A Clarifying Case
Forgive me for reiterating a point I’ve made before, but now that the guy who killed that abortion doctor is claiming he knows that more anti-abortion terrorist attacks are coming, the logic of the “enhanced interrogation technique” crowd really does suggest that he ought to be put on the waterboard, slammed into the wall, shackled naked in stress positions, etc.
And it is equally evident that this guy won’t be tortured — and rightfully so — because even though lives are at risk, it seems plain as day that torture is wrong when it is an American in custody, even when the American is charged with murder and making explicit threats, whereas some of the foreigners we tortured turned out to have been guilty of nothing except being rounded up by bounty hunters. (Via Andrew)
In the words of Dick Cheney:
“no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things”.
I think our duty (as Cheney sees it) is clear. Lives are at stake! None of your bleeding-heart, commie twaddle, Conor. Let’s unpleasant that mofo until he cracks.
— Erik Siegrist · Jun 8, 04:09 PM · #
In other words, your big gotcha against the torture crowd is that they care more about Americans than they do about foreigners. Wow, that’s gotta sting.
Next you’ll be accusing them of being too respectful of the flag or of not subjecting the institution of motherhood to enough criticism. I don’t want to apologize for torture or quasi-torture, but if this is the best you got I’ll find myself in that camp right speedily.
— Adam Greenwood · Jun 8, 04:44 PM · #
False dilemma, or, this post was a misfire.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 05:29 PM · #
It puzzles me that otherwise thoughtful opponents of enhanced interrogation like Conor think they are aiding their cause by resorting to tiresome gotchas. It’s even worse when the gotchas are based on sloppy non-analogies. Let me suggest that the SAT question reads ‘mass casualty attacks by an international terrorist organization’:‘shooting one guy::’ the answer is not “apples:apples.”
Roeder may be a lowlife, but in terms of threat he’s no Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But yes, if a domestic terror group had killed 3,000 Americans and we had reason to believe they were planning more attacks of a similar scale, treating a captive mastermind very differently from a standard criminal suspect might be justified.
— Ben A · Jun 8, 05:31 PM · #
How do you know he isn’t talking about mass casualty attacks?
— Andy Vance · Jun 8, 05:45 PM · #
If Zubaydah qualified as a “mastermind”, Ben, then so does Roeder.
— Erik Siegrist · Jun 8, 05:47 PM · #
So it’s come to this? People are actually defending the “murderous pro-life extremist in 2009 = Al Queda in 2002” analogy? As I said above, I do not think opponents of enhanced interrogation do themselves any favors advancing this line of argument.
— Ben A · Jun 8, 05:56 PM · #
Maybe my demographic is too small to worry about, but I’d like to see people stop humping the limbic system and cater their anti-torture arguments to the newer parts of the brain. Manzi is pretty much the only dude out there doing this.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 05:58 PM · #
I’m not defending it. I’m calling you out on your hypocrisy and selectivity. Do you think mass casualty attacks are a peculiarly Middle Eastern cultural artifact? We had one homegrown terrorist bomb the Olympics, and another the Alfred P. Murrah federal building. Were these “standard criminal” acts?
— Andy Vance · Jun 8, 06:02 PM · #
I am not arguing that “murderous pro-life extremist in 2009 = Al Qaeda in 2002” or that “mass casualty attacks by an international terrorist organization” = “shooting one guy”.
Those who favor enhanced interrogation techniques didn’t restrict their use to Al Qaeda members, or to people involved in the September 11 attacks — they argued for their use against any detainee in the War on Terror who might possess intelligence that could save American lives and prevent future attacks.
That’s their standard, not mine, and the point is that applying their standard to this case would lead to absurd results. That suggests their standard is incorrect.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 8, 06:14 PM · #
“I’d like to see people stop humping the limbic system and cater their anti-torture arguments to the newer parts of the brain. “
I knew it! I knew it was you!
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 06:25 PM · #
Sargent (and Adam, upthread), maybe it’s just me, but I find the concept of even needing to make an “anti-torture” argument nauseating.
If you genuinely require a convincing argument in order to not support torture, I can only conclude you are, to some degree, a sociopath. If you think that makes me a slave to my limbic system, so be it.
Now why do I have a sudden urge to go re-read the old Philip K. Dick short story ‘Null-O’… ?
— Erik Siegrist · Jun 8, 06:30 PM · #
they argued for their use against any detainee in the War on Terror who might possess intelligence that could save American lives and prevent future attacks.
