Re: Torturing Prisoners Remains Wrong

1

I thought this was pretty well stated.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:14 AM
horizontal rule
2

"That's what pardons are for." BAM. Done.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:39 AM
horizontal rule
3

Still wrong, but you know. For the sake of argument.

From rape to torture is an...improvement?


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:40 AM
horizontal rule
4

Tomorrow, testing cosmetics on adorable baby chimpanzees.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:43 AM
horizontal rule
5

"First we give them dolls to play with. Then we poison the dolls."


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:54 AM
horizontal rule
6

That was dark. Maybe I need to play with my cats for a while, or find a field to frollick in for a few minutes or something.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:57 AM
horizontal rule
7

The problem is that most people don't give a shit whether it's wrong. Maybe they wouldn't torture themselves, but they're happy for the government to do whatever in their behalf. How long did it take for the norm against torture collapse in the wake of 9/11? A couple of months? I had arguments about the ticking-bomb scenario within one week of 9/11.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:58 AM
horizontal rule
8

Frightened people are generally pretty scary.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:00 AM
horizontal rule
9

re: 7

Some don't care whether it's wrong, some probably do but have been convinced it's expedient for 'lesser evil' reasons, and some people are sitting wanking over the prospect.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:01 AM
horizontal rule
10

I hereby assert that torture delayed us locating OBL.

I mean come the fuck on, even ignoring the morality side, we finally locate the dude after 10 years and we're chest-thumping about 1) how good we are at terrorist-locating program-related activities, and 2) that using techniques originally designed to elicit false confessions 7 years ago were a key factor? Moral monsters walk among us.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
11

Sure, it's a peripheral point, but it does seem worth noting that this instance appears to be yet another example of bogus claims about the efficacy of torture.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
12

7:Civilization is but a thin veneer on the direwolf of...wait, veneer on a direwolf? Civilization is but a three piece suit...

Maybe they wouldn't torture themselves, but they're happy for the government to do whatever in their behalf.

I would torture myself in a heartbeat, if fact I do a little every day, but I will be damned if I will give up my inalienable right to self-torture to some pointy-headed DC bureaucrats.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:08 AM
horizontal rule
13

LB!!

In my gut, these debates strike me as punching tar baby. I hate them and always feel like the good loses ground to the bad. But I can see that recent history has proved that wrong - more ground is lost in silence than otherwise. I still hate them and tend to tune them out, though.

So thanks for fighting the good fight.


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:10 AM
horizontal rule
14

Is the NYT finally prepared to call torture by its name?

Headline on the front page of the NYT web site:

Bin Laden Raid Revives Debate on Value of Torture

And the caption of a related photo:

The discussion of what led to Bin Laden's demise has revived a national debate about torture that raged during the Bush years. A rally against torture was held in Washington in 2008.

Unfortunately, the story itself mostly falls back into discussion of "enhanced interrogation." But at least it uses the scare quotes around the phrase.

Some NYT web editor has gone rogue, I think. The print edition headline uses a euphemism. I wonder if the NYT will change the online version.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:25 AM
horizontal rule
15

14: it's a step in the right direction, but if you read carefully you'll notice that at no point do they use "torture" to describe what US soldiers have actually been doing. It's only used as a vague general term that you can have debates about. What's really been going on is "harsh interrogation practices" or similar weasel phrases.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:39 AM
horizontal rule
16

Does the Blue book tell you how to cite the article in the first paragraph??


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
17

The point of the ticking time bomb hypo isn't to imagine real-world scenarios, but to isolate our intuitions re: the moral acceptability of torture. And quite a lot of people think it can be moral under certain circumstances. You can shout that it's immoral as many times as you want, but it won't persuade anyone with different moral intuitions.


Posted by: jpe | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
18

6: In light of 5, I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of you playing with your cats...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
19

17: Except not really, because the circumstances of a ticking time bomb scenario qualitatively changes the question. The assumption in this clean little mind experiment seems to be that torture, in this case, is the only way to get information that would definitely save lives. Um, ok. But that's not the torture we're talking about. We're talking about the systematic use of sadistic methods designed to create as much suffering as possible without resulting in death for the purposes of controlling and breaking both individuals and specific populations, the use of which is most obviously degrading to the victims, but is also profoundly degrading to the perpetrators. We are talking about institutionalizing these methods, and normalizing the idea that the state, or, really, anyone, has no obligation to observe the sanctity of the individual, of the body, whenever it deems fit. We are talking about the normalization of cruelty, sadism, and brutality. So I say again, in the wildly implausible event that there is one day a ticking time bomb: that is what pardons are for.

