What Would You Not Do to Stop a Nuke?

Assume, arguendo, this hypothetical.

It is Inauguration day. President Obama is about to be sworn is as 44. Virtually everyone in federal office is there. Congressmen, Senators, the Supremes, the new cabinet. Get the picture? You, a federal law enforcement type, have in your custody a man who you reasonably believe knows where a nuclear device is to be detonated nearby. Remember, this isn't just any old nuclear device threat. If this baby is detonated, virtually every aspect and player of and in our government will be vaporized. The device will be detonated within the hour. There's no time to evacuate, no place to run. Any warning will be futile and just inspire mayhem and chaos.

Now, the question. What would you not do to locate that nuclear device?

Let's get a few things straight.

Now, let's be axiomatic, shall we? Torture is bad. It's un-American and violates our values and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. And when you consider that torture was essentially okayed on Bush's watch by his henchmen, especially that snarling Cerberus, Mr. Potter, big Dick Cheney, I mean, it's certainly enough to enrage you. When I think of John Yoo, advocating torture's praxis, parsing what is and isn't torture (organ failure?), I want to waterboard him myself. Why is it that the biggest advocates of war and torture appear to be the biggest wimps.

But let's be real for a moment. You know and I know that there are a few "pundits" whose anti-torture motivation is primarily that of anti-Bush. Deep down inside, they'll tell you that if Obama had authorized the identical treatment of interrogated suspects, they'd be a little more understanding. Fine. And we all know who they are. And, of course, there are Bush acolytes who will rubber stamp anything that feller did. Without exception. And we know who they are as well.

But let me repeat this question: What would you not do to locate that nuclear device? Can you honestly say that in this admittedly strained hypothetical that you wouldn't countenance the possibility of torture under any circumstances? I can't. Which leads me to another beef of mine.

Everybody's an expert.

What most folks don't know when you get a talk radio show, blog site, column, whatever, you become instantly an expert on any and every subject. On my business card, I list under my name, "Logodaedalus & Expert." See, for some reason, for the past twenty years I've been asked occasionally by TV talk shows to comment on subjects that I had absolutely no experience in and where I knew nothing more than anyone else, but because of talk radio host status: Instant expert! This was not the norm, I must advise, especially when it came to legal and constitutional matters. And opinions are fine for anyone to give. But that's not what happens. All of a sudden, say, Monica Crowley is an expert in rendition or weapons systems. Puh-leeze. Oh, by the by, when a guest who's been shoe-horned into a quick TV hit is not a talk radio host, blogger, columnist, whatever, the catchall appellation is "Strategist" preceded by Democratic or Republican. For $50K and a new car, what the ____ is a strategist?

Two quick examples: (1) Bill O'Reilly once opined about pregnancy never being lethal to a mother (preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy notwithstanding) and (2) Sean Hannity diagnosed, diagnosed!, Terri Schiavo as not suffering from PVS and further suggested that she was (I guess) merely stunned (sorry Monty Python fans).

So when it comes to matters of war, call me wacky, but I think about my answer and remember that because I've never worn this country's military uniform and, moreover, have never seen war, I will tend to listen to those that have. This also goes for the more bellicose conservative types who saber rattle and practice bar stool diplomacy. The bottom line is that logic would dictate that one should best listen to those who know for any issue discussion and analysis. Incidentally, I've known more than a few progressive and/or liberal (remember liberals?) vets who've made some compelling arguments against allowing gays to serve in combat units. I'm not necessarily persuaded, but their opinion carries more weight than Rush Limbaugh. That was a pun.

So, Patton, what would you not do?

I repeat: What would you not do to locate that nuclear device?

My answer is simple. I wouldn't not do anything to locate and defuse a nuclear devise to avoid its imminent detonation. But first on my list of interrogation techniques would not be torture or insects placed within a confinement box. (Hats off to the sick bastard who thought of that one.)

In fact, it was reported that a legal memorandum prepared for the CIA noted that along with said insect placement, approved interrogation techniques included inter alia: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding).

But would I proscribe Draconian treatment absolutely? In every case? When some experts and military types tell me it's effective? I'll eschew, all right. But how can I say that these techniques, call it "torture," are never to be used?

What if it worked?

