Again with the ‘ticking time bomb scenario’

February 14, 2007

I’m not exactly sure how, but the debate over U.S. torture policy appears to be back on the frontburner. There’s no legislation pending, and there haven’t been any new, high-profile scandals, but maybe all the talk about “24” got people thinking again.

For example, Andrew Sullivan noted yesterday that Hugh Hewitt interviewed Col. Stuart Herrington, an experienced American military intelligence officer with a background in interrogations. Hewitt emphasized the right’s favorite argument.

HH: Now an e-mail. Mr. Hewitt, can you ask the Colonel if we would authorize torture regarding someone who knows of a nuke about to go off in minutes or hours.

SH: Yeah, that’s the so-called ticking time bomb scenario. The difficulty with that is that that question poses a hypothetical which in my experience, I never ran into a hypothetical like that. If you pose the rectitude, or lack thereof, of torture based upon that hypothetical, you’re not really dealing in the real world. That’s my answer to that.

And that should have been the end of it. Hewitt brought up a fictional scenario to justify torture, Herrington said the real world doesn’t work that way, so there’s no point in basing policy on fantasy.

But Hewitt wouldn’t let it go. “In an era when we’ve had attempted dirty bomb importation into the United States, and we’ve had WMD used here, in anthrax, at least, are there some circumstances where at least at a classified lever, people ought to walk through those scenarios, to have the rules laid down in stone, Colonel? … [S]houldn’t the military be walking through those scenarios, and establishing the guidelines right now, so that they’re not improvised when and if such hypotheticals occur?” Again, Herrington calmly explained that procedures are already in place, and that the existing structure works.

One got the distinct sense that Hewitt just wants a foot in the door. He wants one scenario in which torture is justified, so that the notion that torture is “always” wrong can be debunked. From there, presumably, the discussion can shift from “Is torture wrong?” to “How often can we use it?”

Hewitt kept pushing, wanting to know if torture can be effective, regardless of whether it’s permitted. Herrington not only set Hewitt straight, he offered an explanation that should effectively end the discussion.

HH: Is it effective? Is water boarding effective?

SH: Boy, you know what? I can’t tell you that. I’ve never practiced it. I consider it to be abhorrent, a practice that shouldn’t be practiced by any professional interrogator, and you’re going to have to ask someone other than me. But I, generally speaking, know from experience that when you levy brutality against a person in order to get that person to talk, even if the person hasn’t got anything to say, or doesn’t know what it is that you want, they’ll come up with something to say just to get you to quit doing it.

HH: Do you play on fears of family and their safety, not reprisal, but you know, going back to be with them? Is that effective?

SH: You know, the developmental approach involves engaging someone in conversation and evaluating them. And certainly, I’ve had cases where family played a big part. I once had a prisoner in Panama, for example, who was on his second day of captivity, was in tears, and was depressed, and the guards told me they were worried about him. When I went to see him, it turned out that you know, he’d been captured for three days, his wife didn’t know if he was dead or alive. He had an 18 month old child at home, and he was just totally depressed and in a deep funk over it. I got a cell phone, and we called his wife. I was his friend for life after that.

What a concept. John Cole explained the broader dynamic nicely:

If that happened today, the pro-torture Republican party and her blogospheric nitwit enablers would advocate having the man stripped down naked, have menstrual blood smeared on him while chained him to the floor in either an exceptionally hot or exceptionally cold room with blaring music. When that didn’t work, they would waterboard him. If the press found out, Donald Rumsfeld would have clucked that he stands all day long at work, so how bad could that really be?

The reason Hugh and others are so desperate to validate the necessity of torture through the ticking time bomb scenario is that it is the only way to justify it, because torture just isn’t effective for information gaining purposes. There are other practices that are better, and that do not debase yourself, your country, and terrorize the victim.

Somehow, I doubt Hewitt cares.

I have the answer to the ticking time bomb scenario! Send it out immedately.

HH: Now an e-mail. Mr. Hewitt, can you ask the Colonel if we would authorize torture regarding someone who knows of a nuke about to go off in minutes or hours.

Me: The ticking time bomb scenario is much like setting a timetable for the interrogation. If the detainee knows that we are under a deadline, he or she, is emboldened to withstand tremendous pain and anguish because they know they only have to hold out for a short time. Hugh, wht do you hate America and why do you continue to provide terrorists weapons to damage our freedom.

  • It’s fun watching these guys grab for every straw as the good ship “GOP Southern Stategery” continues to sink under the captainship of George Walker (“so start walking”) Bush.

  • This is depressing:

    A new study suggests that abuse of prisoners of war is widely condoned by many veterans, and possibly by many in the military today. Even rape of a prisoner was judged acceptable by more than half of the 351 participants in the study.

