‘Mumbai Scenario’ Shakes Up the Torture Debate
A new challenge to critics who slam the ticking time bomb argument for torture as unrealistic.
Torture is a brutal act that has no place in the toolkits of civilized nations — except, perhaps, when attempting to prevent even more brutal acts by the jihadists who target them. Because of its unique characteristics, the November 2008 terror attack on Mumbai offers a compelling test bed for policies that govern the use of coercive interrogation during times of crisis. At the very least, those advocating an unqualified ban on such methods should be made to defend their position in the context of the Mumbai scenario.
An inspection of the ground assault on India’s financial capital reveals more than a passing resemblance to the much-maligned ticking time bomb (TTB). Popularized by dramas like 24, this hypothetical construct has been a favorite of pundits and policymakers eager to keep the door open for harsh interrogation techniques, especially in the event of a national emergency. If a captured terrorist possesses information that could help thwart an imminent attack, they ask, should not officials be permitted any and all means to extract it?
Philosopher Michael Walzer considered this question three decades ago in a now-classic essay, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.” His plotline involves a well-intentioned head of government being “asked to authorize the torture of a captured rebel leader who knows or probably knows the location of a number of bombs hidden in apartment buildings around the city, set to go off within the next twenty-four hours.” Professor Walzer concludes that the protagonist would grudgingly comply with the request, “convinced that he must do so for the sake of people who might otherwise die in the explosions.”
September 11, 2001, and subsequent days of infamy have sparked renewed interest in this thought experiment. Reviewing a book by Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has proposed that torture be regulated via warrants, Judge Richard Posner writes, “If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used.” The Bush administration agreed, indicating that any ban could be ignored in such circumstances. Justice Antonin Scalia and former President Bill Clinton have sympathized with this exception; then-Senator Hillary Clinton did as well, before backtracking during a primary campaign in which both Republicans and Democrats were queried about TTBs.
Critics, however, slam the TTB as unrealistic, pointing to the fact that none of the four experts who testified at a May 6, 2008, House Judiciary Committee hearing could cite a single substantiated case. Opponents of torture thus contend that a TTB is so unlikely that the scenario should carry no weight in serious discussions of interrogation policy. It is “profoundly misleading,” they insist, a “diversion from the national security issues that should be commanding our attention.” Professor Stephen Griffin calls it a “fantasy” meant to “cloud our reason and judgment,” because “the TTB is not a historical episode that we can examine in all its complexity and, as far as I know, nothing like it has ever happened.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
David J. Rusin is a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
63 Comments
1. SAF:Too many in America do not understand the danger we are in.
Feb 27, 2009 - 2:54 am 2. JL:“the TTB is not a historical episode that we can examine in all its complexity and, as far as I know, nothing like it has ever happened.”
More accurately: Nothing like it has ever bin known to the public.
Also in the case of missing nuclear warheads, it is already by law legal to use deadly force to retrieve them. These rules are off cause only known to officials with a certain security clearance, which is why, once a presidential candidate becomes a president, he stops to talk about this as an issue. The rules have been implemented on occasion (The nuclear storage facilities are not as secure, as one might think). And missions in this particular category are of cause not on any books. They are by nature classified and often involve a certain level of embarrassment. Two factors that make them better suited for high level power play than public scrutiny.
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:46 am 3. GDT:The original argument related to the conduct of warfare (including the treatment/questioning of captives) is made on the principal that both sides will abide by some code. We treat captives in the way we expect our people to be treated by the other side.
The nature of our current enemy (militant Islam) requires a rethinking of our policies. Our enemy tortures without objective. Their belief system tells them that slow beheadings and other savagery beyond our imagining are honorable for their own sake. They seem to take joy and pleasure in the activity. They video tape it to share with others. Our enemy targets woman, children, grade schools and shopping centers by design so as to inspire the greatest fear and revulsion. They almost never even attempt to win actual military victories – or to achieve negotiated settlement of demands/grievances. To them – the carnage itself is the point – not any hoped for objective from the carnage. They stage attacks from their own grade schools and shopping centers to take advantage of values we hold and they do not.
In all our other conflicts, our assumption has been that our opponent has been an honorable people at cross purposes with us. This is not the case with our current enemy. This is blind evil – for evil’s sake. If, to gain information from such people we need to administer “discomfort without actual harm” in a procedure such as waterboarding or the like, I say do it routinely. Our people in their hands experience much worse and our conduct (one way or the other) will have no effect on them at all.
Remember Daniel Pearl.
GDT
Feb 27, 2009 - 4:23 am 4. Peter the Bubblehead:It is dangerous to announce that any specific option for intel gathering has been taken off the table, because the terrorisit can then exploit that loophole.
Announce that intel agancies are not allowed to wiretap phone lines, and the terrorists will make all their plans over the phone.
Announce that intel agencies are not allowed to monitor suspected terrorist web sites, and the web sites will be filled with plans, diagrams and how to info.
By saying torture is forever off the table and can never be use in ANY circumstance, the terrorists will know they never need fear their plans coming to light during the course of an operation, because anyone captured just needs to sit silently by as the rest of his hoard complete their mission. NOTHING must ever be completely taken off the table.
And for those of you who will counter this arguement with “Do you want the terrorists to feel they can torture our troops and civilians because we are torturing them?!?” i say this, they’re ALREADY doing it. It doesn’t matter to them whether we torture the terrorists we capture or house them in the Plaza hotel with satin sheets and room service, they are still going to be terrorists and torture, maim and (usually) behead anyone they capture who is not a fellow terrorist.