Also, and this should be relevant, it never fucking happens. There are many horrific, horrific things that one could theoretically consider to be moral (or at least the lesser of two evils) if one is willing to consider wildly implausible or even virtually impossible scenarios; they still have no bearing on the real world.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:06 AM
horizontal rule
20

And quite a lot of people think it can be moral under certain circumstances.

The point of Belle's cited post is that the ticking time bomb argument is morally empty, because it proves too much -- you can come up with a similar argument that makes anything permissible if the stakes are high enough and the result is certain enough. The ticking time bomb argument either proves nothing, or it proves that there is no category of acts, however horrific, that can be called 'wrong'.

Most people wouldn't buy into the second possibility, which leaves the ticking time bomb argument as meaningless.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
21

18: Heh. My cats express joy through trying to kill things, so they're probs ok. Also, they've been making out at this point for, like, an hour.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
22

20: So basically I was pwned by the link I didn't bother to read. I see.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
23

21: Does that mean your cats have been killing something together for about an hour? Or that making out doesn't involve joy for your cats?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
24

22: Well, I was being cute, so I didn't even link it, you would have had to google. But you should, the post is great.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
25

I endorse 10, and I think that liberals have a characteristic vice that they surrender to at every opportunity -- the vice of "I'll will concede 95% of your stipulations because with only 5% I can still beat you with my clever argument." Of course they're lying about torture working. What, they tortured KSM for 5 years, and finally he cracked and told them something useful?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
26

23: It means prolonged making out usually leads to one of them launching a sneak attack on the other. They are about to erupt into a fluffy hurricane of destruction.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
27

The Belle post in question, for those too lazy to google.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
28

25: It is a vice, but it's also one of the few ways to remain respectfully engaged with people who lie all the time -- trying to get to a point where you're saying that you don't have to give a fuck about whatever stories they're making up, your position holds regardless. And if people who lie all the time are in powerful positions, it's hard to get anywhere if you're treating them with the contempt they deserve.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
29

Ah, but LB, what if they get to those positions of power partially because no one treats them with the contempt they deserve? I don't even think it would have to be everyone, all the time, either. Just some well timed, public contempt can do the trick. Doesn't always work, obviously (see: "He was born on third base, and has gone through life thinking he hit a triple"), but, you know. Worth the effort.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
30

Amen to 10 and 25. It's always worth pointing out that waterboarding and similar techniques are designed to produce false confessions and were largely forced upon professional interrogators by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them for ideological reasons. In fact, it seems (from the linked article and elsewhere) that the only information that conceivably derived from torture was KSM and (possibly) another high ranking figure lying about the identity of the courier -- and the CIA thinking that, if KSM was covering up his role, it might be important. So the critical result from our national adventure in torture was some false information that could just as easily have been obtained through non-torture, and that formed A small part of a mosaic of information mostly collected without the use of torture. Awesome record.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
31

Ah, hell.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
32

I always thought Jim Henley's point was the right attitude to take to this.


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
33

I do think that, for purposes of preventing future experiments in US torture by the John Yoos of the world, "torture doesn't work" is a far more important point to make loudly and publicize than "even if it could work a little bit, torture is still wrong."


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
34

Huh. I'm definitely of the opinion that giving any ground in the "torture: wrong or wronger?" debate is a bad idea, because it opens the door for the idiot implausible scenarios, and, as Henley points out in dsquared's link, the people who are advocating for this kind of thing aren't actually considering the merits, they're just looking for an excuse. Giving them an inch is enough.

Perhaps we could combine the arguments. "Torture is morally abhorrent for many reasons, and one of them is that it doesn't fucking work, and therefore the only reason to do it is because you're a sick fuck, you sick, sick fuck."


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
35

"even if it could work a little bit, torture is still wrong."

I see some kind of a Book of Genesis "Abraham argues with God" reversed argument.

