More Hypotheticals
Here are a couple more hypotheticals for you. At least one of them is all too real.
Hypothetical #1:
It’s July 2001. You learn that Osama bin Laden has planned a massive attack on America in which 19 hijackers will take over planes and fly them into buildings, including the World Trade Center. You have no idea who the hijackers are. You have Osama in custody. He laughs at you and says that he knows who the hijackers are, but you will never figure it out. They will bring down the World Trade Center and there’s nothing you can do about it. The planes aren’t in the air — indeed, the flight may not happen for weeks — but for all you know, it could happen tomorrow.
Also in custody is his 11-year-old granddaughter. She is very cute and speaks English. She likes dolls.
Osama seems to be very fond of her.
An agent suggests threatening her in front of Osama. If necessary, he says, waterboard her. She will cry out in fear, he says, and Osama will tell us what we need to know. We will save thousands, and we won’t waterboard her for more than 2 1/2 minutes.
I’m not asking you to make any assumptions here. It’s real life. Torturing her would be clearly illegal. It might not work.
But it might prevent 9/11. You never know.
Do you waterboard her?
Please say why you would or would not waterboard her before you move on to:
Hypothetical #2
Same facts, except that, instead of his granddaughter, we have Osama’s nephew Ahmed. He is decidedly not cute and has a hairy back. An intelligence asset in Afghanistan says Ahmed is a terrorist, but three CIA analysts say the intelligence asset is unreliable.
Otherwise, the facts are the same. Osama seems very fond of Ahmed, and your agent says he thinks waterboarding Ahmed will get Osama to crack.
Do you waterboard Ahmed?
Please say why or why not, before you move on to
Hypothetical #3
This one is all too real — but with a twist.
It’s 9/11. You are Dick Cheney. Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center (both towers) and the Pentagon. You learn that one flight is still in the air: United Flight 93. Reports come in that passengers are calling loved ones to say the plane has been hijacked. The plane has gone off course and appears to be headed towards Washington D.C. You are certain that if it arrives, it will crash into a building like the Capitol or the White House, killing hundreds of people. Some of the phone calls report that passengers are making plans to fight the terrorists, take over the plane, and attempt to make a safe landing.
Military jets have scrambled and are prepared to shoot down the plane.
Your aides tell you there are only 44 passengers and crew members on the plane, and their chances of successfully fighting off the terrorists are very low.
You have five minutes to decide whether to order military jets to shoot down the plane.
Do you give the order?
Please say why or why not.
“It’s July 2001. You learn that Osama bin Laden has planned a massive attack on America in which 19 hijackers will take over planes and fly them into buildings, including the World Trade Center. You have no idea who the hijackers are.”
Put it in the presidential daily briefing. See what happens.
whitd (10527e) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:47 pmI don’t want to give my answers in the post, but here they are.
If you don’t want to see my answers, then don’t read my comment.
Here are my answers:
1) Of course not! She’s innocent! Only the terrorists kill innocent people!
2) Well, he’s innocent too — at least we don’t know he’s guilty like Osama.
Plus, in both hypos, there is a total lack of certainty in the efficacy of the waterboarding, unlike my previous hypos. So the answer is obvious. You don’t torture innocents to save other innocent life.
3) Uh, except that I might give the order.
Come on. Didn’t most of you think it would have been OK for Cheney to give the order?
This tells you that the morality of your actions is greatly affected by the certainty that you will save lives.
You don’t want to waterboard a possible terrorist for less than 3 minutes if there is only a chance of saving lives. But you might kill dozens of people if it is almost certain to save lives.
Note well: it has nothing to do with how swarthy the person to be tortured/killed is.
(Leftists will never buy that.)
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:47 pmI would have no problem threatening the child in front of Osama, but it would be a hollow threat, as I would be unwilling to go any further than that.
The nephew/terrorist. Absolutely.
I would shoot the plane down at the last possible second, to give the passengers the maximum amount of time to regain control of the plane. As we know, the plane is simply too large of a weapon to leave in the terrorists hands. I would have made this call, with a heavy heart, before 9/11, and nothing since has changed my mind.
JD (33beff) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:47 pmwhitd – That is one of the biggest bullshit memes that the Left trots out. Go back and look at the specific language of that PDB, and tell us exactly what actionable, or even new, intelligence was presented.
JD (33beff) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:49 pm“That is one of the biggest bullshit memes that the Left trots out.”
Its not a meme. its a hypothetical.
whitd (10527e) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:52 pm1. No — an innocent child and I would not harm her except to save her (a surgeon cutting off a lim for example)
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/15/2007 @ 10:58 pm2. No — far more efficient to get the info from Osama using waterboarding and other techniques… but based on the intelligence report, you could justify it if you had to if and only if he may have the info himself; I wouldn’t torture one person to get info out of another, particularly one I have in custody
3. Yes — collateral damage is justified to take out an enemy target (which is what the plane is at that point) especially if that target will be used to inflict much greater damage momentarily: What’s more, the people on the plane will likely all die anyway
1 & 2: Yes. Water boarding a Muslim is the perfect torture because it is not fatal. A devout Muslim man like Osama Bin Laden would not be swayed by threats to kill his loved ones, or any threat of torture that would be fatal if he refused to cooperate. Someone like Bin Laden would probably welcome the death of a loved one by his refusal to cooperate because all Muslims believe that this life is simply a prelude to the next one. There is no higher honor any Muslim can aspire to than to be a martyr in defense of Islam. So water boarding, which is more humiliating than painful, is the perfect “torture” for a Muslim. It probably wouldn’t work, even on the girl, but I’d do it anyway. Then I’d make sure the girl was placed in a good home. She’ll get over it.
