial killer can use it to kill a pregnant mother of three.
The gun, or torture, knows no morality. It’s moral direction and use is derived from the person using it.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:30 pm
whitd,
I thought you were characterizing my statement.
Yes, it is indeed silly to say that one would cut off the toes of someone who threatened their family. And that is revealing — just as is Stace’s answer, and the dodges of Itsme, AJL, and blah.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:33 pm
Scott Jacobs rocks! I agree with everything he said above.
I mentioned in the last thread on this topic that there was a time where the American people didn’t have to know every little thing the government did…it was kind of a ‘need to know’ thing….we need to go back to that.
Comment by Stacy In Tucson — 11/11/2007 @ 9:34 pm
Scott,
By your logic in #122 you are basically saying all that happened to the POWs in Viet Nam was perfectly acceptable because they felt the moral imperative to use it to gain information. “It was just a tool, no big deal…”
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 9:35 pm
Or to put it another way, it is impossible ofr good to come from an evil act, therefore if good comes of something, it can not be wholely (or even partly) evil.
However, what I call evil (the beheading of an american civilian) is not what our enemy calls evil.
However, it should be understood that simply because they consider it “a good thing” does not mean that I must accept it, not must I be forced to allow them to act as they wish. If it is within my power, I will act to stop them. They may consider me evil for that, but they have the right to that opinion while I kill them or work in some other fashion to try and save the life of another who is in that situation innocent.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:35 pm
#124
It is not as cut and dried as you might like to believe. In Robert Novak’s book titled “Prince of Darkness” he reveals that he leaked the Carter Top Secret plans that in short would cede parts of Europe to the Soviets in the event of a conflict. The policy was changed after that was revealed.
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 9:37 pm
“I bring it up just to show that it isn’t necessarily a stupid question”
Sure it is. You just selected a particular scenario on the utilitarian scale. I selected another: “On suspicion that he has recently purchased firearms and is a general weirdo, the police waterboard a young asian american student. He confesses his plans to go on a shooting rampage, and is thus imprisoned for those attempted murders. Worth it?”
There are two basic approaches once the result is known. Some of us are going to have a moral source that no utilitarian point will tip. Others of us will have a different tipping point on the utilitarian scale — up above someone was cutting off toes of people that make threats, rather than sending them to jail.
Thats because you set up a hypo where the outcomes are known and perfect. So all that there is is this basic ethics discussion.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:38 pm
VOR, i hope my #126 explains what I think you might have found lacking in my #122 post.
Also, I’m not saying that if you beat up my sister I’m going to tie you down and start playing “this little piggy” with a pair of bolt cutters.
However, if you put her in a box and burry her alive, you can bet your life I’m going to do whatever I feel I have to to “encourage” you to tell me where she is before her air runs out.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:39 pm
No, he said the exact opposite of that, which you, as a liberal, don’t understand.
The only way what you said makes sense is if what North Vietnam did — imposing communism on South Vietnam by force — is right.
And it wasn’t. So your point is totally off base.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:40 pm
“However, if you put her in a box and burry her alive, you can bet your life I’m going to do whatever I feel I have to to “encourage” you to tell me where she is before her air runs out.”
Would you bury his sister if it got him to talk?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:40 pm
“On suspicion that he has recently purchased firearms and is a general weirdo, the police waterboard a young asian american student. He confesses his plans to go on a shooting rampage, and is thus imprisoned for those attempted murders. Worth it?”
My answer: sure, it’s worth having done it — but that doesn’t necessarily justify it prospectively.
One could give the same answer re KSM: you don’t know that your waterboarding will give reliable information — and that doubt alone might be enough for some to say it’s not justified . . . when the doubt is still there.
But it should be child’s play to say that, if someone actually did it, it turned out to be worth it. What fascinates me is that some people are unwilling even to answer that obvious question.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:42 pm
Scott,
The question really comes down to whether or not you accept the consequences for your actions. And let’s be honest, how often does the family of a kidnapped victim really have the opportunity to meet the suspect?
