Richard Cohen's column in the Washington Post today has inspired me to try a thought experiment. Cohen's column relies on so many right wing, pro-torture talking points that I find it difficult to believe he actually abhors torture, as he claims to. Rather, this sober, thoughtful, serious columnist promotes so many false assumptions about torture that the true nature of his hedging is quite clear. But I'll play along. Let us, for a moment, assume what we know to be false is true. Let us, as the old joke about economists goes, "assume a can opener." What are the logical extensions of these assumptions? Read on!
First, we need to assume that the detainee actually is a terrorist, an assumption upon which Cohen relies. Sure, one could respond by citing the infamous case of Mohammed Jawad who, at only 12 years of age, was arrested by Afghan authorities for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed U.S. soldiers and subsequently transferred to Guantanamo Bay for the next 7 years. He was recently released due to the fact that his confession was only extracted after Afghan authorities threatened to kill his family. You may be wondering why we have so many people in custody who we know to be dangerous terrorists, but have not been charged with or tried for terrorist activities. I'm confused too, but forget about that for now. For the sake of argument, let's assume they're all terrorists.
Next, let's assume that he has information about other terrorist activity. You'd probably respond by citing former Bush administration official Lawrence Wilkerson:
"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog. He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."
...
In his posting for the Washington Note blog, Wilkerson wrote that "U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released."
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney fought efforts to address the situation, Wilkerson said, because "to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership.
Sure, many detainees were turned over for bounties and had absolutely no ties to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but forget about that for now. For the sake of argument, let's assume we're dealing with a guy who we know has information.
Next, let's assume that this information is about an imminent terrorist plot that is of immediate concern. I.e. the "ticking time bomb scenario." For this assumption to hold true, we would also have to assume that the "ticking time bomb scenario" even exists. You would probably respond by citing the Association for the Prevention of Torture's thorough debunking of this concept:
By trying to force torture opponents to concede that
torture may be acceptable in at least one extreme case, proponents
of the ticking bomb argument hope to undermine the very idea that opposition to torture must be absolute as a matter of principle and practice. As such, the scenario has been given prominence lately by those who seek to end the taboo against torture, to make its application to prisoners suspected of involvement in terrorism seem acceptable, and to provide legal immunity for themselves and others who authorize, tolerate, order, or inflict it.
But forget about that for now. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we're in a ticking time bomb scenario.
Next, let's assume that torture will provide us with the information we need to stop the attack, or will even provide us with significant information about general terrorist operations. You may respond by citing Darius Rejali's research showing that throughout history, torture has never been an effective means of extracting information. But forget about that for now. Let's assume that torture gets us the information we need.
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions. We'd also have to assume that torture isn't illegal under domestic law and international treaty, so let's go ahead and throw those in there too. Let's assume that every single factually dubious claim about torture perpetuated by the right is cold hard truth. I now would like to ask those who support the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" the same question that is often asked of those who oppose torture in all circumstances: Would you waterboard one person to save a thousand lives?
The answer would undoubtedly be an emphatic "Yes!". But why should we stop there? The next logical question to ask would be: Would you waterboard two people to save a hundred lives? You'd be hard pressed to say that one waterboarded terrorist is fine, but two is out of bounds. After all, we're talking about saving lives here! So we can waterboard 2 terrorists to save 100 lives, 4 terrorists to save 50 lives, 10 terrorists to save 10 lives, 50 terrorists to save 1 life, and so on. Any limit on the number of terrorists tortured or requirement as to the number of innocent lives threatened would be completely arbitrary.
But why should we be limited to waterboarding? I mean, it's just dunking someone's head under water, right? I have a hard time believing that a thousand American lives are of such little value that you'd get squeamish over pulling some fingernails off of a terrorist. After all, we're talking about saving lives here! So let's start pulling some fingernails, people!
As a matter of fact, I'm amazed that CIA interrogators felt they had to stop at just "threatening" to use a power drill on a terrorist. We have a smoldering crater where the Twin Towers used to be, and we're worrying about hurting one guy who probably knows when the next one will happen? I say use the power drill, rape the mother, kill the children. We're talking about saving lives here.
And why should this be limited to detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Say the FBI had captured Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator, the day before 168 people were killed back in 1995. Utilizing some enhanced interrogation techniques on him may have led us to Timothy McVeigh's whereabouts and the attack could have been prevented. If saving lives is our topmost priority, what difference should it make who the bomber is or from what country he originates? Applying enhanced interrogation techniques on Terry Nichols could have spared 168 innocent lives; therefore there is no rational reason for not doing so in future domestic cases.
Cohen claims that the torture debate is an "ideological tug of war" with both sides adopting "extreme and illogical positions." As we can see, there is only one side here with an extreme and illogical position. The idea that opposition to torture in all circumstances is "extreme" shows Cohen's true colors on the issue. He is what Kevin Drum refers to as a member of the "Yes, but" crowd. These are people who criticize the loons on the right such as Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney, but after sober, thoughtful, non-ideological deliberation, actually agree with them. Consequently, they are even more dangerous than the extremists because they hide behind a facade of rationality.
Once you "assume a can opener," that is, you assume to be true all the falsehoods perpetuated by those sympathetic with torture, you find that what you're opening is actually a terrifying can of worms. Absolutist opposition to torture opens no such can of worms. Once, however, you agree that it may be ok, in the name of national security and in memory of the events of 9/11, to inflict pain or the threat of pain upon a person in your custody, there is nothing logically stopping you from going further. I, like Cohen, have asked many questions here. I think I already know the answers, and that is what truly frightens me.