Feb 27, 2009 - 4:48 am 5. Camaron:We, the west, ought to use every means necessary to fight the radical Islam; otherwise, we will be defeated. I trust our military and intelligent services the make the proper decisions when it comes to collecting information.
The politicians, and we the people will wake up, one day, as Condi so eloquently enlightened us.
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:03 am 6. chuck,:Professors will spout and the people responsible for protecting this country will do what they must. It’s best that the two stay far off each other’s path.
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:19 am 7. Never For Obama:GDT please spread your appraisal all over the web and not just here at Pajamas Media. I want all of America to read your well-reasoned response!!
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:52 am 8. Delia:3. GDT, I couldn’t have said it any better myself. Bravo!
The radical Islamist mindset will be our undoing if we don’t treat it like the cancer it is rather than pandering, ‘talking’ and trying to be politically correct.
There is no peace with Islam.
Ever.
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:09 am 9. uburoisc:GTD has nailed it; now can we get a single politician in Washington to say exactly that, for the record, and then actively and vigorously defend it?
Losing is unthinkable, it is worse than the end of the world, worse that losing to the Nazis, and, therefore, we will and must do whatever we need to do to make sure the West wins and wins decisively (Israel is a perfect example of what partial victory means). Nothing is off the table.
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:09 am 10. dave:excellent and very important piece
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:23 am 11. Meryl:GDT, yes…
Yesterday on another site’s thread, I saw the sad spectacle of a “conservative” poster maintaining that conservatives need to prove their evenhandedness by being just as concerned about Bobby Jhindal’s Hindu background as we are about Islam.
The ignorance about Islam and the drive to “prove how accepting we are” is going to destroy us. Islam is not only a domineering and destructive religion; it is also a totalitarian form of government.
In both religion and government they will happily kill both outsiders and members in order to sustain absolute moment-to-moment dominance.
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:26 am 12. ked5:#11
Yesterday on another site’s thread, I saw the sad spectacle of a “conservative” poster maintaining that conservatives need to prove their evenhandedness by being just as concerned about Bobby Jhindal’s Hindu background as we are about Islam.
~~~~~
??????????? Did anyone check his brain cavity?
Feb 27, 2009 - 8:22 am 13. greg:too bad even Jack Bauer is now against torture in extreme situations. we are weak.
Feb 27, 2009 - 10:35 am 14. Pete:So, if torture is such a surefire way of stopping bad people from doing bad things, should we expand this totally foolproof method to, say, the police force.
Let’s say a woman is beaten and robbed and her husband is shot to death by what she says are two men. The police catch a guy that they think might be one of the robbers. Should they also torture this guy in order to prevent the other criminal at large from killing anyone else?
This whole TTB scenario is ludicrous, because under the previous Administration, EVERY SITUATION was viewed as a TTB.
Feb 27, 2009 - 11:19 am 15. obknockious:That dear Pete, is such a ridiculous comparison it barely deserves acknowlegement.
I’m starting a money jar, every time i read/hear “previous Administration” I’m tossing in a dollar. I expect to have quite the savings by the end of the year.
Feb 27, 2009 - 12:14 pm 16. Peter the Bubblehead:Pete @ #14
Typical liberal response.
The situation you described is a criminal act, not an act of terrorism. No one is in immediate danger, and most particularly there are not a huge number of people in danger.
If there were a nuclear bomb planted in whatever city it is you live in by a terrorist group, and the authorities captured one of those terrorists, and they knew it was 6 hours before that bomb exploded and literally thousands, perhaps millions of people could be killed, including YOUR FAMILY, are you going to tell me you would NOT authorize the authorities to use any method within their means to find where that bomb is located and defuse it before it is too late?
Using the Mumbai example, if YOUR family were on vacation somewhere and terrorists captured your hotel, you would not want the authorites to find out all the information they possibly can that could be used to rescue YOUR FAMILY, would you not? Or do the terrorists so-called right trump your innocent family’s right to live?
Feb 27, 2009 - 12:18 pm 17. Ms.Attitude:If the liberals are against all forms of torture then why in the heck are they torturing us with this stimulus package? It isn’t just us, it’s our kids, grandkids and great grandkids! Stop the torture!!
I have a great idea, instead of waterboarding terrorist just show them pictures of Obama in Hawaii with no shirt on…the man boobs will break them!
Feb 27, 2009 - 12:35 pm 18. Delia:17. Ms.Attitude:
“If the liberals are against all forms of torture then why in the heck are they torturing us with this stimulus package? It isn’t just us, it’s our kids, grandkids and great grandkids! Stop the torture!!”
~
INDEED.
“I have a great idea, instead of waterboarding terrorist just show them pictures of Obama in Hawaii with no shirt on…the man boobs will break them!”
*falls off chair laughing hysterically*
he-he-he!
Thanks you, Ms. for lightening the mood.
Still ROTFL!
Feb 27, 2009 - 12:42 pm 19. GDT:Pete # 14, thanks so much for your response. You help to illustrate one of the classic “alternatives to logic” used by liberals in public discourse. Instead of directly disagreeing with your opponent’s actual position you (first) redefined your opponent’s position into something it clearly is not. You then passionately opposed your own redefinition of your opponent’s position. This allows you to completely avoid any discussion of your opponent’s actual points or position. Good for you.
No one said “surefire”. No one said “foolproof”. No one suggested its use in domestic policing of crime. This discussion is about whether or not we take aggressive interrogation completely and publicly off the table when facing a national enemy who’s savagery and brutality exceeds anything we have ever experienced in specific cases where hundreds or thousands of lives may be in immediate peril.