But to frame the rightness or wrongness of torture as relative is to take a decidedly “liberal” view, isn’t it?
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 9:42 pm
Thats because you set up a hypo where the outcomes are known and perfect. So all that there is is this basic ethics discussion.
That’s what I’m trying to do: isolate that moral question.
You might think it’s stupid, but a lot of people are quite clearly leery about answering it.
Itsme.
blah.
Andrew J. Lazarus.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:44 pm
Pat: You need to add one line to your hypo for the people to answer.
Note: Water-boarding is still NOT illegal OR torture except in the minds of those that oppose it.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 11/11/2007 @ 9:44 pm
“What fascinates me is that some people are unwilling even to answer that obvious question.”
Because they know that that’s the point. Haven’t you figured that out? That this is just a club to use? And that this is their way of — poorly — denying this to you? Poorly because in fact its what you want.
My way is to call you silly. I think it works better than those who avoid your silly game. I think its more fun to play it.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:46 pm
Patterico,
I guess I’ll have to wait to see what this is leading up to as you indicated. If you had asked “who agrees that hindsight is the best foresight?” you probably would have gotten a bunch of yes answers.
Comment by voiceofreason — 11/11/2007 @ 9:46 pm
No Christoph, he took what I said wuite literally, as it could easily have been. It’s why I posted again to further explain myself.
When you get right down to it, all conflict stems from each side being convinced that they are in the right. Were soldiers for Nazi Germany evil for fightng in a war against the Allies? No more so our soldiers are evil for fighting against Muslim Extreemists and AQI.
The difference is perspective, and who side (frankly) wins.
Once you start being sadistic - once you start raping and pillaging and wantonly slaughtering civilians then we are talking about something else entirely.
A gunner in a panzer is not the same as a guard at a concentration camp.
And #131…
Like I said, you don’t even wanna think about what I’d do to save my sister. Trust me.
My head’s a pretty dark place for people who hurt those I hold dear.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:46 pm
“Like I said, you don’t even wanna think about what I’d do to save my sister. Trust me.”
Would you bury my sister? kill every first born in the country?
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:48 pm
Sherlock, at 106: I think there are circumstances in which it is better for an act to be illegal, with the expectation that that law will be violated in an emergency, than for it to be legal.
If it’s legal, there’s no price to be paid for doing it, and so the bar to doing it is lower.
If it’s illegal, there’s a price to be paid … which makes it much more likely that it will *only* be done when it’s worth paying that price.
Scott, at 115: if the government is making decisions and not informing the public on the grounds that the public can’t be trusted, then we’re no longer a republic, or a democracy: we’re a tryanny in which those in power decide what to do and lie to the public about it. I’d rather not live in that world, because I believe in the principle that the people have a right to control their own destiny, and that the government mut be answerable to them.
Christoph, at 117: this is the crux of the debate, is it not? My side says that certain acts are *always* evil, regardless of motivation, and that the best that can be said for them is that sometimes they’re a smaller evil than the other available alternatives. Your side says that those same acts are evil when the motives are evil and neutral, at worst, when the motives are good.
Scott, at 126: why do you think it’s impossible for good to come from evil acts? I would argue that some good comes from evil acts all of the time; but that the acts are still evil, and the harms are many.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 9:49 pm
Patterico, I am bewildered again at your referring to my answer as a dodge. I do not believe that we should be torturing. Indeed, if I needed another example, I would point to the Goebbels-like quality of these comment upthread (which I think may have been intended as parody)
How someone can call themselves civilized and support torture in the same sentence is a little beyond me. I repeat, the Nazis and the Stalinists and Hugo Chavez all think they are the ones who are civilized. If we want refute them and separate ourselves from them, we should do it by not torturing.
I think it was Josh Marshall who pointed out the the hypos never run like “KSM will give up his information if allowed to take the active role in anal sex with your wife. Do you offer her up?” There’s a strong drive to let the id run free. The laws against torture are an attempt to restrain it. The rationalizations of this comment thread are an attempt to liberate it.