  • Since we’re dealing with hypotheticals, I can imagine a fantasy world where the “ticking bomb” scenario is the least likely to produce useful intelligence. Suppose I just sent anthrax-laced letters in the mail, and the cops show up and arrest me. They know I sent the letters — they want to know where. But the deed is done; I’ve already won. Even if they put a power drill to my nether regions, I just have to hold out until H-hour arrives. (This scenario isn’t quite ideal, though, since they could order an emergency stop to all mail, thwarting my plan. It would rob me of any incentive to resist torture — but it also obviates the ticking clock, so I shouldn’t have to.)

  • The right wing whackos, by condoning torture, are just as sub-human as any supposed terrorist boogeyman they seem to think is hiding around any given corner, lying in wait to behead them, then conquer and occupy America. Just as the terrorists’ paranoia of western domination compells them to blow themselves to smithereens in a crowded cafe, so is the paranoia of the right wing that is willing to sacrifice the honor of our country and the ideals that made America a beacon of liberty and human dignity, PRE – Bu$h of course. These people aren’t Americans, for we are the land of the free and home of the brave. They are frightened pussies, cowering in fear.

  • What HH advocates more than just torture — it’s moral relativism.

    Funny that the right seems to participate in that quite a bit, while denouncing pretty much everyone else for the same crime.

  • There’s a reason why those of us who know Baby Huey call him “Hugh Screwitt.” That’s his policy whenever facts get in the way of his over-ripe imagination.

  • Response #1 to Baby Huey’s “punditry” at Townhall.com is by one “2hipshot” who says:

    It boggles the mind to think that NAZIS didn’t use torture on our best, and they still got EVERYTHING they wanted. Geez, you’d think THEY would torture before AND after they got the goods – just for “kicks”.

    Guess they never caught any of the Tuskegee Airmen. Me thinks it would have been a different story in their case.

    Nice to see one of these southern-fried scumballs come out and demonstrate exactly who/what he is. His “blog” at Townhall.com (you can get it by clicking his “handle” on his post) is one long racist rant – complete with explanations about how “telling the truth” means he isn’t a racist.

    Of course, if you do go read his page, be prepared to take a long shower with industrial-strength bullshit cleaner.

  • I have this persistent feeling that we keep over-estimating the reasons that folks like Hugh Hewitt are so invested in the need to torture. It has nothing to do with any ticking bomb, and it has everything to do with the feeling of power and superiority that they derive from it. It is unfortunately only the outward sign(or one of the outward signs) of the hell that must rage inside their skulls–a hell where the terror of not being in control of their world can only be balanced by this grim demand that we torture and take the lives of the weaker opponent. It is at its heart tribal–notice that I don’t say racist, though racism is also a form of tribalism. In the mind of Hewitt and his ilk, there is some sort of equivalence between being an enemy of America and being sub-human–for the act of torture presupposes that the victim has no human rights that need be protected. The argument that “more lives will be saved” is absurd on too many levels to describe, but for one example, in many cases what it supposes is almost a tautology, ie., if we know there IS an atom bomb ticking somewhere, wouldn’t we also be likely to know WHERE it is from the same source we learned THAT info from?

    No this isn’t about saving lives, it’s about power. Power and outrage that these “terrorists” don’t acknowledge our superiority.

    But more important– if torture is so effective, why hasn’t it led to the capture of bin Lauden? Why hasn’t it led to the complete, or nearly complete dismantling of al Qaeda? Why haven’t we been able to prevail in Iraq, or been able to find better evidence of Iran’s involvement than the risibly awful performance on Sunday, a performance so badly done that it was an orphan before it even went off. The reason is that despite having used torture for years now, it’s gotten us nothing of any value at all. If it had, the government would surely have let us know instead of insisting that those poor bastards at Guantanamo, in Roumania, Poland, and elsewhere had to be kept under wraps. Christ, this is a government that brags about EVERYTHING! Even terrorist alerts like the plan to supposedly brew high explosives in an airliner bathroom–a claim that was soon deep-sixed leaving only the ridiculous business of having to ditch my mouthwash at the loading gate every time I fly.

    So Mr. Hewitt and his minions will keep barking about ticking bombs, and Bush and his tools in the administration will keep telling us that, while he doesn’t admit to torturing anyone, it’s still a necessary tool in the GWT. In the meantime, we’ve given every other small-minded despot the roadmap to excusing terror in their own sphere of influence–and again, not because they NEED it to protect their people but because dictators and despots large and small need it to quell the terrors that visit them when the close their eyes at night. There is always irony, of course, and part of it here is that by spreading the doctrine of torture, the Bush administration has also given themselves much more to fear when the lights go out.

