Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Torture Doesn’t Work Anyway,” and Other Counterintuitive Misdirections from the Left
There ought to be a term for the specific kind of obfuscation – engaged in regularly by the left – wherein escape from a losing argument is effected by the advance of counterintuitive empirical claims that are beside the point: Illegal aliens are a net plus to the economy. Gays are born that way. Increasing the debt is not a problem because interest rates are low. The death penalty does not deter crime. Or, the example du jour, courtesy of leftist radicals on Diane Feinstein’s staff (who still have illicit dreams of George W. Bush and his henchman Dick Cheney being frog-marched to jail for war crimes in Iraq): torture doesn’t work anyway.
To be fair, this particular bit of legerdemain is not limited to the left. No less a patriot than John McCain has been vociferous (and consistent) in asserting that people being tortured “will tell you anything they think you want to hear,” rendering that kind of interrogation useless or worse. But my issue is not with McCain – or indeed with any fair-minded left-of-center observers who simply maintain a deep moral abhorrence of torture – so long as they argue rationally.
There are, as we know, honorable adherents of extreme pacifism. You might call them “Nazi’s notwithstanding” pacifists. Likewise, there are honorable opponents of the death penalty in all cases. In fact, as I have written elsewhere, societal ethics do appear to recognize time’s arrow.
For those that doubt this, consider the following.
If there is any substantive difference between the executioner’s method of choice in the Daesh (aka the Islamic State – thanks John Kerry) of today, as compared to that in, say, the French Revolution of 1789, that difference can fairly be categorized as technological rather than moral. (I.e. the French of 1789 – with their guillotine – were more technologically advanced than ISIS…except for the video cameras…which are Japanese anyway).
Therefore you have got to respect those people who are deeply sensitive to brutal deformations of the human form because, let’s face it, we’re all squeamish about something, right?
And for those of us (like me) who think that waterboarding or indeed far worse methods of torture are allowable in protecting society from zealot savages bent on our destruction, it is important to retain our humility by recognizing that we are, in the end, arguing for some level of brutality.
Brutality and death and gore are what the ethical issue of torture is all about. Who cares (or as Hillary would say: what difference does it make) whether it works or not?
If we faithfully adhere to grounds of ethics as opposed to efficacy, an interesting question arises.
Arguably, our distant descendants will be as appalled at the use of waterboarding as we are appalled at ritual beheadings. Also arguably, the world of the future – however civilized we continue to be – will nevertheless continue to have primitive, barbarous peoples who will stop at nothing to destroy our civilization. How, then, do we fill the gap, so to speak? Will our civilization be doomed to destruction by Vandals because of our refusal to countenance cruel methods in our own defense?
Because I am an optimist, I think the answer is “no.” And, because I am a realist, I think the reason that the answer is no is the most boring one possible: namely that we will become more and more hesitant to use crushing force against our enemies — but it won’t matter because we will be becoming further and further advanced in comparison to them.
When the 23rd century religious cult of billions germinates in Mongolia or Madagascar, we will use drones — not with missiles, but intelligent drones from Amazon.com (it’ll still be there) to pluck out the worst radicals one at a time and transport them to Main Street American villages on the terraformed Moon. There they will enjoy reading their religious books and playing 1/6 g soccer (which they will insist on calling ‘football’). They will be lulled into passivity with massive shopping malls filled with little shops selling all the same things and resounding with the 23rd century equivalent of ABBA.
It won’t be called Guantanamo.
But it will be Guantanamo.
These and countless other flights of the imagination are possible if we would just, please, stop answering the question: “should we torture?” with “torturing doesn’t work anyway.” The question of “should we torture?” is just vastly more interesting than whether it works or not.
Published in General
Like.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell
Granted. But I think most people aren’t very interested in prolonged philosophical debates. They are eager to settle the question and move on with their lives.
If torture isn’t necessary, then we don’t have to question the acceptable limits of brutality. Even people who love philosophical challenges should prefer simplicity in regard to practical concerns like this.
Just to drive you up the wall, here is why torture can work. Whether or not it is effective at acquiring new information, it is certainly effective at verifying old information if the interrogator’s questions do not include that information.
For example, suppose that we have intercepted via internet chatter a threat against a particular location; say, an opera house (because vibrato needs to die). If, under torture, the captured terrorist claims that an opera house is the target, without any hints at an opera house by the interrogators, then it is reasonable to assume that he didn’t just guess what the interrogators wanted to hear.
It’s really simple to me. Morally, what you would want to avoid is “torturing” someone who doesn’t know the answer to what you’re asking… so he has no way to stop the interrogation by answering the question. As long as the person being interrogated has the ability to stop it at any time simply by answering a question that they can answer and which they have a moral obligation to answer, there is simply no moral issue. And even more so if the method used does not inflict pain or permanent damage but rather only panic. This is about the most refined and morally advanced form of interrogation ever conceived, and frankly those who devised it deserve a Nobel peace prize.