3. Yes. But I’d wait until the last possible moment. If the passengers don’t succeed in taking over the plane they will die anyway.
nt250 (180411) — 11/15/2007 @ 11:47 pmPat #2…
You mirror my feelings exactly on all 3 points.
I am positive though, that in some circles, the nephew qualifies for torture just because of his hairy back.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:08 amOsama could give a crap about any female! The kid has nothing to offer, leave her alone.
He don’t care about his relatives, we probably should not have either after 9/11. Something about poetic justice he can read about in the papers. (oh well past crap).
There was an actual news report about the plane had been shot down, but such was quelled or determined to be wrong in the first place.
5 minutes, lose a confirmed 44 vs. a potential hundreds or more. Not a decision I would desire to make and carry the responsibility of, but I do think if handed such, it would be that the plane descends VERY rapidly! After all the NTSB works for me, right?
If you are feeding high enough in the trough manipulating any fed agency below is as easy as pie. Almost every fed agency does it as almost routine “order of the day”!
Osama is deranged, or at least does not think like a normal human being does. WB him, if he dies, tough! Because he actually thinks of himself as greater than a God, he won’t talk and cares not about anybody else, “make me a martyr”! Let those of his own kind take care of the body in the manner they see fit, just make sure it won’t come back to life in transit.
TC (1cf350) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:59 am1) No, I would not waterboard the child. This comes down again to the question of efficacy, and I’m not convinced that coercive techniques work. Like this guy said:
That’s not to say I wouldn’t use Osama’s granddaughter in the most cynical way I could think of to make him talk.
2) Same answer.
3) Give the order. The passengers would probably be killed by the terrorists anyway, and you can’t chance losing the Capitol, White House, or some other huge building full of civilians.
Russell (cf89ed) — 11/16/2007 @ 1:59 amIts not a meme. its a hypothetical.
Your comment in #1 was not an answer, it’s bullshit.
“Let’s put it to Bush or his press secretary!” is a meme. Denying it doesn’t change that fact.
Answer the question without evading.
Or have you lost your guts?
Paul (ec9716) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:20 amPatterico:
Ha! At last, a series of hypos that don’t already have 1,200 comments attached. I can delude myself into a feeling of false uniqueness.
Hypothetical 1: No, I would not torture or waterboard OBL’s grand-daughter. I do not support torturing or terrorizing the innocent in order to force the guilty to talk, not even to save lives. No matter how many lives are at stake.
This hypo is more or less a restatement of the one that forms the basis of the “story” by Ursula K. LeGuin, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” I encourage you to read the piece itself; you will see the similarity immediately. (It’s very short and not a proper story at all, more a philosophical question.)
Hypothetical 2: Sure, I’d love to waterboard Ahmed. Let me explain why…
As you know, you and I differ on whether waterboarding is really torture. Or at least I think you believe it is; and I know I believe it is not.
I support the use of waterboarding on suspected terrorists from whom we need information, even if we’re not 100% sure they are terrorists or that they have killed innocent people. In this case, that it might make OBL crack is just icing on the pot. Water away.
Hypothetical 3: I give the order to fire if the plane gets within a certain distance of its suspected target (or D.C. in general). I’m sorry for the deaths of the innocents, but they’re surely going to die anyway if we don’t shoot them down.
Even if there were a possibility that they could seize the plane and make a safe landing, by the time they’re within, say, 10 NM of the target — there is no way they could do so; it’s too late.
I’d feel really bad about the deaths; but the morally correct thing to do in that circumstance is to kill the people who are going to die anyway to save the people you can save.
Dafydd
Dafydd ab Hugh (445647) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:34 amMy answer mostly mirrors Christof in comment #6 with these additions:
1)No – I doubt any kind of threat would work here, as Muslims regard females as lesser beings.
2)No – no additions.
3)Yes – as others have said, the last possible moment, with a heavy heart.
See, whitd? Wasn’t hard at all.
Paul (ec9716) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:34 amPatterico:
Let me clarify (3) above. Within the five minutes, I would give the order, “if the plane approaches within 10 NM of D.C. or begins descending rapidly without flying a landing profile, you are authorized to shoot it down without further instructions from me.”
But of course, as Dick Cheney, I could issue such an order, but it would have no legal consequence: The vice-president is not in any military personnel’s chain of command.
The order would have to come from the Commander in Chief, the president.
Dafydd
Dafydd ab Hugh (445647) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:42 am1st situation, shot in Bin Laden’s knee cap, other joints to follow as necessary.
Lurkin_no_mo (e83663) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:57 amDitto for 2d situation.
3d situation fighters make contact and have a no penetration line. If the flight crosses it, they get shot down.
Torturing a child is not illegal. Like that great Conservative Lawyer John Yoo says is legal, I would crush the testicles of a little child in front of their parents until they called off the attacks. After all, there is nothing in the law (according to Yoo) that would prevent the President from doing that.
Then, if it would stop a terrorist attack, I would skull f@ck a baby bunny rabbit on live TV. Because it would be the right thing to do.
calipygian (d0661e) — 11/16/2007 @ 3:39 amDamnit, my answers and reasons are the same as patterico’s. There’s no fun in that.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/16/2007 @ 3:45 amAnswer to hypothetical number one: “Do you waterboard her?”