Incidentally, if some surviving German liberal somehow managed, in 1944, to protest against the war (I realize this is, as a practical matter, impossible), would you not be in the front of those calling him immoral, unpatriotic, and hating the troops? The same troops you accuse of behaving immorally?
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 11/11/2007 @ 9:49 pm
Your side is wrong.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:50 pm
Lord Nazh … ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’ are different questions. I understand this conversation to be about morality, not legality.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 9:50 pm
The question assumes the conclusion of “giving up reliable information,” then works backward.
.
Real life doesn’t work that way. Answer the question without knowing that conclusion. Do it with KSM (or anybody convicted of rape or murder for that matter, they may have perpetrated an unsolved crime) … and then ask yourself the same question as to a person who you think might harbor a desire to perpetrate a vile act. Everybody will draw the line somewhere, no two exactly alike. The more certain one is that the “victim” is a bad guy, and the more probable that the bad guy has socially valuable information, the more likely we’re willing to submit ‘em to the Salem Witch treatment.
.
But hey, given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s right to gamble my entire nest-egg (retirement and house) on lottery tickets because I won the lottery; it’s right to shoot the guy (sight unseen) who knocked on my door at 3 a.m. because he WAS in fact a known rapist intent on harming my family; and it’s right to drive 140 miles an hour through the residential neighborhood because I didn’t hit anybody and I made it to work on time.
.
No brainer, to save a city? Dunk the guy until he sucks in a lungful and passes out. Repeat as necessary.
Comment by cboldt — 11/11/2007 @ 9:50 pm
“That’s what I’m trying to do: isolate that moral question.”
But some people’s morals aren’t isolated.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/2007 @ 9:50 pm
Because they know that that’s the point. Haven’t you figured that out? That this is just a club to use? And that this is their way of — poorly — denying this to you? Poorly because in fact its what you want.
What I want is to see where people stand on this moral question. It’s very simple.
And very revealing that people won’t answer it.
It’s not silly at all, because it shows where people’s opposition lies. If, like Stace, they are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for the principle of not scaring the architect of 9/11 for a coupla minutes, that is very, very revealing.
The chest pounders like blah and Oregonian won’t answer because they need to keep the high of self-righteousness, but don’t want to appear stupid in the process.
So they dodge and weave and remain silent.
The next time they appear in any thread, I will direct them to this one and remind them they haven’t answered.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:51 pm
In this case… child abuse I tend to agree.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:51 pm
I don’t think so, since it seems the “liberal” view of many things is done in terms of absolutes.
I tend towards Situational Ethics as a matter of habit.
I mean, it’s wrong to lie, right? A moral absolutist would say that you should never lie, ever, and that it is always wrong.
But what if you know exactly where your best friend went to, and a guy that you know wants to kill your best buddy asks you where he is.
The moral absolutist would tell you that if you lie, you are doing the wrong thing, and thus should not lie. But by telling the truth you are in essince sentencing your friend to death. How is that a good thing?
When you say “well, in that instance, I would lie, because it’s better to help save my friend than it is to tell the truth” you have engaged n situational ethics.
And that’s how a lot of my world view works.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 11/11/2007 @ 9:51 pm
#81 aphrael,
But waterboarding doesn’t inflict severe trauma. It invokes panic and fear, but no severe trauma.
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2007 @ 9:51 pm
Patterico, I am bewildered again at your referring to my answer as a dodge. I do not believe that we should be torturing.
So your answer to my hypo is “no”?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:53 pm
This hypo is easy (to me). If we got a guy in country, off the battlefield, that we knew had actionable intel that would save lives and we waterboarded the guy and saved lives, then it was worth it.
The question of what should be done with the waterboarders, or what rules should they have is more difficult. I am inclined to agree more with Fritz (yeah, you convinced me), that if done it should be kept taboo. That way the people whos job it is to waterboard enemies captured on the battlefield (and the people who know about those waterboarders)will keep their mouths shut. Maybe the risk of discovery that they take will keep the practice rare and from becoming policy.
