Torture Hypothetical
Posted by
tgirsch
Patterico asks a hypothetical question:
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?
This has already been addressed quite handily by Sebastian (also here) and Katherine over at Obsidian Wings, but I want to throw my hat into the ring on this as well.
The answer is easy for me: No, it’s not worth it. Setting aside for a moment the implausibility of the hypothetical (one ABC reporter’s say-so notwithstanding, the idea that KSM is the only one with the information and torturing him is the only “reliable” way to get it is, frankly, risible), what the question basically boils down to is this: Are you willing to sell out your principles for the ostensible purpose of defending them? To me, when you come to that point you’ve already lost: you’ve proven that your principles are only to be adhered to when convenient.
But there’s another element to this as well. There’s a reason Patterico is giving such a highly qualified hypothetical and insisting that it be addressed only in a vacuum. Because if he doesn’t, then he has to answer a hypothetical question of his own: How many “misses” (innocent people tortured, and/or not-so-innocent people tortured with no valuable information obtained, and/or people tortured with actively misleading and therefore counterproductive information obtained) is he willing to tolerate in order to get that one “hit?” Where do you draw that line, and who do you trust to stay on the right side of the line? It seems supremely ironic that a guy who won’t trust the government with, say, firearms regulation is willing to trust them with this.
For my part, I view it like I view the death penalty: even one person wrongfully executed or tortured is too many. Period. So the line has to be a bright one, rather than a gray, fuzzy one. Even if we were to grant every single bit of Patterico’s hypothetical (which I don’t even remotely), the course of action would be to torture illegally and face the consequences, rather than to decriminalize torture in certain circumstances. If the agent has skin in the game — he knows he’s going to prison if he does this, but he truly believes that doing this is going to save lives, and therefore he’s willing to make that personal sacrifice — then maybe I start buying the “there was no other way” argument, even if I still don’t agree with his course of action.
But in the final analysis, this issue simply cannot be viewed in the hypothetical vacuum Patterico is aiming for. It has to be viewed in the larger context for it to have any meaning at all. And in the greater context, there’s absolutely no way I can see justifying and condoning torture, no matter how ostensibly “well-intentioned” it may be. Torturing a suspect violates the very principles upon which our nation was founded. I will not sacrifice those principles for even a few thousand lives.
If that makes me “self-righteous,” then so be it. (And if he thinks that’s self-righteous, one wonders what he makes of the New Hampshire state motto…)
You ask, ” Are you willing to sell out your principles for the ostensible purpose of defending them?”
My answer: No. But we’re not talking about defending our principles. We’re talking about defending 3,000 innocent lives.
Comment 11/15/2007
And you’re talking about abandoning your principles in the name of doing so.
If someone could conclusively show that banning all private ownership of firearms would save 3,000 lives, would you support it? I doubt it.
Comment 11/15/2007
A much more realistic version:
You have a group of n people, one of whom knows about a plot that will kill a thousand people, the rest of whom know nothing.
For what values of n are you willing to use torture on the whole group to find out about the plot?
Comment 11/15/2007
And still not realistic, because it still assumes that torture is an effective way to get the information.
Comment 11/15/2007
Ah but the most important question of all is this: How much are you willing to buy my principles for? Answer that and we may be in business
Comment 11/16/2007
Hi folks:) I have no problem with torturing someone who is seriously planning to kill thousands of folks in order to prevent that killing. My problem is: what happens if the person you torture is innocent? He’d say anything to get rid of the torture.
I don’t have much value for the guilty in this scenario but very much for the innocent. My sense is that if torture is going to be used, first there should be a warrant given out by a judge. Such warrants can be given out very quickly, so that should not interfere with the worth of the information.
Next, because torture involves “unbearable pain,” according to Webster’s Dictioary of Synonyms, (2003 edition, page 13, look under the word “afflict”), the person tortured has to be able to legally avail himself or herself of communication with a lawyer, friends, and the press. Finally, if it should be determined that this person were innocent after all, then he or she should be able to sue the State for a princely sum–and get it promptly.
Comment 11/16/2007
And you’re talking about abandoning your principles in the name of doing so.
If someone could conclusively show that banning all private ownership of firearms would save 3,000 lives, would you support it? I doubt it.
Bingo Tom. I’m sick to death of the “culture of life” having no qualms about torturing, killing, and maiming other human beings. And they don’t have any qualms about the torture in spite of well-documented proof that torture achieves nothing but the tortured telling you whatever he or she thinks will get you to stop the torture.
They appear to have gotten Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to confess to crucifying Jesus, kicking over the lantern in Mrs. O’Leary’s barn, and lying in wait on the grassy knoll. What has that gotten us so far? And no, the Chimpleton refrain of “the Government can’t talk about it because we’ll alert the turrists” isn’t going to wash. You can either prove your point or be known as a liar. So far, Chimpy cannot point to even one successful operation based on information gleaned through torturing people.
Comment 11/16/2007
Well-written and well-argued. Of course, the fact that I already held this view doesn’t hurt my estimation of your work at all. As they say, “Great minds think alike.”
So, apparently, do ours.
Comment 11/17/2007
This is a ridiculous hypothetical.
Whether the result of that specific instance would have been “worth it” completely decontextualizes the issue.
Would it be “worth it” if the guy actually knows the plot AND gives us credible information to stop it AND the act of torture does not motivate further attacks AND we don’t use this instance to establish precedent for the efficacy of torture, AND, AND, AND. Yeah, under those conditions, sure it’s worth it.
Of course, if police officers only perform illegal search and seizures on criminals it is worth it too, right. So, yeah, “our security” trumps human rights provided we never our perceptions are never inaccurate. Although, in such a world, “human rights” wouldn’t even be necessary to be spelled out, because they would simply exist as natural outgrowth of our perfection!
Comment 11/19/2007
A way to make this scenario more interesting in the direction away from torturing innocents goes something like this (from “Walking the Tightrope of Reason” by Robert J Fogelin): You know that a certain terrorist has a plot to kill thousands to millions of innocent civilians. You have tried to extract from him how to derail this plot (assume that if it isn’t actively stopped, it will happen and will be successful). The terrorist has been tortured and refuses to give in. Do you then torture his innocent daughter to try to extract the information from him? On one hand, you are knowingly torturing an innocent without knowing for sure that you will be successful. On the other hand, if you don’t use every method available to you to stop the terrorists’ plans, a huge number of people will die. In situations like this our deontological sense of morality (i.e. “principles” or “duties” are in conflict with our teleological sense (i.e. morality derived from consequences). I’m not sure that a correct answer can be given, despite having thought about it at great length.
Comment 11/27/2007
My answer is NO!
I didn’t read the 700 and something comments.
But the question has a logical defect. It supposes that we know the answer BEFORE we torture the guy (the human being). It starts stating that he is guilty and really knows all about the bombs.
Comment 1/15/2008