No.
Because it would be wrong. It is not a question of efficacy.
–
Answer to hypothetical number two: “Do you waterboard Ahmed?”
No.
Because it would be wrong. It is not a question of efficacy.
–
Answer to hypothetical number three: “Do you give the order to shoot down the plane?”
No.
Because the American people are (urgently planning to be) in combat, and I won’t shoot them in the back.
I believe that the state is an outgrowth of the people, and they are ultimately the sole holders of legitimacy under God.
When there is time to consult, their authority percolates up to me, the vice president (and higher), by well established democratic and legal processes.
When there is no time to consult, the people on the spot are the nation. They cannot delegate their authority, so they retain it.
The people on that plane – they, they people – have made their decision, and apparently it is to fight.
I would need stronger reasons than I see here to use state power to deprive the people of their moral right to see the fight through to the finish.
However, if it seems they will not fight, then to save lives on the ground I will issue the kill order. And if the plane is at the point where if it goes any further it will impact its target regardless of passenger success in the plane, then I would issue the kill order.
But as long as the people are trying to take care of it themselves, and as long as they have a chance – I don’t care how pessimistically military professionals describe this chance – I will back them.
(Another way to put this is: I am about as far as a human being can be from believing in “sheep, sheepdog, wolf” theory, or the “28 Weeks Later” (2007) theory of military / civil relations in an emergency.)
By the way, if that plane is full of foreigners, I issue the order to shoot it down when my professional military advisers tell me I should. This is a decision to sacrifice some innocent lives immediately to save more innocent lives very soon.
David Blue (72f7b5) — 11/16/2007 @ 3:57 am#1 no – I believe the girl is “innocent”
cboldt (3d73dd) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:46 am#2 no – too much uncertainty on two fronts, guilt of Achmed (I’d keel haul some, but not all pirates, as a parallel), and uncertainty as to efficacy in provoking an honest response from Osama
#3 yes – with a heavy heart. Innocent v. innocent, with a clearly disparate head count.
.
Do #3 with a dignitary on board, and watch the decider waffle. What if it’s AF1 that’s been hijacked?
For hypo 1 and 2.
Yes, I would give that order, but only after exhausting my options against OBL. First you work on the Main ude you want to break, and once you are all the way done there, you start on the others.
And you stop the second he breaks.
For #3 Yes, I’d give that order. The math is rough as hell, but in the end…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:56 amI will answer from the perspective of giving an order because personally I don’t think I would have the stomach to torture anyone.
1) No, as others have stated, she’s female.
2) Yes
3) Yes
Jack Bauer’s my hero.
Sean (49e525) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:59 amSean: “Jack Bauer’s my hero.”
My hero is the people on United 93.
David Blue (72f7b5) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:07 am“Your comment in #1 was not an answer, it’s bullshit.”
Its ok if you don’t have an answer.
whitd (10527e) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:13 amPatterico: Stop trying to justify torturing people with these imbecilic little ‘gotcha’ scenarios. It is pointless and only shows just how far the right is willing to contort itself to justify the truly awful views they seem to have picked up after September 11.
Unless, maybe, they had these views all along, and September 11 gave them a convenient excuse to let their warmongering, torture-loving, authoritarian colors fly.
Hmm.
Jody (8f0618) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:29 amMy immediate reaction was no to both 1 and 2, but then I realized that in the original (1993) WTC bombing the terrorists were trying to topple the towers in order to kill up to 500,000 people and in the 2001 attack they initially expected about 50,000 deaths.
Given that scenario again in the circumstances Patterico describes I might order the waterboarding. I wouldn’t feel good about it but sometimes people have to make tough decisions and not necessarily pleasant ones.
Regarding scenario 3 – Give them as much time as possible but if you have too then shoot before it crosses over populated areas.
chad (582404) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:01 am1 No, even though she may grow up to be immodest
Sparky (a1acb4) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:09 am2 No, unlikely to be effective
3 No, because VP Cheney would be tortured in his conscience for causing the deaths of fellow Americans, and torture is wrong
Jody says:
Patterico: Stop trying to justify torturing people with these imbecilic little ‘gotcha’ scenarios. It is pointless and only shows just how far the right is willing to contort itself to justify the truly awful views they seem to have picked up after September 11.
My question to the people in the comment thread who *aren’t* idiots:
Do you think my hypos are pro-torture or anti-torture?
Get a clue, Jody. Go back to John Cole’s or whatever sewer pit you came from and high-five each other about those damned conservatives. You’re obviously too dense to understand what I’m doing here.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:13 am1 and 2 no but I would threaten and even stage a fake version.
3 I’d give the order. Sometimes there is only the lesser of two evils (Or with Putin and Chaves the lesser of two weasels)
Dr T (b1f404) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:18 amDafydd,
It is true that Dick Cheney shouldn’t be the one giving the order. But I think he was the one making the decision that day. I don’t know what Bush was doing. Still reading children’s books?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:18 amRussell – linking that same opinion piece in every comment does not make it anything more than his opinion.
I love how the Left, when they find someone in the military that agrees with them, holds them out as some aboslute moral authority, and their service is used as a shield against criticism, and a club to rhetorically beat people. If you are going to hold out A soldier as THE expert, it would be more fitting to use the views of the vast majority of the military, no? Seeing as though consensus is the standard by which things are deemed to be true for the Left … Nuance, and all.
