Quote Of The Day – Intelligence
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Law, Quotes, The War On Terrorism, Torture
[...] imagine if an American operative out of uniform were captured by the Iranians tomorrow. Imagine he were put into a coffin for hours with no light and barely enough air to breathe, imagine if he were then removed and smashed against a plywood wall by a towel tied around his neck thirty times, imagine if he were then kept awake for eleven days in a row, then kept in a cell frozen to hypothermia levels, and then waterboarded multiple times, after which he confessed to being a spy trying to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Would you believe that intelligence?
- Andrew Sullivan comparing what we did…with what could possibly be
And that’s the question…would this be acceptable for you?
Yes, I know we’re right and they’re wrong, but stop for a moment, take off the partisan shades and consider the question. Because when we legally condone clearly despicable actions, what do you think the fallout will be?
The predicament then becomes a question of whether or not we do what we think is right given the situation. But can’t anything be justified given certain circumstances?
To put it another way, this isn’t a TV show, we’re not facing a ticking clock and to all those who say that Obama’s decision to release the torture memos made us weaker…I say that torturing detainees puts us in a precarious position because we’re adopting the cowardly tactics of our enemies. And since that leads to less freedoms, our credibility suffers as a result.
Does that seem like an intelligent decision to you?
Discuss.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 and is filed under Law, Quotes, The War On Terrorism, Torture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Ah, what are you talking about….all that stuff…completely defensible in a court of law. We just throw a few statutes at the rest of the world to mollify them and it’s be USA! USA! USA! all over again!
April 18th, 2009 at 7:16 am
TV and movies have distorted the average person’s view of torture well beyond what is realistic. Just like CSI has created unrealistic expectations of forensics, 24 has done the same for interrogation. I read an article in Mother Jones(I know I know) a few years ago interviewed interrogation trainers. The trainers said they had to spend the beginning of every training sessions dispelling 24ish myths new recruits had. Everyone thought they were a damn Jack Bauer.
If it comes down to drawing a line on what is acceptable is an interrogation method or having no line at all I’d rather have the former. Having no line is far too dangerous
April 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
The morality of such cruelty aside, the resonant point for me is that this kind of information-gathering is often ineffective. Last year, I read a long article based on interviews of the military men who questioned captured Nazis. These men never laid a hand on their captives, nor did they use fear–they employed the guise of friendship and alliance and the Nazis spilled all they had. These Americans, now in their 80′s, are appalled by today’s techniques, and because they actually know what they’re talking about, I feel they’re the authority here.
Jake
April 18th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Every terrorist attack that ever occured was a result of a ticking clock – one that was not diffused before it went off.
Justin et al, It seems that you are basing your opposition to torture on the belief that these scenarios don’t exist. But what if they do? Is there any hypothetical situation that you could think of – any at all – that would morally justify using torture techniques like waterboarding in an interrogation?
April 18th, 2009 at 10:53 am
All torture can be justified with ticking bombs and “what if” scenarios.
One could argue that a drug dealer is sure to kill innocent people if we don’t stop him. Therefore, torture drug dealers to reveal their connections.
How about a guy who sells guns illegally? Shouldn’t we torture him to reveal his buyers before they go out and kill with those weapons?
Torture can be rationalized not just in cases of terrorism — after all, terrorists are pretty small potatoes in terms of killings in the US. Torture can be rationalized in an almost endless number of scenarios.
So the question is, Why not torture everyone who might know of a crime about to be committed? Frankly, Jimmy the Dhimmi looks pretty suspicious to me. Can we afford to take a chance with him? Shouldn’t we find out everything he knows?
Which, when you think about it, is why we should probably choose to live by laws that defend our rights, and not according to the plot needs of dramatic TV shows.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
No, the question remains the same as the one you are avoiding. Are there any scenarios that would morally justify using torture techniques like waterboarding in an interrogation?
April 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Jimmy, he answered your question, and it’s “No.”
Also, torture is always justified through the dishonest prism of “What if somebody has information to stop a horrible attack?”
Well, how would you ever know if they have the info? Did somebody tell you they did? How do you know that person who told you was reliable? And how did you get the information out of them to now justify torturing this new person?
Do you see how quickly this descends?