I think you are creating a straw man here. If you believe your opponents in the enhanced interrogation debate are arguing for the generalized right to torture any detainee who might have evidence that would save American lives, then I would agree you have vanquished that particular (absurd) position with this analogy. That’s not the debate I see taking place. I don’t see too many people arguing that the average Taliban militant picked up in Aghanistan can be tortured. I do see people arguing that it was acceptable (in 2002) to subject ‘high value’ terrorists to waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation after other methods of extracting information failed. You clearly don’t agree, but Roeder is not a helpful analogy to support your point.
your hypocrisy and selectivity
Which would be in evidence where, exactly? I carry no water for violent pro-lifers, but it’s just false that there’s a pro-life extremist movement with a record of mass casualty attacks at all analogous to Al Queda. Pro-life extremists have never shown themselves to be a comparable threat. These are just facts of the world.
If the idea now is “pro-life violence” = “Tim McVeigh violence” = “a terrorist organization like Al Queda” I think that’s another chain of strained and nigh-on-absurd analogies. Again, I’m happy to bite the bullet on this. If there were a domestic Al Queda-level threat, then sure, one would start thinking about enhanced interrogation. But no evidence suggests such a threat exists, or that if one does Roeder is part of it.
— Ben A · Jun 8, 06:33 PM · #
“If you believe your opponents in the enhanced interrogation debate are arguing for the generalized right to torture any detainee who might have evidence that would save American lives, then I would agree you have vanquished that particular (absurd) position with this analogy.”
Ben, the Cheney quote, from his AEI speech, that I posted at the top of the thread says exactly that.
— Erik Siegrist · Jun 8, 06:49 PM · #
I knew it! I knew it was you!
It was the ‘humping’, wasn’t it? Dammit!
Erik, I’m a big fan of convincing arguments in general. You know, propositions, evidence, logic — reasons.
As for torture, I’m again’ it. But, enhanced interrogation for top-shelf terrorists? If we can ID with asymptotic certainty? And it’s safe, legal and rare works? And it works?
Yeah, I have no problem with that.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 07:35 PM · #
“As for torture, I’m again’ it. But, enhanced interrogation for top-shelf terrorists …”
Why do you use the less-inciting euphemism to describe what you’re for? You’re open about the fact that you think it’s okay to torture detainees under the conditions you outline, and yet you have to pretty it up by leaving the word “torture” out of it? Oh, I forgot, you’re against that.
— Haarball · Jun 8, 08:57 PM · #
Ahahahahaha! Terrific blogpost!
Unfortunately, none of the rightwing neo-cons who have commented get the joke – which is mild at best if compared to the hateful spin Ann Coulter dishes out regularly under the guise of humour.
— deBeauxOs · Jun 8, 09:12 PM · #
But they didn’t fail. It failed to produce links between Saddam and 9/11 that would justify a war; that’s when we started torturing people to death. (Try not to pretend that waterboarding is the worst thing we did to people.)
— Chet · Jun 8, 09:24 PM · #
Why you got to pretty it up with the word ‘detainees’? Why not call ‘em what they really are: smelly bastards with zero sartorial credibility.
On my end, ‘enhanced interrogation’ is fine, thanks. As in, “I’m in favor of enhanced interrogation for top-shelf terrorists so long as it is safe, legal and rare.” I generally avoid dysphemisms when a more precise term is available.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 09:28 PM · #
your big gotcha against the torture crowd is that they care more about Americans than they do about foreigners.
Hey, Adam, then WTF are we doing in Iraq?
We got 4,228 AMERICAN soldiers KILLED to stop Iraqis raping and torturing and killing other Iraqis.
— matoko_chan · Jun 8, 11:26 PM · #
My big gotcha against the torture crowd is, ahem, they favor fucking torture. That they are also, in the main, xenophobic racists is of subsidiary concern.
Nevertheless, it’s worthwhile to note something: The binary division of the world into (i) a group of protected adherents and (ii) a larger group so stigmatized that is permissible to inflict punishments forbidden by law and decency is as much a part of Islamic extremism as it is of right-wing torture advocacy.
— southpaw · Jun 9, 03:50 AM · #
The binary division of the world into (i) a group of protected adherents and (ii) a larger group so . . .
Smaller group. Much, much smaller group. Exceptional, even. Reliably distinct.
Also, I voted for Obama. I’m bona fide reality-based.
— Sargent · Jun 9, 04:41 AM · #