If you would like to take another stab at addressing the actual point – go for it.
GDT
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:00 pm 20. Pete:#16
So, are we defining “ticking time bomb” as “there’s a nuke” or “terrorists have seized a hotel”? This sort of goes to my point that some in the conservative community have a pretty low threshhold when it comes to invoking torture as a police or military option.
You guys do understand that “24″ is pretend, don’t you?
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:03 pm 21. jw:The problem with using torture – inflicting physical pain – is that you cannot be sure that the one tortured will tell the truth. Unless you know what the truth is, independently of using torture, you have no way of evaluating what the tortured one is saying. It is a useless method for discovering the truth.
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:28 pm 22. Tom Holsinger:(I do not, by the way, think that playing music of any sort is torture, which was recently claimed. Otherwise, I would claim to to be tortured whenever I hear dreadful music!)
The French experience in Algeria is pretty convincing evidence that torture should not be used in these situations, because it really would start us on the slippery slope to hell. Torture should be reserved only to avert really large-scale mass casualty incidents.
I recommend two books on the Algerian War of Independence, and two articles by Mark Bowden (author of Blackhawk Down) in the Atlantic Monthly. The two books well illustrate the slippery slope to hell as experienced in Algeria, while Bowden’s articles offer excellent advice on the situations in which torture should and should not be used.
A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 by Alistair Horne;
Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Algeria by Alf Andrew Heggoy;
The Dark Heart of Interrogation by Mark Bowden – http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden
and
The Truth about Torture by Mark Bowden – http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200309u/int2003-09-11
I agree with Mark Bowden.
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:31 pm 23. Mustang94:If the TTB is so improbable, then there shouldn’t be a problem with the TTB exception to the “torture is bad, m’kay?” rule, as the probability of having to exercise it poses almost no moral hazard, should there?
As for Pete’s well crafted thought expirement, to make the comparison one that is valid vis-a-vis the “Mumbai Scenario” It’s not one woman raped and beaten, her husband shot to death, its a half dozen, maybe more; and it’s not an isolated incident, its a spree, in progress as we type; and it’s not two guys, it’s an unknown number of guys; and it’s not that they think they got one of them, it’s they know for a fact they do (maybe it’s the white jumpsuit, black bowler, and the grotesque penis mask he was wearing). Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the question is why wouldn’t you beat the answers out of him?
Or, which Andy do you want in the room with one of these animals? Griffith or Sipowicz?
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:34 pm 24. Jose:If I was a dedicated Jihadist under enhanced interrogation then these are some of the answers I would give:
How many terrorists are on the ground? Ans: just me, 25, 100, 6, 3, 5000…
What are the targets and the distribution of terrorists across those targets? Ans: we got 10 at cricket ground, 500 at banks round city…..
What weapons and explosives are the terrorists carrying? – Ans: we got nuclear weapons….
Have additional weapons or ammo been prepositioned at the attack sites? Ans: yes, we got a dirty bomb located at Taj….
What strategy will the terrorists employ once they control the hotels? Ans: kill them all, hold hostages, kill half hostages, only kill foreigners….
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:42 pm 25. Leatherneck:It is not radical Islam we face! It is Islam period. The only radicals are the so called moderates.
What did Mohamed do? He murdered, and raped. To folks here he was a radical. No, he is the example of Islam. Therefore; Islam is the problem.
If you do not know, or understand the problem, you can never defeat it.
Water boarding is being to nice to the Jehads comparied to what happens when the warriors for Allah the moon god get their hands on American military persons.
Feb 27, 2009 - 1:56 pm 26. John Moore:Those who claim that torture is useless because the torturer cannot determine truth is overdrawn.
Certainly the interrogator faces challenges, but this is true no matter the method. So apparently we should just not bother to interrogate!
In SERE school we were taught that useful information can and will be extracted by torture. There were also (unpleasant) “demonstrations.”
This does not mean that every use would be successful (a common liberal misdirection) but that it can and often has been useful (as employed by our enemies).
Feb 27, 2009 - 2:11 pm 27. vb:jw–Of course, the terrorist will lie. That is why the US interrogators were constantly working to find techniques that worked. How well do you think renditions to foreign countries will work? Probably no better than they did in the past, when foreign interrogators could not be trusted with the classsified info that allows our own interrogators to test one bit of info against others.
Feb 27, 2009 - 2:17 pm 28. Nancy Reyes:“…Critics, however, slam the TTB as unrealistic, pointing to the fact that none of the four experts who testified at a May 6, 2008, House Judiciary Committee hearing could cite a single substantiated case. …
HUH?
Guess they never heard about the Bojinka plot…1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
The bozos got a short in their hotplate, and a smart Pinay cop noticed something suspicious…
The head guy got away, to bomb again, but his friend was captured and tortured by Philippine security, and as a result the Pope “flew in” to say mass via helicopter.
too bad that Clinton’s “experts” didn’t bother to listen to Philippine security or maybe 911 wouldn’t have happened.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0214/p07s01-woap.html
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:13 pm 29. Jose:Scenario is ticking time bomb… you got say max 72 hours (possibly you think) – then booooooom… somewhere in the crap that he/she is telling you is (perhaps) the truth…. how long does it take to figure that out – what’s true vs. what’s horse manure? Using enhanced interrogation will get you the truth (eventually or quickly?) – what’s the time frame? Will other interrogation methods yield the same results in the same time frame?