Here’s the thing…Michael and I are both fiction writers (he much more successful than I) and that means we’ve studied storytelling techniques, structure, etc. So we understand that 24 is the classic “ticking clock” scenario. And those words, “ticking clock”, are actually a storytelling device that screenwriters are constantly employing to make their plots more compelling. In fact, “What’s the ticking clock? What propels the action?” is the question most writers are asked by people who read their stories because it’s one of the hardest things to accomplish. And 24 is BRILLIANT at it because, as mentioned, the whole premise for the show is a ticking clock. Every single minute counts in Jack Bauer’s world.
In other words, I COMPLETELY understand why people are seduced. Because they are appealing to you on an almost subconscious, DNA level. In many ways good stories can act on you like a drug because they get your pulse racing, your adrenaline pumping and fill you with an anxious, fun energy that you otherwise never would have. So you literally can’t wait to find out what happens next. And usually, at the end of the show, you can’t wait for the next episode. It’s the same with books that you “can’t put down.”
However, 24 doesn’t need to worry about laws, consequences, etc. And thus, this show has lulled many people into believing that such scenarios exists because they are manipulating your emotions into feeling that it’s reality. And many great stories feel as real to you as your own life would, but, at the end of the day, they’re simply lies based on reality that feel plausible enough to be entertaining. That’s it.
So here’s the real question Jimmy…do you want to legalize torture as a rule of law? Because that’s the choice we’re really talking about.
What say you?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I’ll just add to what Justin said by harkening to the famous question posed in a debate to Michael Dukakis. He was asked whether he would still oppose the death penalty is his wife were the victim.
So, I’ll answer the Dukakis question:
I wouldn’t just want to kill the murderer, I’d want to make it a slow and gruesome death. Which is why we don’t turn the drafting of laws over to enraged victims. I don’t quite see how we build a civilization if all decision-making is handed over to out-of-their-mind victims or to paranoids.
There’s a price to be paid for living in a civilization as opposed to living in the jungle. We minimize many risks, but we assume some others. We may have to swallow hard at times, but it’s the only way to have a civilization. Civilization, like freedom itself, isn’t free.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
So it is justified to stop a horrible attack? or its not? which is it? Has there never been a case where a terrorist knew about an upcoming horrible attack?
What if you intercepted a satellite phone call with the guy you have in captivity speaking in coded language about a horrible attack?
See, that is a scenario. Something like that is what I mean when I asked the question.
As a rule, No. But I do believe their may be scenarios where torture can be morally justified. In those cases perhaps the judge can show discression.
There was a case where an army officer fired a gun next to the head of a captured Iraqi insurgent early in the war. It was an act in violation of the Army field manual but it led to the prevention of an ambush. The officer was discharged, but everyone knew it was the right thing for the officer to do in that situation. It happened a while ago, perhaps you remember it.
So to me, the question is to what degree did those 3 terrorist mastermids who were waterboarded in 2001 have information congruent to a legitimate ticking clock scenario. John Kirakou, a CIA officer who participated in the waterboarding of Abu Zabeda claims that in that case he did, and the intelligence led to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the prevention of a truck bomb in Eritrea. Who knows if this is really true, but it is certainly worth considering.
To make the claim that a legitimate ticking clock scenario is against the laws of physics and is absolutely impossible in an age of global terrorism, and thus we never have to even consider it, is also an emotional and immature position.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
What’s the point of fighting against them, if we are exactly the same? Might as well just invite them over with open arms, and trade techniques.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
First, I’m sure at some point a ticking clock scenario has existed. But they are ridiculously rare to the point of being non-existent. And let’s remember what torture was being used for during the past 7 years…to get basic information about operational matters, not to stop ticking clock scenarios.
Let’s take it from a different angle. You said the following…
Exactly.
The important part there is that the officer was discharged. It wasn’t condoned as an appropriate practice. That’s the point. I’m sure if there’s truly some scenario you suggest that somebody will break the rules and go Jack Bauer on them. And then that person will probably not be prosecuted.
But, again, when torture is legally condoned it can be used for ANYTHING and it only works to strengthen the enemy’s resolve because they’ve been able to pull us towards them, not the other way around.
By the way, what Michael said about civilization…yes, that.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:38 am
We have met the enemy and he is us.
If we allow ourselves to be reduced to a permissions based society then there is no longer a difference between us.
If you need permission to do something new you are living in the dark ages.
We fight to bring democracy and freedom abroad yet give up those same rights at home, sorry what are we fighting abroad for again?
Beware the man in the mirror, his apathy is your greatest enemy.
Random thoughts, offered without permission.
If permission is needed, we have failed our children.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Read this about what really happened with Abu Zabeda.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/zubaydah-first-blood.html