At they same time, they are contemptuous of the warmongering bloodlust of the soldier, who was not able to find any other type of employment in Bush’s train wreck of an economy.
People like Jody amuse me. They assume a whole hell of a lot, just because it allows them to occupy their self-proclaimed moral high ground.
Jody – Not everyone that does not share your opinion is evil. And, not everyone that approves of waterboarding under certain circumstances is gleefully sitting around making out a list of people that they cannot wait to rush out and waterboard.
It still bugs me that in these hypotheticals, we are still assuming arguendo that waterboarding is torture.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:28 am— It still bugs me that in these hypotheticals, we are still assuming arguendo that waterboarding is torture. —
.
What difference does it make, to attach the label “torture?”
.
Tangentially related, I believe that the label “illegal” loses effect (that is, won’t be respected, the actor goes ahead anyway, even knowing it’s illegal) when the stakes are high enough. The force of law, on its own, is not enough to sustain a stable and just society.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:49 amIt is true that Dick Cheney shouldn’t be the one giving the order. But I think he was the one making the decision that day. I don’t know what Bush was doing. Still reading children’s books?
Patterico,
Generally you are a pretty smart guy, but jeez that was a stupid comment.
Looking at the timeline I’m not real sure that President Bush was ever told about flight 93 before it crashed but even if he was the children’s book crack is BS.
9:29: President Bush makes his first public statements about the attacks, in front of an audience of about 200 teachers and students at the elementary school. He states that he will be going back to Washington, that “we’ve had a national tragedy”, and leads a moment of silence. No one in the President’s traveling party has any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing.[4]
9:32: A radio transmission from Flight 93 is overheard by flight controllers at Cleveland: “Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board.”
9:32: Controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control in Virginia observe “a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed,” referring to Flight 77.
9:33 to 9:34: Tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport tells Secret Service operations center at the White House that “an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us,” referring to Flight 77. The White House is about to be evacuated when the tower reports that Flight 77 has turned and is approaching Reagan International Airport.
9:34: The FAA’s Command Center relays information concerning Flight 93 to FAA headquarters.
9:35: The President’s motorcade departs from the elementary school, bound for Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and Air Force One.
9:35: Flight 93 reverses direction over Ohio and starts flying eastwards.
9:35: Based on a report that Flight 77 had turned again and was circling back toward the District of Columbia, the Secret Service orders the immediate evacuation of the Vice President from the White House.
9:36: Cleveland advises the FAA Command Center that it is still tracking Flight 93 and inquires whether someone had requested the military to launch fighter aircraft to intercept the aircraft.
9:37: Vice President Cheney enters an underground tunnel leading to a security bunker.
9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel.
9:39: Another radio transmission is heard from Ziad Jarrah aboard Flight 93: “Uh, this is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands [unintelligible]. Please remain quiet.”
9:39: NBC and MSNBC report an explosion at the Pentagon.
9:40: Video teleconference in White House Situation Room begins with the physical security of the President, the White House, and federal agencies. They are not yet aware of the Pentagon crash.
9:40:49: CNN’s Breaking News bulletin reads “Reports of fire at Pentagon.”
9:43: The White House and the Capitol are evacuated and closed.
9:45: United States airspace is shut down. No civilian aircraft are allowed to take off, and all aircraft in flight are ordered to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible. All international flights headed for the U.S. are redirected to Canada. Transport Canada, the Canadian transportation agency, follows the American lead and closes down its airspace. The FAA announces that civilian flights are suspended until at least noon September 12, while Transport Canada gives similar orders, but until further notice, to take in diverted U.S.-bound international flights, launching the agency’s “Operation Yellow Ribbon.” The groundings last until September 14. Military and medical flights as well as Con Air flights continue. This is the fourth time all commercial flights in the U.S. have been stopped, and the first time a suspension was unplanned. All previous suspensions were military-related (Sky Shield I-III), from 1960 to 1962. Many newspapers (including The New York Times) mistakenly print that this is the first time flights have been suspended. This was also the first time commercial flights in Canada have been stopped.
Further information: Operation Yellow Ribbon
9:49: The FAA Command Center at Herndon suggests that someone at FAA headquarters should decide whether to request military assistance with Flight 93. Ultimately, the FAA makes no request before it crashes.
9:50 (approximately): The Associated Press reports that Flight 11 was apparently hijacked after departure from Boston’s Logan Airport. Within an hour this is confirmed for both Flight 11 and Flight 175.
9:52: The National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a known associate of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and someone in the Republic of Georgia, announcing that he had heard “good news,” and that another target was still to be hit.[5]
9:53: CNN confirms a plane crash at the Pentagon.
9:55: A CNN correspondent mentions Osama bin Laden as someone determined to strike the US.
9:55: Air Force One leaves Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport.
9:57: Passenger revolt begins on Flight 93.
9:57: President Bush leaves Sarasota, Florida, on Air Force One. The plane reaches cruising altitude and circles for approximately 40 minutes while the destination of the plane is discussed.
9:59:04: The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 55 minutes 51 seconds after the impact of Flight 175. Its destruction is viewed and heard by a vast television and radio audience. As the roar of the collapse goes silent, tremendous gray-white clouds of pulverized concrete and gypsum rush through the streets. Most observers think a new explosion or impact has produced smoke and debris that now obscures the South Tower. When the wind finally clears the immediate space, it is plain to see that the tower is gone.