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:31 pm 30. Pete:The problem with the “beat the crap out of them first, ask questions later” mentality is that you really can’t guarantee 100% that the person you are torturing actually has any involvement in the ticking time bomb you’re trying to stop. If you end up torturing an innocent person, what do you say to them afterwards (provided they live)? Do you pull a Michael Steele and say “my bad”
What’s fascinating about this “debate” is that you guys are simultaneously portraying the “terrorists” as being so incredibly sophisticated that they are capable of 24-style nuclear attacks at any time, yet so weak that they would fold under torture and allow the would be Jack Bauers to foil these plots?
I sometimes think that 9/11 was like Christmas to the far right in the US. It gave you guys the belief that you had a “get out of governing free” card, where you could let the rest of the US crumble and collapse. Actually leading on real principles with real ideas bores you guys when it comes down to it. Now, you have a boogeyman that you can trot out as a means of justifying every dumbass human rights violation or preemptive war that your pea-brains hatch.
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:43 pm 31. Zwingli:Of course, in the movie Slumdog Millionaire, the cops weren’t able to torture the kid into saying that he cheated on that game show.
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:46 pm 32. Delia:How about a little of this kind of torture:
1). Truth serum every hour on the hour
2). Kept awake playing Britney Spears [full volume] “Hit me baby one more time” over and over and over when not playing #4 below.
3). Fed only ‘Bizarre Foods’ from the Andrew Zimmerman diet.
4). Watching reruns of Barney the Purple Dino on a loop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ
5). Kathy Griffin and Carrot Top in person.
Betchya that’d git’ ‘er done purdy quick.
Feb 27, 2009 - 3:52 pm 33. Peter the Bubblehead:20. Pete wrote:
So, are we defining “ticking time bomb” as “there’s a nuke” or “terrorists have seized a hotel”? This sort of goes to my point that some in the conservative community have a pretty low threshhold when it comes to invoking torture as a police or military option.
Peter writes: Hey, Pete, this may come as a complete shock to you, but the situation of terrorists taking control of multiple hotels and torturing and killing the tourists inside ACTUALLY HAPPENED!
You should try reading the news from time to time!
Sarc…
Feb 27, 2009 - 4:27 pm 34. Peter the Bubblehead:Now, Pete, answer the question…
YOUR family is in danger because of terrorism.
YES or NO:
Do you want the authorities to use ALL means at their disposal to rescue them?
Or do terrorists rights trump your family’s right to live.
ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION!
Feb 27, 2009 - 4:29 pm 35. Jaime Roberto:Pete and his ilk like to remind us that 24 is fiction. Thanks, Pete, we already knew that. Do you realize that Mumbai was real and was the concrete example used in this article? That said, I think it is very difficult and even dangerous to try to codify some kind of Ticking Time Bomb Exemption into law. If such a case should arise, it is probably better to resolve the issue via presidential pardon.
Feb 27, 2009 - 4:45 pm 36. Rubicon:In the end, each of us would have very different views of torture depending on the circumstances. If one’s family was directly involved, it is extremely disingenuous to assert you would forgo torture & give up any opportunity to obtain info to save their lives.
Feb 27, 2009 - 5:02 pm 37. as if:When faced w/ the very real act of an attack that is underway or about to be launched, & there are other attackers w/ plans to kill, (perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions), using some level of torture would probably happen since few would want to have to look people in the eye & say these murderers rights are more important than the lives of innocent civilians.
If your wife, daughter, son, father, husband, etc. were exposed & might be killed by the attackers, can any honestly say they would not torture? Honestly?
Self defense, & that is what we are talking about here folks, is the right of all human beings. No one is or should be required to sacrifice their lives or the lives of loved ones or just innocents, because someone else thinks self defense is wrong. If you want to die to prove some sort of point, then you go right ahead. But do not ask me to give up the life of loved ones, innocents or my own, just because you have some utopian vision of “why can’t we all just get along.”
Those who object to torture have rarely, if ever, been faced w/ the very real possibility that innocents will die if they fail to obtain info on the intentions of attackers, regardless of their motives or justifications.
Are we to forgo using drugs to obtain info? Just how far are we to go? When do we finally realize that if we fail to obtain info, people can & will die. How many must die before we realize we are in a war & those fighting against us, have absolutely no intention to hesitate at all & have demonstrated their plans & their intentions to indiscriminately kill, under any pretense.
Are we no better than our attackers? No! Are our attackers better than us? No! Are we to die off to prove we will live by some vague utopian concept of life on earth? Especially since we already know our enemies will not even try to live up to such a notion. And they have provided us w/ actual actions to prove their point. In the case of militant Islam, we have multiple be-headings, we have multiple other physical abuses… including torture, we have multiple attacks against innocents who were not involved in any efforts against the attackers. How many demonstrations must they give us before we realize we are in a fight for the very existence of mankind on the planet? These attackers will not only kill, they have also demonstrated they will deny basic human rights, basic human freedoms, basic humanities, just to impose their will on all others. For them, its their way or death.
We cannot teach civility to those whose dogma violates the entire concept of civilization. Given time, we might be able to convince our attackers there is a better way for all & we might be able to teach their children life is important & precious. But we must first overcome the teachings that have us in the situations we face today! Our attackers are not affording us the time or the opportunity to teach or to convince them. They are attacking & they mean to demand, force, compel or kill off anyone who fails to submit!
Delia, I jut gotta say it. You’re probably the dumbest person I’ve ever read on this board. No offense.