"If it can save 50 innocent people, should you torture this guy?" "What about 45 people?"


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
36

It seems like for public sentiment to be strongly and loudly against torture of prisoners, average people have to fear that innocent people like themselves could be potentially arrested and tortured.

Instead, (here) people's biggest fear about government is financial: government is wasting your money, and it's yours, and it's being wasted. Your money! Stolen and wasted!

Torture apologists have been very deft at preserving the idea that this couldn't possibly happen to you or someone you love, and therefore keeping the public emotionally unengaged. Plus the distraction about how you should really be focused on tax theft.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
37

34 seems to clinch the argument. I've seldom seen it better stated. Perhaps we could spread a meme to use the term perverted whenever torture advocates are discussed, eg. "Perverted torture advocate John Yoo said this morning...", "Perverts in the CIA responsible for waterboarding inmates at Guantanamo..."


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
38

I'm on board with 34.2.

Is now a good time to remember that none of the architects of the Bush torture regime have gotten any punishment or sanction whatsoever. And that John Yoo not only continues to teach students and receive a salary from the University of California, but hasn't even been censured by his own colleagues. (The latter despite some impressive but quixotic effort by Brad DeLong).


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
39

"Torture pervert" should absolutely make it into the lexicon.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
40

re: 39

Probably ripe for a bit of twitter hashtag meme-spreading, along the lines of the current #donaldtrumpisabellend.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
41

How long did it take for the norm against torture collapse in the wake of 9/11? A couple of months? I had arguments about the ticking-bomb scenario within one week of 9/11.

Which is about as long as it took me to go from being willing to answer the question 'can you think of any situation where torture would be acceptable' with 'no'. Strictly speaking that's not true, but as real world practical question the answer is still no. They might as well ask 'can you think of any situation where torturing to death twenty random American toddlers on live TV would be acceptable'. That said, I've never been completely confortable with the strong version of the 'torture doesn't work' argument. Based on both my intuition and on reading plenty of WWII history, it can be quite effective when used to obtain information which is easily and quickly verifiable.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
42

I had to tell him about Baggins. But he didn't the Precious.


Posted by: Opinionated Gollum | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
43

But he didn't the Precious.

The typos, we hates them, we hates them, forever.


Posted by: A Different Opinionated Gollum | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
44

Ooops. The scary thing, as a reflection on how I spend my time, is that I only needed to type "Opinionated G" before the form memory thing kicked in to finish.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
45

|| Damn. A breach of the veil of pseudonymity has occurred. I'll likely still be around, but my delightfully witty pseud shall not.) |>


Posted by: DK | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
46

It's a sign of how incredibly naive I was that I thought that the italicized argument that Henley gives here was sufficient to settle the question.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
47

45: Oh, no. Hopefully everything is mostly all right?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
48

I hear Dean of Students Wry Cooter is available.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
49

47 seconded.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
50

Since I am back, I might remind the group that one doesn't have to be opinionated to drop by and make a joke. We would not have been confused had the comment come from an unmodified Gollum, and "opinionated" refers to a distinct second joke that doesn't make 46 and 47 funnier. Rather, a superfluous "opinionated" takes away from the funny, which is just as wrong as torture.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
51

I mean, 42 and 43.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
52

50: PUT A SOCK IN IT.


Posted by: OPINIONATED MINESHAFT | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
53

I wasn't kidding in 46. I think torture is actually bad. It's just a big joke to you, isn't it, Megan? ISN'T IT!


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
54

In support of dq's 19 and LB's 20 I'll note that hearing anyone seriously discuss the "ticking bomb scenario" is one of my hot buttons. How much more fatuous could the "argument" be? None, none more fatuous:

1) It never happens.
2) If it did "happen", people could do as they saw fit* and throw themselves on the mercy of the court (as dq says).
3) Come on, be an adult.

Also what Henley says, both per dsquared's 32 and Walt's 46.

*Although I guess they wouldn't necessarily have the necessary tools at the ready. I await the day when every big-city SWAT team has a portable waterboarding setup in the truck.


