Tortured Logic
I know we've discussed this issue in a recent post, but I just want to note something about tough interrogation techniques. It seems to me the argument that they don't work won't do. It may be correct, but it's not so easy to avoid a deeper discussion of the issue--saying it doesn't work is a way of not taking a stand.
You've got people like George Tenet and others who claim directly that "enhanced interrogation" has gotten good information and saved lives, and that nothing else works. Now maybe he's mistaken, maybe he's even lying, but it's just too simple to claim such interrogation can't work and that's that.
You have to at least acknowledge there's a debate to be had. You've also got to bite the bullet and assume, arguendo, that it does work, and then ask do you do it, and if you do, what is allowed.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:57 AM
9 Comments:
I don't believe that anyone here took the position that tough interrogation techniques don't ever work. I certainly hope that's not how my contribution was taken, anyway.
My argument was that they might work, sometimes, but making them a matter of ordinary practice always does harm to our interests. I accept CG's point that unless and until you make it illegal, you've already hired someone to make the call on whether to try them or not, so let them decide. I shall. But that doesn't mean I have to keep quiet about how harmful I believe it to be.
p.s. why are our word verifications on this blog so damn long? I just had to read a squirmy 9 letter one.
Torture is an evil that perhaps can be occasionally justified to prevent a larger evil. Tell you what- how about a results-based test- if you torture and end up saving lives, great you're a hero. If you torture & you don't, you're just a goddamn criminal like Dr Mengele or the Argentine Generals and should be duly prosecuted.
I'm for NeG's test. It's just like the litigation system.
SWMBCg,etc.
(Mine was only five digits, QG; maybe it's a seniority system.)
New England Guy's plan reminds of us why cops support the Exclusionary Rule.
Here's the proper standard. We can never subject enemy combatants to anything worse than what we subject our own soldiers to in their training. Hey, if we do it to ourselves, how can they complain if we do it to them?
In a previous post, I argued that torture is especially useless in the archetypical "ticking timebomb" scenario.
But I agree with L.A. Guy that this doesn't really answer the main question. Is torture ever permitted? I say no.
Hey, my word verification is only eight letters! (But even if it were ten, that would not qualify as torture imho.)
Define what you mean by "torture does/does not work".
If torture could prevent something like 9/11, does the ends justify the means?
Maybe if your family member was in the WTC, it does.
Maybe if you realize torture produces responses, not actionable information, it does not.
This debate is not really about favoring torture, not officially anyway. George Tenet and George Bush are both explicitly against it. What they favor are enhanced interrogation techniques. This is why we need to define just what torture is and isn't to begin with. (The debate is made harder in that officials won't discuss what techniques they use for security reasons, claiming that giving out such information will help the enemy.)
As to whether or not it works, that's not as hard to define. It works if it gets useful information, and can do it in a reasonably reliable manner. This doesn't mean it's used as a matter of course, but becomes part of the arsenal of techniques to get information.
There is also a percentage question in here. Torture may occasionally get relevant or helpful information, but if it also generates a large proportion of false or misleading information, then the good information will be difficult to discern. If it sends officers off on wild goose chases 90% of the time, the value of the good information will have to be very high to overcome the timewasting. One issue that seems central is how do you know in advance that the person you are about to torture actually has good information? This seems to be a linchpin -- the public seems to assume we would know who to torture. When you torture someone to get information they don't have, it's doubly counterproductive. Finally, you'd want to weigh the success of this method as against other less glamorous methods (yes, I think many find torture glamorous). Slowly developing a rapport with a detainee over months may have a much likelier positive outcome, but it doesn't seem like a good TV Show. Then the torture method must also be weighed against the probability that you are excluding this other technique for good -- as you are unlikely to develop a rapport with someone after you have tortured him. And this doesn't even touch on the negative p.r. it generates (and the positive p.r. that is foregone.)
Post a Comment
<< Home