Waterboarding seems farily innocuous but everyone has a different line that they don’t want to cross. Would you waterboard the enemie’s 8 year old daughter? Would you waterboard your own daughter to get that intel? no explaining why you had to do it, just do it? What about your neighbors daughter? That is why waterboarding shouldn’t be policy, but a taboo practice to be used rarely if at all.
Comment by EdWood — 11/11/2007 @ 9:53 pm
Pat. I answered it at #65.
Anybody who commits torture should be prepared to face the consequences. In some circumstances they’d get a pardon.
They have to decide for themselves whether it’s worth the risk to find out.
But I still like the link at Crooked Timber which I guess you haven’t read.
Comment by blah — 11/11/2007 @ 9:53 pm
Well, that’s a perfectly ridiculous non sequitur, whitd.
Comment by Pablo — 11/11/2007 @ 9:53 pm
by the by I agree with Itme that the title of this thread puts forth the absurd idea that only “liberals” (whatever that means) oppose torture. It also implies (and so do the commenters) that if you don’t support waterboarding that you are somehouw not “conservative” (whatever that means).
It’s interesting to note that in the many very good answers opposing torture, that many of the posters don’t answer Pattericos hypothetical right away and then go on with their positions (I know you did whitd). If those commenters are “liberals” then I guess Patterico is (mostly) right.
Saying yes to the hypothetical does not mean that you approve of torture, it just means that you can visualize the victims of a terrorist attack as someone personal, not “victims” in the abstract. Why not answer the question and then go on with your position as to its absurdity or whatever? Worried that are going to call you a hypocrite or stupid or a fence sitter?. So what? They were going to do that anyway.
Comment by EdWood — 11/11/2007 @ 9:54 pm
cboldt,
Your answer is perfect. I am perfectly happy to have people point out that my hypo is unrealistic, as long as they answer.
Have you noticed that some people are unwilling to answer? Or that they want to seem like they have answered, when they haven’t (a la blah or Andrew J. Lazarus).
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:54 pm
blah, you didn’t clearly answer my hypo in 65.
You asked what might be interpreted as a different question.
I would like to know the answer to my hypo. Is it “no”?
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:56 pm
Loed Nazh @135 - Patterico has no mention of legality in the hypothetical, deliberately I would venture to focus the discussion on a yes or no answer.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/11/2007 @ 9:56 pm
Inflicting severe trauma on someone is sometimes the right thing to do.
Comment by Christoph — 11/11/2007 @ 9:57 pm
by the by I agree with Itme that the title of this thread puts forth the absurd idea that only “liberals” (whatever that means) oppose torture. It also implies (and so do the commenters) that if you don’t support waterboarding that you are somehouw not “conservative” (whatever that means).
No, it just means that I believe conservative opponents of waterboarding (like Fritz) will be more likely to answer the question.
So far I’ve seen quite a few try to dodge it, or pretend like they answered it.
Comment by Patterico — 11/11/2007 @ 9:57 pm
Andrew J. Lazarus,
I did not mean it to be parody when I say that many on the left are sick puppies. If you can’t understand the situational ethics Scott Jacobs is talking about, there is truly something wrong with your moral compass…hence sick puppies….
Comment by Stacy In Tucson — 11/11/2007 @ 9:57 pm
Pablo: I wasn’t distinguishing between severe physical trauma and severe emotional trauma.
Comment by aphrael — 11/11/2007 @ 9:59 pm
“If, like Stace, they are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for the principle of not scaring the architect of 9/11 for a coupla minutes, that is very, very revealing.”
Sure. They’re gandhi, jesus, whatever. They take tough moral stances.
“What I want is to see where people stand on this moral question. It’s very simple.”
But some people don’t have a stand on it. What if I can’t decide how utilitarian I am? What if I can’t decide how many people are worth the torture of one individual? So what?
“The next time they appear in any thread, I will direct them to this one and remind them they haven’t answered.”
Thats the real point. The point isn’t to isolate moral questions. Its to seek a supposedly isolated moral club. And then discount the opinions of those when discussing the real world.
Comment by whitd — 11/11/20