I think I remember a line from the great SCTV where Vic Hedges was running for mayor. Remember, this was the '80s, as I remember. His campaign slogan was "Vic Hedges for Mayor. Sure he's crazy. But what if he's right?"

What if torture, some torture, some despicable form, actually worked? Actually produced usable confessions and saved lives? What if psychological torture worked? Psychological, i.e. no actual physical harm, but perceived. And, remember, we're talking of finding out information instanter and not for detainees whose information can best be culled through soft soap methods. Some have referred to it as the "ticking time bomb" scenario, admittedly, a rarity. After all, Saddam's interrogator got to him by offering him his wife's cookies and reading his poetry. Saddam had no place to go, time was not of the essence.

Now, I'm adamantly against the death penalty for many reasons, including the fact that we're killing the wrong people. But also because, it doesn't work, stats show. I wonder, if any analysis were different showing it did work, if it did deter murderers and if murders were actually reduced accordingly, would I consider it?

As my Hell's Kitchen buddy says, "All's I'm saying is what if it worked?" I don't think it does. Listen to me, there I go again. The expert. No, I intuitively believe that as actual experts have noted, it doesn't work, the results are not trustworthy, it violates international law and tells the world that we haven't a leg to stand on (there's a torture pun somewhere) in complaining when a downed or captured American serviceman is tortured. True.

So, let me repeat my question. What would you not do to locate that nuclear device?

 

 

Comments

[SpoxLogic]

The reason why torturers think their methods work is because they already have the answer they are looking for in their heads. The torture is just to get the suspect to agree. That is why the torturers are so quick to believe bogus information that jives with their pre-conceived "answers".
For this particular scenario - those that say torture would be OK, are acting under the assumption that the answers given under the duress of the torturing are actually the correct answers. So if the suspect said the bomb was in a truck parked half-mile away down Pennsylvania avenue, they'd jump on that.

Of course, there is no way of knowing if info given under direct questioning is also true. So, I guess, the folks at the inauguration would be screwed no matter teh line of questioning. We only had an hour after all.

[CinderOne]

Based on what the majority of commenters seem to be saying, it would be ok to lose millions of people so long as their is no torture involved in trying to stop a nuke.

Great. Now tell me how you'd feel, oh say three days after Washington has been turned to glass?

And then tell me how you'd feel when you found out that the government HAD even the slightest chance of stopping it, but did NOTHING?

Weren't you the same folks who said that Bush had fouled up because he didn't do anything in advance to stop 9-11 when he "knew" it was going to happen???

You think there would be a "blue ribbon panel" investigating the government's lack of action if a nuke went off and we had a chance to stop it in advance??? I kinda doubt it.

There would be lynch mobs. And many of you would be carrying the ropes...after you finished digging the graves...

[dynwitch]

"did nothing"? No one is saying we should do NOTHING. There is plenty that can be done and was being done by our military experts, who were telling the administration all along that torture was a really, really bad idea. When you don't listen to your own experts, you end up doing stupid things that often have the opposite effect of what you had hoped for. That's exactly what happened over the last eight years.

[1murillo]

CinderOne,

Yikes. Consider your statement. No one is arguing that "it's OK to lose millions." Torturing prisoners - for information? - is merely using power to convince yourself that you are doing everything possible to solve a problem.

If torture is a solution, then (using your suggestion) our government should torture people in every region were there are physical dangers. Or, instead of our expensive prisons, we should regularly torture in the US, this way we could stop crime and ensure proper behavior.

You write that if not torture, then there's a lack of action. That's incorrect.

[ManwithaParachute]

"So, let me repeat my question. What would you not do to locate that nuclear device? "

Your question is not relevant. Twist it a little and you shall see it pertinence to the debate shatters.
What behavior/action would you have legal and sanctioned for government and citizenry so an individual is free to execute on another individual for that "just in case" situation.

Should be legalize anal rape because it use on an individual may bring for the location of a bomb in a hypothetical situation?

Should legalize the torture of a child of a suspect because he/she may be immune to direct torture?

The advocates of torture offer hypothetical situations to as justifications for illegal activity which have occurred in situation not close to any extreme hypothetical contrived.