I entirely agree. Indeed, I think that those who argue that torture doesn’t work are driven to believe that by their visceral abhorrence of it.
If we ask simply: what method will best elicit information from a captive? the answers will be wide and varied. Some will cooperate for cigarettes, some will cooperate from mortal fear. The “torture doesn’t work (ever)” assertion is saying that under no circumstances, irrespective of feedbacks and checks on the information given, will the thing that we categorize as torture ever produce useful information.
To be more thorough, McCain says that people being tortured will at some point tell you “anything they think you want to hear.” If you happen to have a rapid means of verifying the truth of their statements (as in the case you mention where you *know* some of the information in advance) then what you want to hear is the truth. There are many problems in information theory where an answer is exceedingly difficult to compute, but where a prospective answer can be checked right or wrong trivially (factorization into prime numbers is a typical example). Real world examples are easy to construct. “When you give me the combination to this safe, the pain will stop.” They know exactly what you want to hear and they will provide it.
Like many techniques, torture is a form of interrogation which relies much on the skills of the interrogator. It’s not something anyone can do by simply following a guidebook.
It can work or it can be abused. As Bob says, it’s possible to torture someone who doesn’t have the information you think he does. How does an interrogator determine if the person has been broken and knows nothing of value? My guess is that only an experienced interrogator could tell us. Of course, we don’t have access to one (publicly).
I’ve spoken with soldiers who were trained to resist torture, but don’t recall anything useful to this conversation. Many of our enemies are similarly trained to prolong their own pains in defense of secrets.
Do we trust our operatives to perform brutal interrogations effectively and humanely? Do we have operatives who are well-trained and prudent? Politicians object for theatrical purposes. But many citizens understandably struggle with that choice to trust.
I sure don’t think that one belongs on the list. What is counterintuitive about that? For me, that was a distraction from an otherwise very good post.
This is such a cogent argument, Michael.
I’ve been thinking there’s something not quite right about “doesn’t work anyway.” I mean, China eradicated its opium problem by executing its addicts back in the day. Likewise, I suspect we’d have a lot fewer cases of child abuse, rape, and even theft if we used more, um, permanent punishments on the perpetrators. Everything from executions to lopping off hands. It “works” among some people in the Middle East, right?
The question is, is it ethical? Lots of people have too much moral vanity to debate it honestly.
The disingenuousness of the critics goes even further. They use “torture” as a broad, undifferentiated concept. “We don’t torture…” But there’s torture done for recreation, torture for punishment, torture as political theater or for other reasons most civilized people want no part of. When the critics denounce “torture” they always make sure never to define it, hoping that all those associations stick to it in the minds of those listening to them.
In 10 seconds I could imagine as many methods of making KSM talk the FIRST time they were used, or even threatened. There would be no question of having to do them over and over dozens of times like the waterboarding he was subjected to. Why didn’t we use those methods? Frankly, it’s because of our moral superiority to most others in this world who would have. It kills no one, it has no collateral damage like drones, and it has the added benefit of possibly saving innocent lives. Waterboarding is a badge of moral honor.
J, I think it is counterintuitive because I think generally biology prefers a distribution. There are binary (or “multi-nary??”) exceptions like blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes. Most other biological characteristics span a range. So I would expect some people to be strongly disposed to be gay at birth while others to have leanings in that direction and others (the majority) to be strongly disposed to heterosexuality. The claim that there is no intermediate regime in such a complex characteristic is, to me, counterintuitive.
And (incidentally) I think that gay rights advocates (which, to some degree at least, I am one of) would do well not to rely on biological assertions that are not well-researched and certainly not “established.”
‘Moral vanity’ – what a great phrase. It is not very self-flattering to support torture or the death penalty, no one probably likes to think of themselves as the kind of person that would actually do that kind of thing. But it’s not about how these things make us feel.
OK, there can be an intermediate regime, and it’s not established that all gay people are just born that way. Do people really say that, though, in the same absolute way that people say that it’s never right to torture or execute another person? I’ve only heard people say that some people are just born gay, which sounds logical to me.
It’s not as simple as that.
As I have stated in previous threads on the subject, we could hang and mutilate the corpses of our enemies during war to intimidate our enemies and perhaps save lives in doing so. Why don’t we? Why don’t we crucify our enemies along the highways, as the ancient Romans did?
Why do we consent to war at all? Why does a man risk his life and kill aggressors in battle? Because some things are worth more to us than life itself. Freedom, for example.
Would it be acceptable to put knives to the throats of a terrorist’s children to convince him to spill his secrets? If not, why? After all, that kills no one and might save American lives.
It is possible to approve of water-boarding or a similarly painful method of interrogation without casually dismissing all qualms about torture for information. There can be limits. We can be brutal and considerate simultaneously.
Have you fallen into the same rhetorical trap as those people who argue that one avenue doesn’t work when looked at to the exclusion of all other options, when in actuality, they work very effectively when chosen wisely in conjunction with an array of other options?