Posted by: Opinionated JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
55

I feel mildly self-satisfied that way back in law school, long before I knew anything about you guys, I was boggled by my Philosophy of Law professor harping on the "ticking time bomb" scenario. I thought we spent an utterly disproportionately amount of time on it. I didn't understand the objections that Henley and Belle and LB explain to me, but I clearly remember thinking "You know what? This never happens to me. This is not a problem I face. I do not have to map out my response to this in advance. Can we talk about real philosophical questions that are actually important to my life, like how legislators should represent public opinion?" Even then, without much conscious thought, I knew that dwelling on the ticking bomb scenario was masturbatory.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
56
Except not really, because the circumstances of a ticking time bomb scenario qualitatively changes the question. Not at all. It's one end of a quantitative spectrum. It's a little like saving 10,000 Indians in the John & Indians hypo (or whatever moderately offensive title it has). That's one extreme end, and then as fewer and fewer are saved, intuitions tend to shift.

Same w/ the ticking time bomb: it's a bit extreme, but is one end of a spectrum that we can gradually move along. So we can move from 100% chance of saving 100X people to 10% chance of saving X people.

re: whether the scenario ever happens: of course it wouldn't, but that's not the point. It's enough to tell us that torture is theoretically justifiable. Any reasonable argument that it isn't justifiable proceeds along practical or cost/benefit grounds ("it doesn't work," "the cons of what it does to the torturer and tortured outweighs the benefits")


Posted by: jpe | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
57

Correcting format:

Except not really, because the circumstances of a ticking time bomb scenario qualitatively changes the question.

Not at all. It's one end of a quantitative spectrum. It's a little like saving 10,000 Indians in the John & Indians hypo (or whatever moderately offensive title it has). That's one extreme end, and then as fewer and fewer are saved, intuitions tend to shift.
Same w/ the ticking time bomb: it's a bit extreme, but is one end of a spectrum that we can gradually move along. So we can move from 100% chance of saving 100X people to 10% chance of saving X people.

re: whether the scenario ever happens: of course it wouldn't, but that's not the point. It's enough to tell us that torture is theoretically justifiable. Any reasonable argument that it isn't justifiable proceeds along practical or cost/benefit grounds ("it doesn't work," "the cons of what it does to the torturer and tortured outweighs the benefits")


Posted by: jpe | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
58

It's enough to tell us that torture absolutely any action, up to and including raping your own toddler, as Jim Henley points out is theoretically justifiable.

FTFY.

If you don't find the fact that the ticking time bomb argument tells us that raping your own toddler is theoretically justifiable, and possibly even morally required, depending on the circumstances, illuminating, then you shouldn't find what the ticking time bomb argument tells us about torture useful either.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
59

57.last: None more fatuous! You can have a million fucking arguments of this type about any "bad" behavior. Why are we having this one? I re-post the Henley link from dsquared's 32.

Pwned by LB but tough shit.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
60

||

I've been listening to Louis CK clips since PGD linked to him the other day. This man needs to be our next President. In this clip he asks Donald Rumsfeld if he's actually a flesh-eating lizard disguised as a human being.

|>


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
61

57: You really appear not to have understood the point, even though it has been made about eleventy billion times in this thread, and has been made, at length, by both Belle and Henley in essays linked in this thread. That is...impressive.

Your scenario depends rather heavily on knowing for a certainty that the consequences of one bad act will definitely lead to the prevention of another bad act. That is one of the reasons it is so uselessly stupid. Another reason is, as Henley, Belle, LB, and others have pointed out, if you stipulate such uselessly stupid circumstances, you come to the logical conclusion that there are scenarios that would, per Henley's example, morally compel you to rape your own child. If you want to insist on the validity of uselessly stupid things, you really have to accept the moral validity of impossibly monstrous things as well. Go ahead. Pick your poison.

But you know what? This cannot be said enough: these are impossible circumstances that will never actually occur, and this matters. We can never, ever know anything for a certainty, including whether committing one bad act will prevent another. Full stop. Stipulating circumstances which are impossible in the universe we inhabit in support of an argument about things that actually happen in the universe we inhabit is a profoundly dishonest rhetorical trick designed to "prove" something you've already decided you want to be true. Given an inconsistent logical system, you can prove anything to be true.* Convenient, I know, but still fucking wrong.