Whether or not an individual would commit to doing "anything" to "save" us from certain "doom" does not make a justification for legalization of "anything" in any and every circumstance.

[jcwtts1]

Here is the fallacy of the question, and this is an interesting theoretical rhetorical position. The novel as space. The novel exists as space filled with the exact elements necessary to make a story work. You need a woman to walk out of her house and run into someone she hasn't seen in 20 years. Fine put that in there. You need a persons boss to hit the lottery to move the plot around, that boss hits the lottery. But life isn't a novel, it isn't space. The chance of a nuke attack being foiled because you shoved a cattle prod up someones rear is so remote as to be considered impossible. Using the insanely stupid argument above why not nuke Pakistan, India, Iran, N Korea immediately and end the threat from those rogue country. Why not just wipe the middle east off the map. That way we would be able to protect ourselves from attack and buy our oil from Venezuela.

J

[RadicalRepublican]

Sodium Pentothal, an answer, bomb removal, take the consequences for my vigilante action. Is this what you are looking for? Hmm, a desperate man commits a crime to save so much and accepts his punishment for his choice. This is still not state sanctioned torture. Or is it as unlikely that I'll have the drug as it is that I'll know this guy has the answer? Honor is internal, it is not bestowed. You sacrifice yourself for others you are the antithesis of those who authored the rules allowing torture.

[laocoon]

the issue is not what you would do in an unusual situation. it is what rules we have in society. Justification has long been a defense in prosecutions. If you break the law to prevent a greater harm to society you can use the defense and you prevail if you were correct. if it turns out you were wrong and there is no device you can be convicted. the problem is our abandonment of the basic rule which is built into the constitution. sometimes it is necessary for example to destroy someone elses property to prevent a death, or it is necessary to appropriate a vehicle to prevent a death. is the fact that such a circumstance can exist reason to repeal all the normal laws about theft. this is the same issue. if you were right about the bomb you walk. if you were not it is an act civil disobedience and if you seemed to act in good faith, one where your punishment would be light. if you were wrong and it seems the bomb thing was more imagination or even contrivance you are rightly in trouble. the real reason is to allow bad faith conduct as a matter of policy. there is and always has been a legal defense for such an exceptional moment.

[TekBoss]

First, torture does NOT work. That has been proven.

Second, the terrorist is going to die with the rest of us (in your scenario) so what is to be motivated by physical threats (even the pain would be temporary).

Logic, in a situtaion like this, dictates a smarter and more nuanced type of action. A combination of CSI and the closer (since you are all thinking of TV shows now anyway).

If a situation like the one painted unfolds, kiss your butt good bye. Only God, or really great detective work, can save you now.

[RoloTomassi]

This argument is as absurd now as it was when GOP-sycophants were making it in the past; it's not worthy of indepth consideration.

This, however, is worthy of consideration, and has much more meaning in regards to how reasonable it is to use torture under any circumstances:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

[ErikW65]

That's it's called the Slippery Slope. It doesn't take long for allowing torture in limited circumstances to degrade into torturing false confessions out of people to prove a nonexistent political connection, in order to pre-emptively invade another country.

[ErikW65]

That's "why" (but why can't I write today? lol.)

[Joethepauper]

The chances of that scenario happening are extremely unlikely. " If this baby is detonated, virtually every aspect and player of and in our government will be vaporized." So?! Remember there is a shadow government just in case, and aren't we disappointed at how our government is doing their jobs anyway? Good riddance! Those people can be replaced, along with most of Wall St.

What would I do? Get some sodium pentathal (or more recent versions of truth serum), a polygraph machine (or the most recent MRI type lie detection technology where the parts of the brain are seen to light-up when a person is lying), and some electrodes attached to a power source. The "truth serum" makes the person more willing to tell the truth, the "lie detector" lets the interrogator know whether the person is telling the truth, and the electrodes are for when he doesn't. Easy!

If there is time, I'd prefer to feed them bland, yet nutritionally decent slop (like unflavored oatmeal) for a week. The detainee would start thinking after the 12th meal of slop in a row that he may never taste real food again. Then, fire-up the grill. Let the aroma of that juicy steak waft through his cell. Eat some in front of him, too. Sit him down and give him a small bite. Tell him that for every piece of information he gives that checks out, he gets another bite.