Feb 27, 2009 - 5:43 pm 38. Stephen:@Tom Holsinger (22) Am I correct in suggesting that the French went a bit beyond the use of torture to extract information in extreme cases to its as a general instrument of policy. The slippery slope argument is of course relevant and the one that Pete (14) ought to have invoked if he were capable of more than bad faith in his argumentation. But as I’ve read quickly through this thread no one is suggesting enhanced methods in anything other than extreme cases. Others have noted in (26) and (28), and common sense would suggest, that these methods have been successful in obtaining information in the past.
So what to do? Well, ask yourself this: Are all methods of warfare available to every military commander charged with the defense of Constitution and nation? I think we all know the answer is, No. That is why a military officer accompanies our Presidents with a briefcase containing authorization codes for launching a nuclear strike against sovereign nation that would be guaranteed to produce death beyond the imagining of even the most deranged terrorist.
As citizens we have long lived with this as a fact and yet threads like this are devoted to whether or not torture of an individual in extreme circumstances is what: Acceptable? Moral? In what universe is annihilation of millions an acceptable cost of war, but the physical agony of one not? Torture will continue to be used for the simple fact that it has elicited needed information in the past. But, like the example of the nuclear codes, its authorization should be the responsibility of only a very few in our government, perhaps only one, and for extreme cases only.
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:00 pm 39. Delia:37. as if:
“Delia, I jut gotta say it. You’re probably the dumbest person I’ve ever read on this board. No offense.”
~
The fact that you’re going out of your way to troll me speaks volumes as to the veracity of my posts which obviously ruffle your precious, little rainbow feathers.
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:08 pm 40. John Moore:The same statement can be made about putting people in jail. We don’t have a 100% certainty that they are guilty, and we do our best not to put away innocents, but it happens.
When we wage war, we don’t have a 100% certainty that our bombs won’t kill innocents, but we do it anyway, when we have to.
Gues what… it ain’t a perfect world, and arguing for 100% certainty is just silly.
Feb 27, 2009 - 6:50 pm 41. Delia:40. John Moore,
I’ll go one step further…
The idea/audacity that people think they can ‘rehabilitate’ murderers/rapists/pedos and put them back into society is NUCKING FUTS! What a bunch of sick, pathetic cowards our Country is infested with.
Oh boo-hoo, little Tim was molested by his Uncle Jim and he doesn’t know better.
BULL CACA! [pardon mon français].
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:07 pm 42. Horace Wells:I would take this one step further. A list of potential Muslim hostages should be drawn up, preferrably of known terrorists and sympathizers, and be used as bargaining chips and human shields to protect security forces.
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:39 pm 43. fred:Those who have studied the Islamic way of war and the history of jihad conquest know that terrorism is but the first wave of their military strategy. Its purpose is to weaken us. To soften us up. To make us fear them and make concessions to them. It enervates the target society and weakens their resolve. Muhammad, the first Muslim terrorist, knew this, which is why he set the example for all who followed him and his sock puppet deity.
If we fail to break the will of the jihad terror, we embolden them and they will escalate as their means, abilities, and numbers are enhanced. This was the historical pattern and these people do know their history better than we know it. The only valuable commodity in combating them at this stage of their perpetual war against the unbelievers is intelligence. It is precious, because it is the currency by which human lives are saved or taken. Believe me, they do not respect one iota the bleatings of those proud of their rectitude. So, we gain no moral high ground by strutting and preening in that unseemly fashion.
Information saves lives.
To classify the aggressive interrogative techniques we have used and waterboarding as “torture” is a stretch, by the traditional norms for understanding that term.
What happens when you respect life so much that you would not lift a finger to save it? Your devolve into nonsense and hypocrisy.
Feb 27, 2009 - 7:51 pm 44. cedarford:jw:
The problem with using torture – inflicting physical pain – is that you cannot be sure that the one tortured will tell the truth. Unless you know what the truth is, independently of using torture, you have no way of evaluating what the tortured one is saying. It is a useless method for discovering the truth.
BS. Every spy and saboteur cell is organized around the premise that it will take a short period of time to wring the truth out of a prisoner. Same with any military that discovers or suspects a pilot or radio operator is captured and comm and ECM frequencies will be spilled to the enemy shortly. Frequencies are changed on discovery.
Truth is easy to verify as long as you FORCE and COMPELL your prisoner to tell truth or lies. You check out the people named, places they have been, and any other enemy with overlapping knowledge. Before you do so, you tell the prisoner penalties for lying..up to and including cutting their balls off.
This isn’t civilian US justice with the ACLU and crusading liberal Jewish attorneys determining what to do with a Mumbai terrorist or 3 Muslim unlawful enemy combatants seized after 32 elementary schools were hit with weaponized anthrax.
It’s a no-brainer. Deliver 2 bound jihadis to 7 American mothers whose kids were killed by anthrax – who are asked to get the truth out of the two Jihadis and if they lie, the housewives can do as they wish.
Within 2 hours:
1. The Jihadis will spill everything.
Feb 27, 2009 - 8:52 pm 45. FC:2. The housewives will wait and see if they are caught in any lies, and tell the Jihadis they hope the Jihadis lied…
To all of you accepting torture as a legit tool to avoid an attack innocent civilians:
Feb 27, 2009 - 8:59 pm 46. Tom Holsinger:Is the Iranian Government entitled to torture a captured american pilot to get intel on the supposed attack plans of the US on its nuclear installations ?
Is the Hezbollah and/or the Hamas entitled to torture captured Israeli soldiers to get intel on the attack plans of Israel against supposed Lebanon or Gaza civilians ?