For example, as dramatized in the movie Zero Dark Thirty, when the terrorist is being treated to a civilized lunch, and it is there obtained some vital information, he has been through and lived through the EIT (waterboarding) already, and it’s obvious he doesn’t want to go back to that. He didn’t give up anything in the original waterboarding. Are we then to conclude that the waterboarding is ineffective? We might conclude that the threat of returning to waterboarding after some time to readjust to living a bit more normal life (albeit in captivity of the US) is effective at obtaining information.
This is a silly question to re-ask because the CIA previously affirmed the importance of EIT. CIA Director Brennan attempted to walk back some of that earlier position but without satisfactory explanation why.
It will be called Guantanamoon.
I can’t believe nobody suggested this yet.
Without being omniscient, how would you do that? (Also wouldn’t you already know the answer?)
Reading the legislation before voting on it doesn’t seem to work either.
Donate enough cash to a campaign and some puppet will say anything.
lol Zafar.
A related lie implied by this sham report is that some of the persons subject to enhanced interrogation were innocent bystanders. How plausible is that?
Sorry, just re-read your question. It’s looks like you’re asking the right question. But I repeat my point about not attempting to look at the efficacy of torture in a vacuum. You’re already on to that point.
I think David Horowitz coined the phrase.
Most of the people who say that torture doesn’t work need to be asked a simple question: if it did work would you be for it then?
Most of these people would say no — they still wouldn’t be for it. There are many very disingenuous people in the political world and they want to hijack the conversation with this ploy of pretending that torture doesn’t work. We need to sort this aspect out first before we proceed on the legitimate questions.
Spot on, Larry!
What a hypocrite…not one word from Feinstein on the torture those three football players went through for an hour on national TV waiting on the Heisman verdict.
I don’t mean to be cruel, but I do mean to call BS.
Since John McCain actually was tortured, I wonder if he would say that’s what he did.
I don’t think so.
An extract from McCain’s account, from which:
McCain’s testimony is useful in regard to the relationship between the physical torment and lasting psychological trauma. Though his own experience is not exactly comparable to torture without malice, it might provide some insight into the extent to which torture can be fleeting experience.
Obviously, even having endured infinitely worse than any American captive would ever experience and being left with a physical impairment, McCain still managed to establish a generally happy and productive life.
His account is not useful in defending the claim that torture cannot provide reliable information, because signing a confession is very different than saying something interrogators did not stage or suggest.
A family member shared this on Facebook the other day:
Perhaps one reason I do not join others in unconditionally saying, “Do whatever it takes” or “They deserve no mercy” is because I am not emotionally moved like most people. I can consider such things dispassionately.
That doesn’t mean I’m right. But perhaps, like torture itself, considerations of torture are best handled by individuals with neither passion for revenge or undue sympathy.
True. The objectives of their torture versus our torture were very different. Of what value is it to humiliate a person into ‘admitting’ he did something? In our case, we are after information that can save lives, and also we know that we have not earned any retribution for our actions. The two situations are not comparable, yet people will compare them. It does not demonstrate moral superiority to focus on the efficacy of torture as an instrument of saving lives. The left’s argument is only a mock form of moral outrage.
But torturing someone for information involves exactly that. Especially if they’re asking for confirmation of a name or a place.
Wrt being tortured with or without malice: some of the people working for the CIA were sickened by what they did, some (I hope) were able to be dispassionate – but some were probably vengeful or malicious as well. Each line of work it attracts a certain kind of person.
Given a ticking bomb scenario I don’t categorically rule torture out of bounds. But:
1 I wonder how many ticking bomb scenarios there are in real life as opposed to the movies. Some of those guys were being tortured after two months. That’s a long time for a bomb to tick, or for information to remain current.
2 If India is any indication, information gained from torture is deeply flawed – and this deforms any endeavor that depends on it. In many cases information, any information, is extracted and produced as evidence of ‘doing something’. But doing the wrong thing can be worse than not doing anything. Some of the Indian Army’s actions in Kashmir have made things worse for us, not better – just as some stuff done in Abu Ghraib worked against America’s objectives in Iraq.
3 Bureaucracies have their innate flaws – so do human beings. There are people who sign up for a torture job because (consciously or not) they like it – and that inevitably has an impact on what is done and how often. This is hard to avoid, when it’s a job most people find hard to do. When the purpose of torture is to punish or terrorise that doesn’t necessarily get in the way of ‘the mission’, but when it’s solely to extract information I think it might.
Zafar, I’m glad you answered the question about the utility of torture — it being something to be decided independently.
The “mission” is to extract information — or it becomes that anyway. There is no mission without the information. The term is “actionable intel,” right?
Am I misunderstanding you?
Also, you confuse me with what is a perfectly clear difference — that of extracting a confession vs finding out information. These are not the same. Extracting a confession does not require a person to have any information and the beatings can stop whenever the person wants. Extracting information is a different situation entirely to deal with — if the person doesn’t have it, if he tells the whole story, if he changes the facts to suit himself. These are things that are difficult to ponder for the CIA investigator. Please explain your position more clearly.