Arguing Whether Torture "Works" Is a Dangerous Dialogue

It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."--Hermann Goering.

Let me begin by stating that I agree with the President's decision not to prosecute CIA officials who participated in the illegal interrogations, but urge the investigation, and prosecution if adequate evidence found, of professionals--lawyers and physicians--and higher ups, for reasons to be addressed in another article.

But, I am concerned on a deeper level about what the "debate" has focused upon.

The political dialogue on the Bush Administration's torture policy seems inappropriately focused on whether it "works". Can anyone seriously contend that there is a yes-or-no answer to that question? With some people, in some situations, it probably does work to get accurate actionable information, in others it clearly does not, and in others it is counterproductive, providing misinformation.

There is, morevoer, no absolute yes-no to whether other, non-torture, techniques would have resulted in the same information--good, bad, indifferent--from the interrogation. Although the data appears to favor strongly the non-torture techniques, it is not absolute. Thus, "I thought it would work and was necessary", could be exculpatory on the "does it work?" theory.

That discussion is eerily similar to the post-war refutation of the Nazi's claim of "Jewish responsibility" for the ills of European society as their "justification" for the genocide. There undoubtedly were certain events that people who sported the Jewish faith had a hand in that negatively impacted some people. Just as certainly, there were Protestants and Catholics who had their hands in acts considered inimical to others' interests. So what? Even supposing the Nazis had had some historical facts on their side--would that have justified the extermination of 6 people with similar surnames, not to mention 6 million?

Or, if one prefers, try the Serbians' attacks on Muslims in Bosnia, based on the assertions that the Ottoman Empire installed regimes centuries ago that gave those who converted to Islam certain lands and privileges. Is that likely to be true? At least to some degree, probably yes. Now fast forward to the 20th Century: is there any link to a rational or moral justification of war crimes by Serbians against Bosnian Muslims?

If the answer is, as I hope, "no", then the dialogues about genocide or atrocities in the same breaths as historical facts meant to justify those acts risks elevating those acts to plausible-but-wrong as opposed to reprehensible, unconscionable and unjustifiable.

Back to the torture dialogue. The point is not that the scale of abuse or terror in these torture cases are even close to the same scale as those horrific events. Rather, that the structure of the arguments to justifiy the acts by those who engaged in them bear resemblance, and it is sometimes easier to show the pitfalls of those arguments by examining more extreme examples.

The United States of America ratified the Geneva Convention. Now, I know Geneva is in Switzerland, not in the United States, and thus can be deemed foreign, but our (American) Constitution actually says that even non-American treaties, when ratified, have the full force of law.

Torture was not outlawed because it did or did not work. It was outlawed so that those who practiced it were put on notice that they would be punished because the world had decided to set certain standards of human behavior.

Yes, there are hypothetical questions that can be posed that make the torture question difficult. If a nuclear device were to detonate in 30 minutes, a co-conspirator were in custody, and there were no time to use more effective (non-torture) techniques...but, these hypotheticals are just that, they never happen like that, and our legal and moral compass ought not be sacrificed or even compromised by dreamed up circumstances.

Let us stop the discussions about whether torture works, and turn it to the question of whether any Administration has the power to flout the law by calling it "quaint."

Comments

[Twentylaws]

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the argument be whether or not torture is against the law? If so, who ever gave the order to "break the law" should be prosecuted! No one is above the law and that includes the President! Period!

[Terry Karney]

I am an interrogator by profession. I disagree with this sentence: The political dialogue on the Bush Administration's torture policy seems inappropriately focused on whether it "works". Can anyone seriously contend that there is a yes-or-no answer to that question?

I can answer that, it doesn't work.

Is it possible someone might speak the truth in response to being tortured? Sure.

But it won't be, "actionable", because the information stream is so corrupted when torture enters the equation that more time and effort has to be spent to confirm it. Worse, the only way to confirm it is to get corroboration from people who weren't tortured. More difficult yet is that the non-torturing interrogators have to be kept slightly in the dark, or they will lead the sources to false confirmations.