Further information: Collapse of the World Trade Center
[edit] 10:00 AM
10:01: The FAA Command Center advises FAA headquarters that an aircraft had seen Flight 93 “waving his wings,” the hijackers’ efforts to defeat the passengers’ counterattack.
10:02: Communicators with the Vice President in the security bunker begin receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft — presumably hijacked — heading toward Washington. This is Flight 93.
10:03:11: United Airlines Flight 93 is crashed by its hijackers 80 miles (129 k) southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.[6] Later reports indicate that passengers had learned about the World Trade Center and Pentagon crashes on cell phones and at least three were planning on resisting the hijackers; the resistance was confirmed by Flight 93’s cockpit voice recording, on which the hijackers are heard making their decision to down the plane before the passengers succeed in breaching the cockpit door. The 9/11 Commission believed that Flight 93’s target was either the United States Capitol building or the White House in Washington, D.C.
Reports stated an eyewitness saw a white plane resembling a fighter jet circling the site minutes after the crash. These reports have limited credibility, although fighter jets had been scrambled to defend the Washington D.C. region earlier. These jets stayed within the immediate D.C. area.
10:03 (approximately): The National Military Command Center learns from the White House of Flight 93’s hijacking.
10:05: CNN reports for the first time that Osama bin Laden may have been involved in the attacks. Andrea Mitchell, reporting on NBC from outside the Pentagon, also reports this.
10:07: NBC reports for the first time that the South Tower of the World Trade Center has collapsed. Prior to this time they have only said that a section of the building has fallen away.
10:07: NEADS, controlling the only set of fighters over Washington, first learns of the hijacking of Flight 93.
10:08: Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon reports to FAA headquarters that Flight 93 may be down near Johnstown, Pennsylvania; at 10:17 the Command Center concludes it is so.
10:10: Part of the Pentagon collapses.
10:10: NEADS emphatically tells fighter pilots over Washington, “Negative clearance to shoot.”
10:10 to 10:15 (approximately): Vice President Cheney, unaware that Flight 93 has crashed, authorizes fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane, reported to be 80 miles (129 km) from Washington, based not on radar (from which it has disappeared) but speed and trajectory projections.
10:13: Thousands are involved in an evacuation of the United Nations complex in New York.
10:13 to 10:23: The 9/11 Commission’s estimated arrival of Flight 93 over Washington had it not crashed in Pennsylvania.
10:14 to 10:19: A lieutenant colonel at the White House repeatedly relays to the NMCC that the Vice President has confirmed that fighters are cleared to engage inbound aircraft if they can verify that the aircraft was hijacked.
chad (582404) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:53 amChad – I will not speak for Patterico, but I suspect he was throwing that “reading a book” thing out there as a jab at the Leftists that continue to prance that meme out at every opportunity.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:01 amcboldt – When we accept the concept of waterboarding being torture, even in the hypothetical, the idea that it is actually torture become more ingrained, more accepted fact. The meaning of torture, as used by the hyperventilating Leftists, is so broad and so vague so as to render the term itself meaningless.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:04 amchad and JD,
Actually, it was a jab at Bush. I know, of course, that he wasn’t reading a book to kids when the decision on Flight 93 had to be made. But I think — contra many conservatives — that sitting around after he heard about the second plane crashing into the second tower was a big error in judgment. That was a time to politely excuse himself and make himself available to the decisionmakers. Immediately.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:08 amRe: Numbers 1 and 2 … remind me why it would be preferable to live in a country that would torture these two children. In that case we would truly have met the enemy and he would be us. You cannot do evil that good may result – the evil would not be defeated and now you would be evil. You are the sum of your decisions.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:13 amPatterico – That is precisely why I would never dream of speaking for you. Plus, you are far better with the English language than I.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:13 amquasimodo – I expected a whole heck of a lot of preening and pontificating from you. Just warming up today ?
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:14 am-No -No -yes at the last minute (that gives the passengers their chance to do the job themselves).
These hypos are just variations on a theme, what Patterico has not done yet is put forth a hypo where there is a reasonably big reward but much more uncertainty as to the identity and knowledge of the detainee (sort of does in hypo 2 above but you have OSB and his nephew there so it doesn’t quite get there.) Something along the lines of -you pick up a guy who sources say works for a smuggler bringing in most of the roadside bomb components and explosives from Iran. He maintains that he is a contract worker for some subcontractor of Halliburton. He is but he just got the job recently. There is a 2 day window where you can catch the big cheese and seriously disrupt the ability of the enemy to make IED’s for some period of time. Your soldiers are really really tired of getting blown up…
something along those lines, I am sure Patterico could come up with a better one.
It is absurd to call Patterico a torture apologist. Obviously a hypo is a hypo. The more hysterical responses on other threads just show how some people react when pushed into a rhetorical corner which was part of the exercise. The increasingly hysterical rhetoric by posters at this site is a great illustration of push me push you back escalation.
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:15 am(1) the low likelihood that you are actually causing anyone’s death;
(2) the fact that your primary target is enemies piloting an aircraft in an attack on a civilian target, not an unarmed prisoner who is no longer a physical threat to you or anyone else. You are not talking about granting interrogators the authority to treat “members of the human race as non-humans, objects to be toyed with and discarded” until you destroy them to the point where they lose their free will & tell you what you want to hear. Human beings simply cannot be trusted with absolute power over other human beings. They may intend to use that power for a short duration, in a way that doesn’t leave permanent physical scars, only against the guilty, only when it is necessary to extract true, lifesaving intelligence rather than false confessions. But in practice, when you combine the uncertainties inherent in the situation (which can never be assumed away in real life) & the temptations of absolute power, those limits tend get thrown out the window very, very quickly.
