Two cents on waterboarding Tom Smith

I don't think the question of whether waterboarding terrorists in order to get information to stop terrorist attacks is morally justified, is even an interesting question.  It is too obvious to be interesting.  If you can save one life, let alone dozens or hundreds, or even thousands, by inflicting severe pain for 30 seconds on someone you are reasonably certain has the information, but won't give it to you voluntarily, of course you should do so.  There are difficult questions about who should decide when this step should be taken, who should be subject to it, and so on.  But it sounds like the CIA acted responsibly here.  One hardly knows what to say about Congress people who are deciding now that the worst of the danger seems to have passed, that it is time for the posturing they call "investigation." 

Whether waterboarding is "torture" for purposes of various laws is a complex question.  You need to read Jack Goldsmith's excellent book The Terror Presidency to get a glimpse of the legal context.  I will just note that this is exactly what the CIA was afraid would happen, as described in Goldsmith's book -- they were pressed to do whatever was necessary to prevent another 9/11, but they were worried when they did that, that Congress and others in hindsight would say that they had gone too far, and go looking for some scapegoats to sacrifice for some political advantage or other.  That appears to be exactly what is happening now.  if by destroying the interrogation tapes, the CIA has made it more difficult for their actions to be exploited in hindsight in this way, they did exactly the right thing.  If it was lawful for them to destroy the tapes, of course they should have done so, for this reason alone.  Whether they could destroy the tapes lawfully is another complex question, but it may well be they were perfectly within their lawful power to do so. 

As a matter of ordinary language and being honest, I think we should admit that waterboarding is torture, in the sense most people use the word.  Torture is about inducing terror, anguish and panic through the infliction of pain, and often using that to coerce a person one way or another, such as to extract information.  The convolutions about whether it is "torture" or not have to do whether it was torture for legal purposes, for if it was, it was illegal.  But just because waterboarding is torture in the ordinary meaning sense, does not mean it was torture in the legal sense.  Ordinary and legal meanings can differ.  But torture or not, the CIA was right to do it to prevent attacks that would have caused much, much more suffering that three people feeling suffocated for 45 seconds.

Is it just me, or did the whole tone of the debate seem to  change once the story came out that prominent Democrats were among those who approved the procedure?  Funny how the politics can modify even hindsight.

Comments

[jamiejamie15]

Any technique involving torture of another person, whether ultimately justified under your “net benefit to America” view of morality or not, should at least be an interesting question.

[Tillman Fan]

Professor Smith -- Leaving aside that your post assumes a critical fact at-issue (that is, whether the persons being waterboarded are, in fact, "terrorists," or whether they have been simply mistakenly accused), I would be interested in whether your opinion regarding torture applies to citizens accused, or even convicted, of crimes in this country. If the police think that a gang member has knowledge of a murder that is to be committed in the near future, in your view would it be morally justified for prison guards to waterboard the gang member, or to subject him/her to sleep deprivation or forced standing, in order to try to learn information to prevent the murder?

I'd also be interested in your opinion involving the same situation you describe in your post -- the government needs to find information to stop terrorist attacks, but instead of waterboarding terrorists, the government waterboards innocent bystanders (perhaps the wives or daughters of the terrorists, or an infant child of the terrorist), in order to get the terrorist to talk. Wouldn't that be morally justified, too? After all, we're simply subjecting one person to some unpleasantness for a short period of time, in the service of the greater good. The ends justify the means.

Really, doesn't your logic mean that Americans should be willing to give up all liberty necessary to prevent any crimes at all? At what point do our attempts to secure ourselves result in the abandonment of the philosophy and beliefs that make America so great?

[Jobless_Jacob]

Tillman Fan,

Philosophy and beliefs don't mean a whole lot if you're dead.

[Sam Goble]

Tillman Fan,
Points well taken until that slippery slope became unbelievably slippery. Let me go one step further in your rationale: inflicting any pain on anyone is wrong because it obviously is wrong to condescend to their level and inflict pain (and they could be innocent as well); therefore if inflicting 2 units of pain on suspect A will save 50 units of pain on 2,000 number of people, A should be spared 2 units of pain so that society can be put at risk for 100,000 units of direct pain (and and infinite amount of indirect societal pain which results in my freakin toothpaste being confiscated everytime I go through airport security, billions spent on scanners rather than healthcare...etc)
Also, incarceration must be wrong, because what if you incarcerate an innocent? It does limit their rights doesn't it? Is our nation worth sacrificing our civil liberties for the sake of a few criminals? Perhaps we should give convicts the right to choose between waterboarding and life in prison?

I remember doing these excercises in Prof. Alexander's Crim law class...1 innocent for 10 guilty? 1 for 100? 1 waterboarded for 10 saved? 1 innocent in 100 waterboarded to save 2,000 innocents? Tough call.

[Hootsbuddy]

"...someone you are reasonably certain has the information."

I know what "reasonably certain" means to me, but I don't think all thresholds of certainty are alike. Seems like the war in Iraq was launched because enough people were "reasonably certain" Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11...some kinda way. Even now, several years later, many Americans (perhaps most) remain "reasonably certain" that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center.

There should be a bright line between "reasonably certain" and "absolutely sure."

[jamiejamie15]

It is not a simple matter of what is an appropriate tradeoff, i.e. quantifying 1 person saved for X persons tortured or 1 innocent for X guilty (not that this ratio could be determined anyway).

It is not possible to predict all of the consequences of our actions.

Of course, one could counter by saying that nothing is certain, so that even a well-meaning act - helping an old lady across the street - could in a small number of cases result in a negative outcome - her being hit by a bus.

However, in situations where there is substantial uncertainty and room for error about the effect our deliberate intervention may have, we should be hesitant to perform any acts that are immoral on their face, simply by rationalizing them beacuse of some overall good we believe they will do.

I do not know all of the consequences that will result from the torture of prisoners - innocent or not - nor do I think it is easily determined. Perhaps it will breed resentment against our country, or inspire additional acts of terrorism, of the very type the torture is designed to prevent.

But precisely because those consequences are immeasurable, we should hesitate before engaging in inhumane acts against another person - regardless of the label attached to them.