So even if one wishes to attempt the, "utilitarian" argument, it fails.

All the rest, that it's immoral, and illegal, and no amount of rationalising it away (because the US, per the Geneva Conventions, doesn't get to define torture, the ICRC does; until, and unless, we repudate the Geneva Conventions) and the President can't be above the law, nor can he depute the ability to flout the law... right behind you.

But torture, as a means of gathering useful information, doesn't work, Full Stop.

Terry Karney
SSG (ret)

[rocketman69]

If it doesn't work, than what does?

[Paul Abrams - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for your insights. I think the point about "actionable" is especially telling.
There is an interesting parallel with what you report and prior experience with illegal police tactics vs. FBI professionalism, more convictions and fewer cases thrown out for the latter than the former.
My concern, however, is that it is still the wrong debate.

[JXB]

Agreed. A discussion about whether torture works is merely a discussion about the competence of an Administration that would employ torture, nothing more.

[mmmd]

If it's only an issue of what works, Madoff's ponzi scheme seemed to be working spectacularly. Why stop the poor guy?

[theconformist]

I take issue with this writer's disregard for using hypotheticals to answer whether or not certain forms of "torture" should be taken off the table. The reason hypotheticals are used at all in debate is in an attempt to establish or test an assumed principle.

Whether waterboarding, for instance, is always legal is a very different question from whether or not it is morally reprehensible or "wrong" in every case - but our laws are based in a philosophy of individual rights, which are grounded on moral principles. It would be absurd to ask "Should torture be permitted to stop an imminent attack by Godzilla?" as there is obviously a zero chance that such a situation would ever arise.

But the "30 minutes until nuclear attack" question, as small a chance as that particular scenario unfolding may be, MUST be answered. IS this type of torture - waterboarding - WRONG in every case? Even in a case where the violation of one human beings rights - a human being who undoubtedly has violated or intends on violating the rights of others - could save millions of innocent ones?

If we admit that perhaps it's not, then we must look at the legal question once more.

[HighInfoVoter]

No. Torture is wrong. It is a tool of tyranny.

Freedom involves risk.

[theconformist]

If you kill someone in self-defense, have you violated their rights?

[Terry Karney]

The answer is, Yes, it's always wrong. The hypotheticals (ticking bomb, buried baby) don't exist in the real world, they are designed to allow a logical wedge in the door. To create the slippery slope by which torture can be allowed.

The fact of the matter is that where we have the information needed to be sure (as the hypotheticals always assure us is the case) this source has the needed information, we have enough information to get it without torture. Because the only way to be that sure is to have confirmed corroboration from other sources. If there is that much information out there, then torturing one person isn't going to make it.

Why? Because if the timeline is that short, he can hold out, or lie, until the bomb goes off. Why should he care? He's going to be tortured. If he lies, it stops for awhile. If it's not going to stop, then he has no reason to tell the truth. If he's willing to be at ground zero (be it a pipe-bomb, or a nuke), he's going to be motivated enough to hold out until it goes off (and we teach guys who have sensitive information to hang on for 72 hours, it's part of the point of SERE school).

So that argument fails.

As a means of getting useful information torture doesn't work. The only question is whether care about being a moral people.

Terry Karney
SSG (ret)
US Army Interrogat­or/Interro­gation Instructor

[dsws]

"The political dialogue on the Bush Administration's torture policy seems inappropriately focused on whether it "works". Can anyone seriously contend that there is a yes-or-no answer to that question?"

Yes. The answer is that no, it doesn't work.

[DA12]

RE Framing: There used to be no debate about these crimes. Then there was a debate about whether or not some people went too far or at best debate about the definition of torture-- followed by the sacrificing of a few "bad apples." Now the debate has largely shifted to yes, there was torture, with approval from on high, but it worked and/or yes there was torture but let's not look back. That's progress. Not enough, but it's progress all the same.

Conservatives are actually losing this message war. Denying something only reinforces it in people's minds. I hope Cheney continues to appear on TV. He's permanently tying himself and the GOP to these crimes.