*This is just another way of stating Belle and Henley's argument; I just think it's useful to have several formulations.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
62

I'm sorry that 61 is so bitchy in tone, but honestly, this enrages me. jpe, I know it's very probably that you don't mean any harm, but it is this sort of quiet, unassuming monstrosity that I find to be the most destructive. That is not to say that you, yourself, are monstrous; I think everyone's capable of having monstrous opinions or making monstrous arguments, including myself (I've done it, obvs, and will certainly err on the side of the monstrous in the future). So I retract any sense of personal attack - it's not appropriate.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
63

62 further: Well, I retract it as far as one can. Seems kind of shitty to be like, "Implied personal attack! I retract that." That is to say: it's wrong, and I'm sorry.


Posted by: donaquixote | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
64

I'm also against torture. I even had a twinge of "Yuck!" when I read that Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot. That torture is evil appears to be a conviction I'll take to my grave, but I managed to rationalize away the second example by noting that an Osama was nevertheless still a combatant -- assuming he ever really existed.

I think we should keep in mind that everything we've heard about Osama Bin Laden has been second-hand at best. And now Ill never be convinced that he was the Evil Mastermind because he'll never be tried in a civilian court of law; hell, I'm still not convinced that Osama Bin Laden ever really existed. Please excuse me for not swallowing whole everything some stranger's enemies accuse him of.

I bet he'd cry at his mother's funeral though, even if he had to yank a hair from his nostril.


Posted by: Defunkt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
65

This.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
66

36: It seems like for public sentiment to be strongly and loudly against torture of prisoners, average people have to fear that innocent people like themselves could be potentially arrested and tortured.
..,
Torture apologists have been very deft at preserving the idea that this couldn't possibly happen to you or someone you love, and therefore keeping the public emotionally unengaged.

This, but I also think that part of the equation is protecting me or someone I love (or descendant) from participating in inflicting torture*. Not going resonate with most people, but the social contract has two sides.

*As part of official duties or serving in the armed forces, or paying taxes ...


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
67

66: Very good point. I hadn't considered that, given I have even less chance of being ordered to torture anybody. But yes, that's also somethng we should just say no to and teach younger people to eschew as well. Even when it involves somebody who's a real pain in the ass.


Posted by: Defunkt | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
68

Did somebody want a porn thread, ladies ?

Like most women, she got lubricated even while looking at nature shows of animals copulating, even though consciously the thought of being aroused by animals was repellent.

Posted by: David Brooks | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
69

Wrong place, dude.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
70

You went to law school! I suppose this is a situation about the archives and the reading the fuck thereof, but I would not have guessed that.


Posted by: Opinionated Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
71

70 to 55.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05- 4-11 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
72

hearing anyone seriously discuss the "ticking bomb scenario" is one of my hot buttons. How much more fatuous could the "argument" be? None, none more fatuous:
It never happens.

It very rarely happens. I can think of two instances:
During the Second World War, the Italians mounted a diver raid on the British fleet in Alexandria. Two of the divers were captured, and refused to say whether they had mined any ships, and if so where the mines were; the British accordingly locked them up in cells aboard HMS Valiant, below the water line. With fifteen minutes to go, one of them admitted that they had mined Valiant; because he refused to say exactly where the mine was, he was returned to his cell and was injured when the mine went off.

During the Algerian War, according to Alastair Horne,

Fernand Yveton, a Communist, had been caught red-handed placing a bomb in the gasworks where he was employed. But a second bomb had not been discovered, and if it exploded and set off the gasometers thousands of lives might be lost. Nothing would induce Yveton to reveal its whereabouts, and Teitgen [Paul Teitgen, Secretary-General of the Algiers préfecture] was pressed by his Chief of Police to have Yveton passé à la question :
"But I refused to have him tortured. I trembled the whole afternoon, Finally the bomb did not go off. Thank God I was right, because if you once get into the torture business, you're lost... Understand this, fear was the basis of it all."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 1:41 AM
horizontal rule
73

And that John Yoo not only continues to teach students and receive a salary from the University of California, but hasn't even been censured by his own colleagues.

Nor has he been publicly humiliated by the student body. What are you waiting for?


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 3:25 AM
horizontal rule
74

re: 73

Yes, good point.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 3:26 AM
horizontal rule
75

The NYT, meanwhile, has found its balls down the back of the sofa.