Was the Gestapo entitled to torture my grandfather during WWII to get intel on the identity of its fellows terrorist of the Maquis des Glières resistance group ?
Was the japanese empire entitled to torture captured american soldiers to get intel about a supposed unprecedent attack of two mostly civilans cities with a rumored new secret weapon?
If you answer no a any of these scenario: of nothing but f+++ing hypocrites.
Stephen,
The French went all the way down the slippery slope to hell. They started out using torture for interrogation in for-real TTB situations when time really was critical and torture was the fastest means of getting the necessary information.
But it didn’t stop there. Torture began to be used more and more frequently, by less and less skilled personnel, and eventually became a means of political coercion and deterrence.
This eventually resulted in widespread political revulsion at home and quiet, seething rage among the Algerian population generally.
You should read Horne’s book in particular.
I completely agree with Bowden that torture MUST remain illegal, to keep its use rare, and I mean really, really rare. WMD rare.
Use of torture by anyone except career intelligence personnel must always be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Feb 27, 2009 - 9:17 pm 47. John Moore:No, because they are the bad guys. Duh.
Feb 27, 2009 - 11:14 pm 48. GDT:FC (45) my friend, you have stumbled into the actual point of this discussion, to restate your post:
45. FC:
To all of you accepting torture as a legit tool to avoid an attack innocent civilians:
Is the Iranian Government entitled to torture a captured american pilot to get intel on the supposed attack plans of the US on its nuclear installations ?
Is the Hezbollah and/or the Hamas entitled to torture captured Israeli soldiers to get intel on the attack plans of Israel against supposed Lebanon or Gaza civilians ?
Was the Gestapo entitled to torture my grandfather during WWII to get intel on the identity of its fellows terrorist of the Maquis des Glières resistance group ?
Was the japanese empire entitled to torture captured american soldiers to get intel about a supposed unprecedent attack of two mostly civilans cities with a rumored new secret weapon?
If you answer no a any of these scenario: of nothing but f+++ing hypocrites.
Feb 27, 2009 – 8:59 pm
Of course the answer is no to all of your questions… BUT all of them would and nothing we do or say would have any effect. Here lies the flaw in your premise from my original post. We could waterboard every captive or we could put them up in the Hilton and give them room service. It would have no effect on our people in their hands at all. These people live by no code of honor. They live to destroy. We are merely trying to survive an enemy that is savage beyond our imagining. Your attempt at moral equivalence illustrates that you do not yet understand what we are facing.
GDT
Feb 28, 2009 - 4:52 am 49. GDT:John Moore (47) made my point better than I did in (48)
No, because they are the bad guys. Duh.
You nailed it!
GDT
Feb 28, 2009 - 6:22 am 50. Marc Malone:cedarford – Someone else is using your handle. He sounds like some right-winger. You’re being libelled. Sue!
Feb 28, 2009 - 10:30 am 51. Stephen:Tom Holsinger:
That’s what I thought regarding the French in Algeria. Thanks for the suggested readings, I’ll look into them.
I think we’re on the same page. I hate the thought of its use, but to forswear its use in any conceivable circumstance is unrealistic. The French example in Algeria which you cite illustrates just how dangerously easy it is to slide down that slope. We don’t want to go there.
I agree completely with your last sentence, and would add, as before, that only a very, very few in the government/military should ever have power to authorize its use, and then with the expectation of explanation and justification to relevant judicial/Congressional authority.
Feb 28, 2009 - 2:02 pm 52. Oscar the Grump:Delia is not dumb, she plays chess. She has good insights.
Feb 28, 2009 - 2:13 pm 53. Turkey Brain:as if,
Feb 28, 2009 - 2:17 pm 54. Tom Holsinger:I think I love you!
Stephen,
When you read Bowden’s articles, note his broad hint that torture should be used mostly, or only, without authorization, to minimize the possibility of it ever being allowed as policy. I.e., the persons using it would be betting their careers and freedom on being right.
In other words, it is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.
Feb 28, 2009 - 5:33 pm 55. clay berger:Of course there are all kinds of torture. The gross kind practiced by Sadam, e.g. gouging out eyeballs, raping the suspects wife or daughter in front of him, etc. A more nuanced form would be to strap him in a large woodedn arm chair in front of a flat screen tv and play “Invasion USA” over and over all day. If that doesn’t work then the next day play “Delta Force” over and over. The next day if he doesn’t crack then play “Delta Force II”. Of that doesn’t work then pull out all the stops and play “Heavens’s Gate”. No human could possible survive that torture for long.
Feb 28, 2009 - 5:43 pm 56. Peter the Bubblehead:45. FC wrote:
Is the Iranian Government entitled to torture a captured american pilot to get intel on the supposed attack plans of the US on its nuclear installations ?
Peter writes: Are they ENTITLED to it? By the Geneva Convention, no they are not. Will the Geneva Convention stop a country like Iran from torturing a member of the armed forces covered by the protections of the Geneva Convention? I can answer that with complete assurance, no it would not.
It is a totally different scenario either way. A military attack on a valid target is NOT a terrorist attack on civilians with the sole intention of killing and maiming innocent non-combatants.
Feb 28, 2009 - 7:38 pm 57. tom scott:Pete said:
Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust and says Jews “exploit it.” So Pete, was the holocaust the Jews Hannakuh?
Mar 1, 2009 - 8:03 am 58. NS:“When you read Bowden’s articles, note his broad hint that torture should be used mostly, or only, without authorization, to minimize the possibility of it ever being allowed as policy. I.e., the persons using it would be betting their careers and freedom on being right.”