As to whether “swarthiness” has anything to do with all this: sorry, but no, I don’t believe you that it’s irrelevant. If the U.S. government had done these things to Americans instead of foreigners, I think you would know their names. I think you would know what happened to them. I don’t think we’d be having an abstract, cordial, philosophical debate about all this, as if they didn’t exist. I think you’d understand why having such a debate would make a lot of people sick to their stomachs.
Katherine (0a7665) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:24 amoops. first para cut off. That should have begun:
no, no, yes at the last possible moment. The much higher likelihood of saving lives is not the only distinction in the third scenario. There is also…
Katherine (0a7665) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:25 amSo you wouldn’t torture non-americans, but you would kill americans.
So very telling…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:29 amInteresting points but they are largely pointless. The bottom line is whatis an innocent life in the scales against say 3,000 innocent lives? Would anyone hesitate to save 3,000 if it required the sacrifice of one? Or are there those who would sacrifice three thousand to save the one?
Regarding the meme that the salvation of 3,000 is hypothetical, how many people buy life insurance to insure that their wife nd children are provided for? Why do we have police if we never expect to del with them? Or why maintain a military or nuclear weapons if we wish never to use them? Its not hypothetical but a reasonable measure against a very real possibility.
To argue the contrary is to ignore reality and hope someone else makes the unpleasant decision that you are unwilling to confront.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:31 am1. and 2. (which are similar, though children get more deference than adults): The efficacy of those actions are very limited in those situations. There are secondary losses in torturing innoncent people also:
– Public dissatisfaction
– Inability to claim moral authority
– Harm to those doing the torturing
We want to avoid that, for sure. If it were a certainty that torturing Little Girl would save 2,000 lives, and that this was the most effective method, that’s enough (I think) to move the calculus over to torturing her. But there’s not anything like certainty. There’s not even certainty (from the hypo) that this whole 19-hijackers thing is real. We’re not perfect on picking off correct info.
And I’m not saying that you’d need absolute certainty to get here, but you’d need one hell of a lot more certainty than is here.
There are also alternate methods: You can start scanning planes more carefully and running spot-searches of suspect people. Net, the waterboarding would create more harm than it generates.
3. Sure. There aren’t other good choices. Scramble the jets, have them follow until the plane gets near a target, then order it shot down. On this one, you’re shortening the lives of the plane passengers nominally to save other lives. I’d guess that the United 93 passengers would have voted for that if it became clear that they couldn’t stop the terrorists.
4. (Unasked) Waterboarding is a relatively minor form of torture. I don’t know everything there is to know about these things, but I think the overall costs of permitting waterboarding outweigh the gains. Were I president, I would bar its use. If there were an exceptional circumstance, we’d deal with that at the time.
5. Torture might be the right thing even in relatively less costly situations if they were isolated and the efficacy were likely. If we have videotape of Badguy live-burying child at an unknown location, and we catch him 20 minutes later, we should do whatever we need to do – whatever will work – to find that location. If that’s torture, so be it.
For societal maintenance, the torturers might have to be fired or jailed, but those actions would still be morally correct.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:36 amJD said: When we accept the concept of waterboarding being torture, even in the hypothetical, the idea that it is actually torture become more ingrained
.
Whether or not waterboarding merits being labeled “torture” is debated, both from a moralistic point of view and from a legalistic point of view. Likewise, whether or not it reaches the threshold of “cruel and unusual” or “cruel and inhuman” is debated, even though settled law says that waterboarding crosses those thresholds as a matter of law.
.
I think that “torture” defies precise definition, because the threshold for being affected by abuse varies widely across the population. It would be more difficult to “torture” G. Gordon Liddy (i.e., affect his psyche), than it would be to affect the psyche of some candy-ass. At the same time, I think there is social value to establish norms that define the limits of coercion, even though those norms will not always be applied in fact.
.
At any rate, the point of my comment was meant to suggest dropping the baggage associated with attaching or removing the label “torture,” and instead just talking in terms of “would you use this [specific] coercive action in this hypothetical fact pattern?”
cboldt (3d73dd) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:48 amcboldt – I have no qualms with that. I just have a general beef with the abuse of language that has become de rigeur with terms like torture.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:51 amMy answers:
1. No. She’s not a terrorist, has no information to offer.
2. Again, no. Even if he is a terrorist, he’s not the one with the info.
3. I would order to shoot the plane down. The passengers are already doomed, it is the morally correct thing to prevent any further death and destruction.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:52 amfirst two are beyond dumb.
Since Osama isn’t there how is he going to know?
So what would be the point? Holy shit that is dumb.
Or if bin Laden is there, then waterboard him.
Number three is tough. I don’t think the US governemnt has clearly articulated its policy on that possibility.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:53 amPersonally when I fly, I assume that if there is a takeover of my plane and hundreds if not thousands of lives on the ground are at stake, then I need to fight to the death to overcome the hijackers right away. I also accept that the government may chose to blow us out of the sky sooner than later, and I am OK with my life being sacrificed for the greater good..
cboldt – When we accept the concept of waterboarding being torture, even in the hypothetical, the idea that it is actually torture become more ingrained, more accepted fact.