[swift goat pet for truth]

It is Corporate Media that is promoting this disingenuous position as meritous.

Torture is illegal. If we are a Nation of Laws, not men, then it does not matter if it works.
It must be investigated, prosecuted and, if guilty, punished.

Period.

[obamagal]

A wonderful article Mr. Abrams.

[DennyCrane]

Even if it did work, that doesn't excuse it. I get so tired of people who dance around this issue. How did we reach this point where torture no longer offends some of us? If Americans were being subjected to this same treatment by a foreign country, we would be up in arms. Americans are such hypocrites.

[Dr Scott]

Thanks for explaining this. Unfortunately, I don't think that it will reach the people who need to hear it. What disturbs me the most is that people who call themselves Christian are in agreement with Cheney et al. There is something wrong with people who can't understand that there is nothing good about torture.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was SOP for detainee treatment. Why are people in jail over that? From what i've seen, none of it seems to violate the definition of torture according to Judge Bybee. The only problem with that whole case was that none of the higher ups were sent to jail for giving illegal orders.
There is plenty of precedent for prosecuting water-boarding specifically. The US has convicted foreigners and US citizens for water-boarding during times of war. Punishments have ranged from a few years in prison to death. There is no legal cover for the people who carried out the torture. In the military, at least, soldiers are legally obligated to refuse orders to torture people. If you didn't do that, you are wrong. As an interrogator, if you are asking for legal cover for torture, then you are bad at your job and you deserve to be fired anyway. So I don't agree with all this BS that torturers shouldn't be prosecuted. All of those people are 100% replaceable. I also have zero sympathy for congress members who may be complicit in all this. Fire 'em, I say.

[obamagal]

~snip~

"Why are people in jail over that? From what i've seen, none of it seems to violate the definition of torture according to Judge Bybee."
__________­__________­______

Why indeed.

[allonfla]

If the media and the GOP are framing this issue as did it work or not - it is the fault of the Left. You guys have been pushing for this for years and when it finally comes up for air, you let Cheney frame the debate.

Once again, the GOP has smacked you up with their message discipline while the Left shouts to be heard - and constantly preaches to the choir.

[HighInfoVoter]

When it comes to responsibility for framing, the MSM cowed for so many years by claims of liberal bias has the most culpability. Instead of confronting fully and factually the fallacies of the nut wingers proclamations, they just let them speak. Instead of looking for right and wrong, they only want right and left, and the bombasts overwhelm the truth.

[obamagal]

Do you really believe the demented right is going to "win" (as you like to call it?). You've been programmed to such an extent you're in a bubble. It is not going to happen because the majority of Americans are outraged and it matters not what idiots who hit themselves, others who lie, try to justify, feed you half-truths say. We on the left get our information from multiple sources and we research. We don't just listen to talking heads and take their word as verbatim. Therein lies the difference. We are no longer, as citizens, cowed by the likes of those you hero-worship.

Better luck next time.... no never mind. You don't deserve it.

[Manx]

I agree with your post. Torture is illegal and immoral whether it is effective or not.

If we follow the logic of Republicans, it's okay to pull out a suspect's fingernails and toenails if it yields results. Sick, sick, sick.

[obamagal]

Amen. Their apologists, as well.

[Twentylaws]

Will the justice system have the courage to bring Bush and his administration to justice? Bush and Cheney are men not gods!

[woodsywizz]

Treaties are the law of the land, Constitutionally enshrined. A treaty is Federal law, binding on the States and all the citizens of this nation.
There is no "optional" characteristic about a ratified Treaty.

[HighInfoVoter]

What has really offends me most about this entire issue is how it goes to the core of our founding principles.

While the Geneva conventions codified for the rest of the signatories the illegality of torture, it was prohibited for our military much earlier. The Colonies hadn't even become a nation when General Washington made an absolute prohibition against torture.

He knew firsthand that there was no argument for torture that justified such immoral offenses against the humanity of others. Our country was founded on the idea that we are all equal (and we liberals continue to pursue that ideal of equality). Torture and other inhumanity requires forgetting that secularly sacred principle.