And the mask keeps peeling ever so slowly – even the so called torture moralists do not have any problems with torture per se. They call for an outright ban on torture BUT IF NECESSARY,do it without “authorizing” it ! Wow. just wow.
So basically screw around with your personnel by playing mind games with them on whether their interrogation methods are legal or not. What a “brilliant” idea ! that should do wonders for the morale of the counter terrorism task force personnel.
This is the EXACT scenario which the Bush Administration tried hard to prevent – i.e. it tried to prevent the scenario of letting people “do the dirty work” without actually “authorizing” it, thereby sowing confusion in the minds of interrogators.
This is why the DOJ made sure that interrogators would’nt be held responsible finally for what the Admn wanted them to do, didnt mind them doing it, but still wanted to escape direct culpability.
This is EXACTLY why the Administration came out saying that Geneva conventions do not apply to these terror suspects. You may agree or disagree with this position. But it is an infinitely better positon than pretending that Geneva convention rules applies to these prisoners, play mind games with your personnel and leave them holding the bag in the end even though they did EXACTLY what you wanted them to do – it is only that you didnt want to be seen “directly” authorizing the dirty work. Because your “moral values” just wont stand “authorizing” torture.
This extended to their wire tapping policy as well. They promised the telecom companies immunity from prosecution and that they were infact doing the right thing. The Govt cannot possibly ask the telecom companies help without providing them immunity from lawsuits all over the place. That would be deeply demoralizing to say the least to those people who tirelessly work to keep this country safe from so many threats.
In other words, it is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.
In other words you are more interested in CYA operations to maintain your “moral standing” while you let your interrogators do your dirty work. I love the way you think. Your superior morality is sooooooooo awe inspiring.
I see a lot of theoretical arguments on this thread about the pros and cons of torture but i am AMAZED that neither the author of this article nor the the commentators on this thread have even talked about how it is was the Clinton Administration (where a certain Leon Panetta who was White House Chief of Staff) that actually began the practise of extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects to the Egyptian Secret Services with the full knowledge of Hosini Mubarak ??
Or the fact that Dennis Blair, Obama’s pick for DNI chief REFUSES to categorize waterboarding as torture
The Bush administration enhanced interrogation/torture/what ever you want to call it/ policies have essentially been retained by Obama.No matter how much he has tried to show that the US wont “torture”, he still has a DCI who wont say that torture is completely banned, he has nominated a DNI chief who is so cautious that he refuses to call waterboarding as torture.
If another terror attack happens on US soil Barack Obama would be held responsible – and guess what, he DOES NOT EVER WANT to put himself in that position. This is exactly why he is maintaining the same policies for all his “optics” about shutting down Gitmo. Eric Holder now says that Gitmo mainitains Geneva conventions standards for prisoners.. Geee, how come no one knew this even though it has been around for the last 7 years ??
The “torture is immoral” crowd needs to watch what the Obama Admn IS ACTUALLY DOING instead of trying to prove their moral superiority to every one else. Or better still take up your cause with Obama. We understand that you are well intentioned. But you are un-informed or naive to think that all these “immoral” things happened only during the Bush Admn or will magically disappear in the Obama Admn.
Mar 1, 2009 - 9:57 am 59. Utopia Parkway:During the Iraq war three prisoners were waterboarded by the US. That’s it. KSM and two of his compadres.
What happened at Abu Graib was abuse of prisoners and wasn’t torture to obtain information, much less TTB info so doesn’t fall under this discussion.
I don’t see how any discussion or policies regarding torture in TTB cases would result in some crazy increase in the use of torture by the US. I don’t see that there’s anyone in the US govt that wants to torture as a usual policy.
Three prisoners were waterboarded.
Mar 1, 2009 - 9:31 pm 60. Susan Katz Keating:Leaving aside the arguments about the torture subject’s “rights,” etc., here’s what we know about torture:
* It does not produce reliable intel.
* It dehumanizes the torturer.
* It undercuts our ability to condemn regimes that employ torture.
* It places the torturer in a position of having to kill or perpetually incarcerate the subject – or risk “payback” if/when the subject is released.
* It violates the Geneva Conventions.
This does not, however, mean that we should not use extreme coercion. In other words, don’t peel off the guy’s fingernails; but do let him know you have captured his family.
Mar 2, 2009 - 12:03 pm 61. DavidN:The problem I have with this argument is the idea that this is purely a liberal vs. conservative argument. If you’re liberal, you’re supposed to be stupid, overly concerned with the rights of someone who’s been apprehended and accused of links to a terrorist organization, and of course you must lack compassion for those about to die in a terrorist attack. A conservative like us, however, is willing to do whatever it takes to torture, maim, and otherwise coerce information out of those wrongdoers he comes across. The difficulty is that things aren’t always that simple, and when things get complicated then the rules (and the above assumptions) go out the window.
I think of myself as a conservative. I don’t, frankly, give a rat’s ass about the rights of some loon we capture somewhere, who is part of a terrorist organization. The trick, however, is to do WHATEVER WORKS, when fighting terrorists, and leave the stupid political considerations to others. This is where the conservatives tend to go off the rails, because everyone assumes that if you torture someone enough, with enough skill and so forth, then you’ll get the information you need. Unfortunately, it hasn’t proven to be so, really, in any of the cases where torture has been tried. At least not in the war on terror, where we’re fighting these extremist Muslim.
