Torture and ticking time bombs

November 15, 2007

Here’s a highly detailed hypothetical from you courtesy of Patterico:

Let’s assume the following hypothetical facts are true. U.S. officials have KSM in custody. They know he planned 9/11 and therefore have a solid basis to believe he has other deadly plots in the works. They try various noncoercive techniques to learn the details of those plots. Nothing works.

They then waterboard him for two and one half minutes.

During this session KSM feels panicky and unable to breathe. Even though he can breathe, he has the sensation that he is drowning. So he gives up information — reliable information — that stops a plot involving people flying planes into buildings.

My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session worth it? [ A Hypothetical that (Some) Liberal Opponents of Waterboarding Will Not Answer ]

The answer to the question is “yes.” Based on those “hypothetical facts” (whatever a hypothetical fact is), the waterboarding session is worth it. I can say this because I am a player of video games and a student of literature, and I recognize that fictional worlds operate on a different logical, rational level than the real world. I know, for example, that in a hypothetical world where you are being chased by ghosts and the only way you can fight them off is by taking illegal drugs which momentarily give you the ability to chow down on the spectral plane, the sanctity of law and the honor of the DEA is just going to have to be sacrificed. And, you know, sorry guys.

The above hypothetical is often called the “ticking time bomb” scenario. The assumption is that something bad will happen, but you can stop it if you torture some guy into telling you what’s happening. The Tickling Time Bomb and Patterico’s hypothesis rests on a claim that’s contrary to actual fact and three assumptions that you would not ever be able to make in the real world. That’s why the hypothetical applies to actual public policy as Pac Man does to the War on drugs.

The claim — that waterboarding is mild torture — runs contrary to actual fact. Malcom Nance, former master instructor of the US military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school (and thus a torture expert) says:

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water … Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –- usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again. [ Waterboarding is Torture ... Period ]

As for the circumstances which justify this process:

First, you have to assume — Patterico insists you assume — that only through torture can you stop the plot. The second assumption is someone who is tortured will give you “reliable information” that you will recognize as such. And the third assumption (again, which Patterico insists you grant) is that you are then able to stop a real plot.

Let’s go back to Nance:

On a Mekong River trip, I met a 60-year-old man, happy to be alive and a cheerful travel companion, who survived the genocide and torture … He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know including the truth. They rarely stopped. In torture, he confessed to being a hermaphrodite, a CIA spy, a Buddhist Monk, a Catholic Bishop and the son of the king of Cambodia. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French. [ Waterboarding is Torture ... Period ]

Even the mere threat of torture is enough to make an Egyptian national cop to being a 9/11 accomplice even though he was not. In fact, torture is a great way of getting false confessions for propaganda purposes, a point that’s been well understood by hostage-takers and totalitarian regimes alike. But if you’re looking to torture for reliable and actionable information, you’re a fool — no matter what hypothetical you want to spin. That was true during the Inquisition, it was true during the witch trials, and it’s still true now.

Patterico’s hypothetical is pure fiction. He wants us to grant that torture is safe, reliable, and effective and then judge, under those assumptions, whether or not we should — theoretically speaking of course — possibly consider torturing people. But torture is not safe, it is not reliable, and it is not effective. It is never even done just for two and one-half minutes (all the torture Patterico’s hypothetical allows us to consider). Even worse, the practice of torture is repugnant enough to our allies, both political and individual, that it discourages them from working with us in other law enforcement and intelligence endeavors. If we actually believe the information we get from the people we torture, then we waste resources trying to sort pure fear-and-pain induced fiction from possible fact.

That’s not grant-me-this hypothetical fantasy, that’s demonstrable and historical fact. And Patterico’s “question liberals won’t answer,” like most “questions liberals won’t answer,” is a rhetorical trap and a waste of time.

And now that I’ve wasted my morning with this idiocy, I’m going to go play with my son for five minutes before I have to go to work. The only reason I bother with the argument at all is that some people seem to be persuaded by it. I’m hoping to avoid the day, someday, when my son might be tortured by his government because Patterico thinks we ought to make policy based on bad television scripts.

Posted in Politics, Terrorism, War