JD, it is previously accepted fact that waterboarding is torture [PDF]. The army prohibits its use (see FM 2-22.3). It would seem that you, rather than the hyperventilating leftists, are playing the revisionist here and attempting to change a definition.
Hubris (9bc5cf) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:06 amWe are not talking about the Army doing it, Hubris. This is intelligence gathering. If Congress is considering passing a law to ban waterboarding for intelligence gathering, is it not safe to assume that it currently does not fall under the current definition?
Ironic that the Army “tortures” its own, no?
Though I did specifically reference waterboarding, Hubris, I went on to note that my beef was with the expansive definition of torture that would include loud music, not being fed the way they wished, tough questions, no air conditioning, etc …
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:11 amThis is intelligence gathering.
The field manual to which I referred is “Human Intelligence Collector Operations.” It is the manual for the Army’s intelliegence gathering. I did not link it because it is such a large PDF but it is easy to access through a search.
If Congress is considering passing a law to ban waterboarding for intelligence gathering, is it not safe to assume that it currently does not fall under the current definition?
No, that is not a safe assumption. Such a law would be designed to close any potential loopholes that allow torture to be conducted by US intelligence personnel, as well as to shut off the questioning on something that is already a fact. I would also argue in this case, the actual general definition is as important as the legal definition due to the moral implications. If the law is changed such that deliberately killing someone without cause is not considered murder, it would still be murder.
See the link I did insert in my last comment for a legal/historical perspective on the consideration of waterboarding as torture.
Ironic that the Army “tortures” its own, no?
That is, I am sorry, beneath you. I really don’t believe you consider training someone to withstand torture techniques utilized by amoral enemies to be equivalent to torture.
Hubris (9bc5cf) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:21 amWhich would suggest that loopholes exist right now, and if something fits through a loophole, it’s legal.
Not legal by much, mind you, but it’s legal.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:27 am1: NO: 2: NO 3: YES
In hypos 1&2, it is wrong because we are human beings and in our culture, we not only know this is wrong, but do our best to adhere: We do not torture!
KSM is another matter entirely.
#3. An absolute YES. The safety and prevention of evil deeds is necessary in any society that wishes to live by decency and reason.
Sue (861973) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:29 amNo, but if waterboard IS torture, and torture is ALWAYS wrong, then waterboarding our troops to prepare them in the event they are captured is wrong.
This is what happens when you deal in absolutes.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:29 amHubris – On this, the best you will get from me is that I will agree to disagree.
I have read that study/report before, and have problems with it. Maybe you are the one that can convince me that the sensation of drowning is severe physical pain or lasting mental damage.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:31 amAnd, Hubris, you are right, that was beneath me. But, having experienced that, in my experience and my experience alone, it does not seem like torture, to me. I can accept that others hold different views.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:32 amI am not certain, but I think our host is incorrect with the statement: “that sitting around after he heard about the second plane crashing into the second tower was a big error in judgment.” IIRC, Bush continued reading after hearing of the first plane, but not after the second plane crashed.
Loren (af2946) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:37 amWhat the Western Societies have lost began in earnest in the l960’s, and because of it, the ability to discern as individuals what is wrong and right in the world is almost completely lost for our cousins on the Left and certainly for the tinfoil hatted leftist loons. That that view comes to us through the Judeo-Christian philosophy developed over several millennium makes it very sad because what took thousands of years to formulate took less than 50 years to undo. That we are now reduced to putting forth hypotheticals so that people can make a choice is truly scary.
Sue (861973) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:42 am1. No – Innocent person
G (722480) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:52 am2. No – Not enough information to persue
3. No – I would have the plane shot only in cases where the plane would crash and cause more deaths. I would have the military jets follow very closely.
Why unambiguously shoot down the plane when you can just cripple it in a manner that causes it to lose altitude steadily and crash-land well short of a major city?
At least that way the passengers’ deaths would be the result of a decision made by the hijackers (deliberately bad landing), not by us.
I’d take that risk.
For that matter, what about trying to strike the cockpit with a precision weapon, breach the cockpit area, and take control of the aircraft?
I’m sure the second is very difficult, but I’d sure as heck feel an obligation to try something short of vaporizing the plane.
glasnost (b7ddae) — 11/16/2007 @ 9:38 amI’ll give you credit, Patterico. These are better hypotheticals.
glasnost (b7ddae) — 11/16/2007 @ 9:38 amOh come on, G, that is a total lame cop-out! You ARE following the Jet closely. It IS going to crash and kill several more on the ground unless you take it out or the passengers do. The passengers are unlikely to be able to. So do you shoot it down or not? Or do you just follow the plane “very closely”?
Yeah, that whole following very closely thing is a solution to the whole problem. Scoff.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:37 amI liked the way he said it. I never claimed it was anything more than an expert opinion. You totally ignored my point about efficacy, which is IMHO the heart of the matter. I remember you saying something about feedback interrogation where wrong answers are punished with more torture or whatever you want to call it. Care to explain?
Russell (cf89ed) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:39 amI would say “no” to #1 but I wouldn’t have a good argument against it because I think I could come to a yes if the stakes were raised. Something along the lines of nukes in 100 large US cities set to go off if information isn’t learned from the uncle.