  • 11: I think you are right in that they feel compelled to project their ‘superiority’ (self assumed of course), by belittling any group or individual that they deem a threat to this supposed ‘superiority’. Let’s face it, most of the right wing hacks and mouthpieces have traded in their white hats and dragon adorned robes for an Armani suit and a talk show on some Clear Channel radio station. They hate gays, they hate blacks, they hate jews (except for the fact that the jews play a role in their Armeggedon fanstasy), they hate secularism, they hate the French, they hate anti-war individuals, they hate latinos, I needn’t say more. I equate their rabid hate and fear-mongering to the spoiled brat kid in the playground who couldn’t fight his way out of a paper sack, they simply yell louder than any other kid.

  • The ticking bomb scenario is not vexing. You have a moral obligation to torture someone who certainly can prevent the death of innocents. That doesn’t imply that we should legalize torture. No good juror would not convict someone who acted in this way, and if I had to be the torturer I’d hope that my jury would forgive my infraction. Our system is damn near perfect in this respect.

  • For the sake of argument, let’s say the “ticking timebomb” scenario DOES happen. Let’s say a known terrorist is in custody and that we have 100% reliable information the terrorist knows where the bomb is. And let’s even say that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, torture actually works. In other words, let’s give the torture supporters their dream scenario.

    The answer to that scenario is simple: torture the terrorist, then go to prison for your crime. A few years in prison seems like a small price for a patriot to pay for saving thousands of innocent lives.

    The thing is, the torture supporters have no desire…and no intent…to be responsible for their actions. They are unwilling to sacrifice anything (except the lives of our troops) for their beliefs.

  • Well Republicans today live in an alternate universe, so I guess it is not so hard to see how they would confuse a TV show with reality.

    Or it could just be that they know it is wrong, just like the rest of us, but if they admitted that then they would be put in an untenable position of not only admitting they were colosally wrong but that they believed in torture so they would rather rather continue with the fiction.

  • I’d agree with a couple of the comments above, that whoever found themselves in the hypothetical situation would be morally obligated to do whatever they could to thwart the attack and deal with the consequences later.

    Fortunately, the hypothetical has nothing to do with officially sanctioned torture. In this case, the interrogator knows the risk he puts himself in — because it’s illegal — and decides to sacrifice himself for the sake of others.

    I think most folks know that torture goes on in wartime even when it’s illegal, but the fact that it is (or was) illegal at least keeps it from being an everyday occurance.

  • The ticking bomb scenario is a red herring–it’s never happened, never going to happen, I’d wager. Once you allow torture, even under what you think is this narrow dispensation, then interogators are bound to search for the worst, most awful possibilities. To elicit those facts, it becomes necessary to use torture. Thus, permitting it in limited circumstances will mandate it in many circumstances.

    Look, even knowing that some awful attack is going to take place is no guarantee that it will be thwarted. Gen. Marshall had credible evidence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday Dec. 7, 1941–and he had that information during the day on Friday Dec. 5. Why why weren’t we prepared? The explanation is reasonable, tragic, and stupid all at the same time–he didn’t trust the phone lines so he had a telegraph sent. The duty officer had left for the weekend by the time Western Union arrived so the telegram was awaiting Admiral Kimmel when he arrived for work on Monday. The point is that there’s much more to protecting the nation than just having the information. Didn’t we see that on 9/11? Enough was known to be of use had we just noticed it. Our efforts should be directed toward efficient use of the information we HAVE and KNOW to be accurate and not indiscriminate collection of information that is always going to be suspect.

    Finally, lets stop talking about ticking bombs–that’s letting the torturers frame the discussion–and we are wasting our efforts on that while many other crimes are being perpetrated. Stay focussed on what we know they are doing and stop them.

  • What a sick f*ck this Hewitt is. Salivating over waterboaring and threatening someone’s family with harm? Hugh’s next questions had to have been about genital electrodes and foreign objects up the anus.

    I have two words to completely debunk ticking timebombs, or the other theatrical prop the bomb with the beeping digital clock display: suicide bomber.

    “You’re not really dealing in the real world. That’s my answer to that.” – Col. Herrington. Amen to that.

  • What HH advocates more than just torture — it’s moral relativism.

    Unholy Moses has it exactly right here. I can’t wait to point that out the next time some wingnut says torture is okay.

  • Torture is not done to get information.

    It is useless for that purpose and everyone knows it–its defenders as well as its opponents.

    It is only done because the victim is thought to “deserve” it. It is never anything other than an expression of sadism.

    That is why its opponents oppose it, and also why its defenders defend it.

  • Seems to me a much more efficient way than torture would be the use of chemical “truth serums” so why do none of those amoral assholes ever mention that. NO their true purpose is the legalization of torture so they can get their hard ons.

    • Comments are closed.