[ErikW65]

Al Qaida specifically trains their members based on a stategy to deter the foiling of any plan by the capture of any one memeber. No individual memebers know enough about the overall plan to be of any use even if they were to be captured and have information tortured out of them.

Then there's the fact that we know torture can lead to false information being given, and so, assuming the best, that the suspect did have all the details, he could still send our authorities on a wild goose chase, taking up enough time for the bomb at the real location to go off.

Lastly, I object to basing policy on hypothetical situations that have never been shown to exist in reality. It's a classic, "ends justifies the means" reasoning, which only leads down the slippery slope to nightmare government. What if it can be shown to be effective to torture a suspect's children? Every person on their cellphone's list? Where does it stop?

No, I would NOT torture that person, because the practicality of it just should not be within our realm of action, and because the idea that the benefit of being ready to do so would far outweigh the harm of having a policy that allows us to do so. Hopefully I don't have to explain all the drawbacks to being a country that allows exceptions for torturing people.

[ErikW65]

I apologize for the typos in the 1st paragraph! Haven't had coffee yet. Gonna brew some Nicaraguan right now.

[LeftRight]

You're gonna brew a Nicaraguan???? Doesn't THAT qualify as torture??

[theHutt]

There are two real points to make about this argument:

(1) Just because something is NECESSARY does not mean it is LEGAL. But if it truly is necessary, you do it anyway AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

Example: Your sister has gone into labor and you're rushing her to the hospital. Is it now legal to exceed the speed limit? Of course not, but you do so anyway and hope that the police and/or courts decide to be lenient.

(2) The underlying premise, of course, is that such a heinous act would actually be necessary at all, and there is substantial reason to doubt that this is true. (If torture is so effective, would you need to torture one guy 183 times in a month?)

Nevertheless, I can certainly envision some actions that are both illegal and yet might be necessary in the midst of an imminent disaster. (For example, a military officer might be in a position where he/she needs to perform a domestic law enforcement function without getting appropriate orders and/or a declaration of martial law.)

So, within the boundaries of these two points, then yes -- I'd do whatever is necessary to prevent the imminent deaths of millions. Unlike the cowards in the previous administration, however, I wouldn't try to get cover ahead of time -- I'd just take responsibility for my actions and hope that a jury of my peers agrees with my decision.

[SethBLiNK]

The problem with your question is that it presupposes that nobody has considered these issues before. However, most of our "exposure" to torture has been in just these fictitious settings. We saw Dirty Harry stick a knife in a perp to find out where a girl had been buried alive, and we saw Dirty Harry catch hell for it. We've watched Jack Bauer kneecap people and pretend to kill their children and he has never been wrong. So, the idea that your "but what if" scenario hasn't already been factored in to the equation is eroneous.

Now, we've also seen the West Wing, where the President is brought into the situation room and signs off on the use of deadly force two or three times before a trigger is actually pulled. He doesn't approve deadly force with a blanket release and leave it to those in the field to sort out the individual choices. In the above scenario, which again occurs far more often in screenplays than in life, I would want the highest possible authority making that decision on a case by case basis.

But, assuming it was all up to me, yes, I suppose I would do anything and everything to get that information. And everything includes going to prison for violating a law I believe in.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

RIGHTS.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

Sorry. People are born with inalienable.

[IamaGApeach]

What about truth serum? Does that stuff exist/work? Or mind reading. Seriously, I saw a piece on 60 Minutes about acquiring information by pinpointing the subject's brain's response to simple questions.

[Joethepauper]

I saw that too. My post above gives my idea of a three-layered approach where truth serum is used to encourage honesty, the lie detection technology tells the interrogator whether he is telling the truth, and the electrode is for when he lies. Getting information doesn't have to involve 183 waterboarding sessions in one month. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Another insanity definition is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. The interrogators who carried out the 183 waterboarding sessions, then, were insane by both definitions. KSM was waterboarded 6 times per day. He barely had time to dry-off! I'm sure a room with advanced equipment and advanced pharmaceuticals could be set-up for interrogations.

Here's another way to get information: Right now, we give each detainee a Koran. We could hold-off on that and give them a page for every honest answer to our questions.