John Yoo, the former Bush Justice Department lawyer who twisted the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions into an unrecognizable mess to excuse torture...

Not "ill treatment" or practices that "some consider torture": just torture. And stick it round Yoo's scrawny neck.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 4:13 AM
horizontal rule
76

72
It very rarely happens. I can think of two instances:

OK, so that's two instances where time bombs were set and someone was captured who could have stopped them. In the first instance, coercive methods were used (I know we don't like weaselly language, but it feels a little weird to call it "torture" to simply put someone in harm's way of their own bomb. That's too poetic.) and didn't work. In the second instance, torture was considered but rejected for all the right reasons, and in hindsight it would have been unnecessary and unhelpful anyway.

I get that the "ticking time bomb scenario", narrowly interpreted, actually does happen sometimes, but those examples seem like very bad evidence for pro-torture arguments like conservatives make.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
77

76: oh, I agree absolutely. They're neither of them evidence that torture is advisable.

You know what the single best interrogation technique was for Iraqi POWs in the first Gulf War? Cigarettes. Most of them smoked, and by the time they were captured their supplies had been pretty bad for some time, so most of them were running short. The int guys who were interrogating them gave them cigarettes and they were grateful. Hot food and sweet tea worked too.

That's really what it's all about - building up a bond with the subject. And it goes without saying that torture is not exactly the best way to do that.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 6:05 AM
horizontal rule
78

Paul Teitgen had been a member of the French Resistance in World War II, and had been captured and tortured by the Gestapo, which perhaps contributed to his objection to torture in Algiers. He eventually resigned in protest over the issue, but he was not representative: Massu and his troops used torture and murder systematically in their campaign against the FLN.


Posted by: Gareth Rees | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 6:44 AM
horizontal rule
79

||

This fun from Yves Smith

Did the Fed Kill Bin Laden?

a) Food Prices charted vs Fed Treasury buys + b) Bread Prices scatterplotted vs revolutions, 1848 and 2011

I would caveat that food prices are multiply determined, but many of the factors can be related to cheap credit. The Finance Casino now uses both scarcity and oversupply as loci of crazy hedging and overleveraging.

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
80

Unthinkable ...2010! Samuel Jackson, Carrie-Anne Moss, Michael Sheen, and my favorite Martin Donovan.

I watched this this year, or at least the second half. Four actual ticking atomic bombs, including one in Dallas! OMG! What can we allow Jackson to do to the guy? Moss is soooo conflicted.

Finally after hours of pulling Michael Sheen's fingernails, Jackson brings in Sheen's two under-10 children into the glass booth? "You don't think I'll do it? Huh?" Hardened CIA agents are screaming in horror, but Moss allows.

Sheen cracks. A-bombs defused. Dallas saved. Carrie-Anne hugs little children.

I pick my jaw off floor.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
81

75 I was going to post that (noting also the headline 'The Torture Apologists' with a print edition subtitle 'Efforts to justify torture after the Bin Laden killing are cynical and destructive') and the fact that they repeatedly refer to it as torture, only using 'enhanced' interrogation in the formula 'so-called enhanced interrogation' when speaking of how its defenders refer to it. They also explicitly call out waterboarding as torture. They do occasionally switch to 'abused' and 'tormented' when they apparently feel they've used 'torture' too many times in a row. Note also their statement that the Bush administration offered 'succor and comfort' to 'this country's enemies' i.e. an explicit reference to the constitutional definition of treason.

But it is also important to remember that this is not a news article, it is the NYT editorial page which follows different guidelines and which is very, very liberal. Other than the occasionally pompous style and greater politeness their views tend to be reflective of what you'd find on any strongly liberal US blog.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 05- 5-11 5:26 PM
horizontal rule
82

14: Unfortunately, the story itself mostly falls back into discussion of "enhanced interrogation." But at least it uses the scare quotes around the phrase.

Meant to point out that this does seem to be current dividing line on the debate in the US--which words you get the scare quotes. "Torture" or "enhanced interrogation" (I'm using quote quotes). What you lead with matters, of course, but it should be consistent with the quoting scheme.


Posted by: "JP Stormcrow" | Link to this comment | 05- 6-11 3:26 PM
horizontal rule