For one thing, I’ve read on military blogs that when they capture someone from the Taliban or one of these groups in Iraq, the guys are often *looking forward* to the torture. They apparently feel if they can undergo a considerable amount of it, and then spit in the face of the interrogators, when they enter paradise (they assume this will be soon after) they’ll get seventy-*three* virgins, or they’ll be exceptionally pretty, or something. Regardless, having stood up to the Americans and their torturous methods is something of a badge of honor among Iraqis and Talibanis, apparently. It’d be interesting to find out what the Iraqis in those Abu Ghraib photos have had happen to them. You assume they’re out, wandering around. I wonder whether they’ve been stigmatized, or alternatively perhaps praised for what they endured.
Some distinctions should be made here. Let’s say we captured a terrorist who was part of a group that had planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. Say we knew he knew where the bomb was, and we didn’t, but we knew that the bomb would go off in 12 hours. The trick is that he knows the bomb will go off in 12 hours also. It’s sort of like the reverse of the problem with announcing that our troops will leave Iraq on a certain set timetable: all he has to do is hold out for 12 hours. Remember, if you cut off his fingers, he’s thinking to himself, in his head: “In paradise, my fingers will be more beautiful, and covered with rings mounting the finest jewels” or some such claptrap. A better move would be to try and convince him that New York was somehow worth saving, perhaps by showing him Muslim families that live there, and are prosperous, happy, and observant of their religious practices.
On the other hand, say some Muslim terrorists planted a bomb in New York, and they hired a Columbian drug cartel to help with the delivery. If we captured one of the Columbians who assisted in the delivery and placement of the bomb, I’d be in favor of torturing him. He has no real ideological attachment to the cause he’s assisting, he’s just doing it because he hates our country, and presumably he’s making money. If he’s financially motivated, torture is a good idea…no one is willing to put up with that much pain, if they think they’ll never see the financial reward involved. *Then* it would make some sense, perhaps. Not with Muslim extremists, sorry, it just doesn’t work.
Mar 2, 2009 - 1:31 pm 62. Tom Holsinger:Susan,
Your first assumption, that torture does not produce reliable information, is incorrect. Torture is only one of many interrogation tools and, like them all, whether or not it suceeds depends almost entirely on the interrogator’s skill with interrogation.
Furthermore an interrogator’s familiarity with the interrogee’s culture, and with the subject of the interrogation, is more important than the particular interrogation technique employed in any given instance.
I.e., a skilled interrogator who uses torture is far, far more likely to produce accurate, reliable, information from the interrogee than a much less skilled interrogator using any other interrogation technique or, for that matter, using exactly the same torture.
My favorite example of this concerns an Arab country’s intelligence personnel who brought in a suspect’s irate mother to give him hell about going on jihad against her express orders. This so shocked the dude that he confessed everything. AFAIK, it was the Syrians who did this, and they are one of the nastiest regimes on the planet in use of torture. But they go with whatever works, and here they got the results they wanted with what is certainly one of the most unusual interrogation techniques I’ve ever heard of.
What has made torture so common in interrogation for the past several thousand years is that it does work rather consistently in producing reliable, accurate information. This is why torture is used more often in interrogation than making funny faces at interrogees, tickling them, or having their mothers tell them they were really adopted.
Those who claim otherwise engage in delusional thinking. They don’t like the truth so they deny it. They deny the plain evidence of thousands of years of history. Wishing simply does not make it so.
Those who contend that torture is not an effective interrogation technique are the lefty equivalent of creationists. Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!
Another major cause of the persistent, widespread use of torture as an interrogation technique throughout human history is that is much, much easier for relatively unskilled interrogators to use than most any other interrogation technique.
The past 50-100 years has seen a vast overall improvement in interrogation techniques, to the point that torture is now significantly less effective than many other, mostly recently developed, interrogation techniques. The chief limitation here is that much more skill is required of interrogators to produce better results without torture than with torture, and such skilled interrogators remain rare.
Another limiting factor is time. Use of more advanced & effective interrogation techniques than torture requires more time than using torture, which is why the ticking time-bomb scenario was prominent in the initial post here.
But, as my first post in this thread noted, the disastrous French experience in Algeria shows that the ticking time-bomb scenario simply should not be used as a justification for torture, because use of torture in such instances will not stop there! That merely starts the side which uses torture on the slippery slope to hell.
The real danger in using torture for interrogation is that it does work – that is what makes its use so seductive.
Denial of this does not advance the anti-torture cause.
Mar 2, 2009 - 1:53 pm 63. Marc Malone:The prohibition of torture only goes back to the Geneva Conventions. It was explicitly a codification of customs already in place. Governments and Armies had already worked out rules of warfare.
In olden days, there was very little surrender. When your lines broke and the Army routed, the enemy pursued and killed as many as possible. In the Middle Ages, surrender became more common, especially for the purpose of ransoms. It made warfare more “civilized” and safe. I don’t kill you unnecessarily, and you extend me the same consideration. Professional courtesy.
Torture was mostly proscribed by the Napoleonic era. It was ignoble, and extremely undesirable from the viewpoint of the nobles who were the officer class. In the modern era, these rules were formalized. The Armies of civilized nations are completely proscribed from exercising torture upon one another. It still goes on, time to time, amount varying by nation, but is proscribed.
Somehow, the origins of its prosciption has been lost to history, and people have construed it to be a prohibition against torture of anyone. Maybe, that is the next evolution, but it is premature, because we are dealing with an enemy who doesn’t reciprocate in any way. Formal prosciption of torture is for formal Armies. Beat the crap out of the terrorists for information and don’t shed a tear.
Mar 3, 2009 - 2:30 pm