My “no” answer to #1 is made more suspect by my willingness to agree to a tactic that would be more dangerous to the girl but would have less of an emotional element. If we knew that a building, say the Empire State Building, was going to be attacked and we needed our apprehended Osama to give us information to stop it, the agent in charge of interrogation could instruct his agents, in Osama’s presence, to bring the charming 11 year old niece to that threatened building, give her lots of toys to play with, pizza, movies to watch, etc. I can’t say that I’d be opposed to that tactic.
j curtis (8bcca6) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:46 am#3 really isn’t a hypothetical either. Bush gave the greenlight to shoot Flight 93 down and it probably would have been shot down had the passengers not caused it to crash first. The interceptors were minutes away when it went down.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:49 amChristoph-
G (722480) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:50 amMy decision would be based on the trajectory of the aircraft. if it was headed for a field, looked to be landing, obviously I would not shoot it down. If it was headed to a highly populated area, where it is estimated to likely be a successful terrorist attack.
Oh come on! Total cop-out. Dude.
Go with this scenario:
What would you do?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:53 amRussell – I never once discussed feedback torture. I did bring up the subject of interrogation coupled with active investigation, with increasing rewards for verified honest answers, and increasing levels of punishment for lies.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:54 amChristoph, Sorry, but yes, I would shoot it down. Didn’t mean to omit that part in my previous post.
G (722480) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:58 am#38 JD
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:01 pmI don’t think I post enough here or anywhere else you lurk for you to have formed a coherent opinion or me.
Your rants yesterday were plenty.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:04 pmRants? Your rant threshold is microscopic, no?
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:15 pmOh, those were just a warm up? I had about as much sanctimounious moral preening as I could take yesterday, followed closely only by today.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:34 pmK, thanks, fair enough.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:41 pmJD,
Could you recognize any moral position that you do not agree with as anything other than “sanctimounious [sic] moral preening”? Be honest now, this is for posterity.
ya, ya, I know, the [sic] was unfair, sorry.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:45 pmI most certainly could, and I routinely do. It tends to only happen with those that do not go into the discussion with the assumption that because I do not agree with them, I get my jollies off of torturing brown people. In other words, people who are discussing the matter in good faith.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 12:59 pmkindly show where I intimated anything of the sort.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/16/2007 @ 1:02 pmPatterico,
I know the thread has advanced quite a bit since this morning, but i wnat to go back to the George Bush jab for a second.
I am not trying to defend the president sitting for another 8 minutes and finishing the book although I understand his reasoning. It definitely would have looked better if he had immediately sprang into action although it would have accomplished absolutely nothing in practical terms. What I was objecting to was the insinuation that even after the president had responded that he was he felt he had better things to occupy his time. You might as well have said maybe he was in the bathroom with a Playboy because you heve basically implied he was busy playing with himself rather than dealing with the crisis.
I can’t say for certain that the President was or was not made aware that Flight 93 was hijacked all I can say is he was on Air Force and available, and the information I have does not show him being informed about / consulted on that issue.
chad (719bfa) — 11/16/2007 @ 1:45 pm*crickets* from the excitable JD so far
quasimodo (57ae34) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:34 pmOr holy shit was I dumb to not notice that in the first one Osama is indeed to be presumed present.
doh!
I’d like to think we could convincingly fake like we are waterboarding his granddaughter in the next room.
I wouldn’t hurt the girl at all (although I definately make sure she looked wet in any video) but I’d want Osama to think I was capable of it.
We were talking about waterboarding KSM or OBL… now we are talking about innocent third party minor children because the liberals won’t distinguish between the two.
Somehow I feel like my being OK with waterboarding KSM has turned into the same as me being OK with torturing infants for pleasure..
I see the liberal side of this as “too much education and not enough learning”
SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:04 pmAnswers:
1. No (Might not work)
2. No (Might not work)
3. Yes (Will undoubtedly work)
Patterico: This seems a little fallacious. Why do you get to stipulate the absolute efficacy of waterboarding KSM without stipulating the absolute efficacy of waterboarding Little Girl or Ahmed?
If you hadn’t made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that waterboarding KSM would yield immediate reliable information, I’m not sure I would’ve answered “Yes” in the other hypothetical.
Also, if you DO stipulate the absolute efficacy of waterboarding Little Girl or Ahmed, you make the moral question a lot harder to answer: Waterboard Little Girl or Sacrifice Innocent Lives?
Leviticus (d0997c) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:28 pmquasimodo – I apologize for being a father. In regards to your prior question, I would simply refer you back to your rants from yesterday.
JD (707046) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:43 pmNo. No. Yes (on the obvious assumption that the plane continues a suspicious trajectory).
Andrew J. Lazarus (5aa137) — 11/16/2007 @ 11:04 pmCorrection: Patterico was correct. Bush knew about the first place before he entered the classroom. After the second plane hit, one of his aides (Card maybe?) walked over to him and whispered to him that “America is under attack”. I believe that is a correct quote right from Bush himself.
Yet Bush continued to sit there. I don’t blame him too much for that since he was obviously in shock, he knew he was being filmed, and certainly was not paying attention to what the kid was reading, he was in a room full of kids, but he should have acted more decisively. If being told “America is under attack” doesn’t get the President of The United States off his ass, what would?
What I’ll never understand is why the Secret Service didn’t get him out of there. I read they bodily removed Dick Cheney from his office. OK, so they thought another plane might hit the White House, but Cheney was a lot safer there than Bush was in that classroom.
I didn’t read the 9/11 report so I don’t know if it was ever explained why the SS didn’t get Bush out of there.
nt250 (180411) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:59 pm