Torture and the Ticking-Bomb Scenario
Building off comments from his colleague Jonah Goldberg, Andrew McCarthy writes the following today at the Corner.
He then adds:
The problem with this scenario (as many others have pointed out) is that it makes a number of assumptions that are empirically dubious. First, the ticking-bomb scenario assumes not only that we have knowledge of an imminent attack, but also that we have the right guy in custody, i.e., a person with information that can prevent that attack from happening. In real life, our intelligence is never even close to that good. Intelligence, as the WMD fiasco makes clear, is far from an exact science. A significant percentage of the people we've detained as suspected terrorists have turned out to be people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should someone who may or may not be a terrorist and may or may not know anything useful be tortured based solely on intelligence "chatter" about an upcoming attack? This is much closer to the type of situations that actually present themselves in real life.
But that's not even the real problem. The real flaw in the ticking-bomb scenario is the assumption that subjecting someone to torture or physical duress will yield actionable information. That assumption has no empirical basis. People who are tortured don't tell the truth; they just say whatever will make the pain stop. Intelligence procured by torture is notoriously unreliable. Ironically, many of Dick Cheney's pre-war assertions about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda were apparently based on lies told by a detainee. This past week we learned that those lies were procured by way of torture. There's a reason why so many intelligence officials are uncomfortable with the techniques Cheney's office is fighting so stubbornly to protect; they don't work.
The Bush administration's decision to blur the lines and skirt the rules against torture has immeasurably undermined our moral authority and has provided endless propaganda material to our enemies. And what do we have to show for it? It's time for Cheney and his rapidly dwindling list of supporters to give up this fight, for all of our sakes.
On a related note, Jonah Goldberg writes the following about the need for extreme interrogation techniques in certain situations:
I find it astounding that someone would see this as an argument in FAVOR of harsh interrogation techniques rather than an argument AGAINST both torture and the death penalty. I love the way Jonah casually dismisses as rubbish the argument that we can never be 100% sure that we're executing (or torturing) the right person, as if that's some trifling concern. I've never understood how those who support the death penalty can be so cavalier about the very real possibility that innocent people are being executed. Could there be a bigger injustice than putting to death (or torturing) an innocent person? It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to remove human fallibility from the equation. It doesn't matter how many death-row inmates are exonerated or how many detainees are released, people like Jonah never seem lose faith that next time we'll get it right. Somehow the "good" that comes from dealing harshly with the bad guys outweighs the injustice done to those unfortunate souls who are executed or tortured by mistake. I never understood that moral calculus.
Moreover, to use of the death penalty analogy in the torture context is particularly nonsensical. Our criminal justice system offers robust due process rights including the right to counsel, the right to a jury trial, the use of strict rules of evidence, and nearly endless opportunities for appeal. And still the innocent get convicted. Our detainees are afforded none of these due process rights. Does Jonah really think the innocent need not worry?
None of the self-righteous bloviating against
torture ever seems to have a satisfying answer
to the ticking-bomb scenario. Is it wrong, say,
to inflict non-lethal but extreme pain against a
culpable terrorist who is aware of an imminent
bombing that would kill tens of thousands of
moral innocents but who is unwilling to provide
life-saving information?
He then adds:
Enough with the "torture is despicable" line.This is essentially the same argument that Dick Cheney made in his closed-door session with GOP senators last week, explaining his opposition to the McCain anti-torture amendment. It's important for supporters of the McCain amendment (like myself) to address this argument because, like it or not, it resonates with people. In the post 9/11 world, such a scenario no longer seems far-fetched to most people. And the logic behind it is reinforced by pop culture. We've all watched '24' and rooted for Jack Bauer as he breaks all the rules in a desperate attempt to save lives.
We've got that; no one is saying it's not. And we
all understand the profound, slippery-slope
dangers of legalizing any torture. That is a very
serious concern for serious people. But please,
as the price of admission, tell us outright that:
You are prepared to let thousands of people be
slaughtered before disturbing a hair on the
head of a Khalid Sheik Mohammed-type who
might be in a position to help you stop a plot
you truly have good reason to think is
underway.
The problem with this scenario (as many others have pointed out) is that it makes a number of assumptions that are empirically dubious. First, the ticking-bomb scenario assumes not only that we have knowledge of an imminent attack, but also that we have the right guy in custody, i.e., a person with information that can prevent that attack from happening. In real life, our intelligence is never even close to that good. Intelligence, as the WMD fiasco makes clear, is far from an exact science. A significant percentage of the people we've detained as suspected terrorists have turned out to be people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should someone who may or may not be a terrorist and may or may not know anything useful be tortured based solely on intelligence "chatter" about an upcoming attack? This is much closer to the type of situations that actually present themselves in real life.
But that's not even the real problem. The real flaw in the ticking-bomb scenario is the assumption that subjecting someone to torture or physical duress will yield actionable information. That assumption has no empirical basis. People who are tortured don't tell the truth; they just say whatever will make the pain stop. Intelligence procured by torture is notoriously unreliable. Ironically, many of Dick Cheney's pre-war assertions about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda were apparently based on lies told by a detainee. This past week we learned that those lies were procured by way of torture. There's a reason why so many intelligence officials are uncomfortable with the techniques Cheney's office is fighting so stubbornly to protect; they don't work.
The Bush administration's decision to blur the lines and skirt the rules against torture has immeasurably undermined our moral authority and has provided endless propaganda material to our enemies. And what do we have to show for it? It's time for Cheney and his rapidly dwindling list of supporters to give up this fight, for all of our sakes.
On a related note, Jonah Goldberg writes the following about the need for extreme interrogation techniques in certain situations:
As I understand it, a major criticism of the
McCain amendment is that no such
allowances are made, period. The reasoning
sounds similar to a ban on the death penalty
-- i.e. because we cannot be 100% sure that
we might not make a mistake, we'd better
outlaw the practice entirely even when
we're sure we're not making a mistake.
I find it astounding that someone would see this as an argument in FAVOR of harsh interrogation techniques rather than an argument AGAINST both torture and the death penalty. I love the way Jonah casually dismisses as rubbish the argument that we can never be 100% sure that we're executing (or torturing) the right person, as if that's some trifling concern. I've never understood how those who support the death penalty can be so cavalier about the very real possibility that innocent people are being executed. Could there be a bigger injustice than putting to death (or torturing) an innocent person? It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to remove human fallibility from the equation. It doesn't matter how many death-row inmates are exonerated or how many detainees are released, people like Jonah never seem lose faith that next time we'll get it right. Somehow the "good" that comes from dealing harshly with the bad guys outweighs the injustice done to those unfortunate souls who are executed or tortured by mistake. I never understood that moral calculus.
Moreover, to use of the death penalty analogy in the torture context is particularly nonsensical. Our criminal justice system offers robust due process rights including the right to counsel, the right to a jury trial, the use of strict rules of evidence, and nearly endless opportunities for appeal. And still the innocent get convicted. Our detainees are afforded none of these due process rights. Does Jonah really think the innocent need not worry?
posted by A.L. at 12:36 AM
1 Comments:
Hollywood and also American literature runs rampant with the depiction of heroes who sometimes break the law and use torture to save the girl or to save hundreds or for the greater good in general. That is no reason for us to make it legal. If such a "ticking bomb" exists, then if you are one of those heroes, let the chips fall where they may without legal cover. If you were right and save the world, then maybe your hero-ness will save you from trial and shame. In the other 99.9999% of cases when you are wrong, you need to be man enough to pay for your crime with doing the time.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home