He was saying that there’s a yin and a yang, and you can’t have it both ways. To the extent that you’re only willing to administer the program to people about whom you’re 100% sure, then you’re upping the number of guilty people that are going to be let out. So he’s saying that he’s more concerned about the possiblity of people like Al-Bahgdadi et al being let out, and thus needs to lower the threshold that he uses before applying the program.
The same dynamic is true of any justice system and penal code. If you require absolute 100% confidence of guilt before sentencing anyone, then you will sentence no one. No system works on this principle.
Note: this is not to endorse Cheney’s positions here (including but not limited to his statement that he’s fine with 25% innocents) but what he actually said is not what’s being depicted in this thread.
Actually, your characterization of what he said sounds exactly like “Tortured a few innocent people… no big deal.” At least, not a big enough deal to do away with the program, which is all that matters in this context.
In context, Cheney was responding specifically to the allegations that innocent people were tortured, and he was dismissive. Here is the entire transcript. Here is the relevant portion, snipped but unaltered:
So Cheney has no problem with torturing to death of the innocent Rahman, and no problem with a 25% error rate. Of course, he doesn’t think (or says he doesn’t think) that this is torture at all. So I don’t get how he’s talking about a “yin and yang”, or “you can’t have it both ways” – he’s saying, in context, he has no problem with such a large error rate as long as we achieve our objectives. So what’s wrong with my OP?
He’s saying he has no problem setting the error rate as high as 25%, in order to forstall people like al-Baghdadi being let out.
That’s not the same thing as saying he has no problem with having 25% of the people in the program being innocent in obsolute terms. It’s just that if you have a choice of 25% innocents and no al-baghdadi out loose or 1% innocents and yes al-Baghdadi, then he has no problem setting the 25% level as the correct level.
Obviously if there was the option of having 0% innocent and also no guilty people being released he would go for that option. But that’s not an available option. If you look at what he said, in the part you quoted, he’s clearly discussing it in terms of the available options and weighing the lesser evil.
Who are you arguing with? None of this is contrary to my OP, or what I said anywhere. It’s still monstrous, indecent, etc. Though, nowhere does he express any concern whatsoever for any innocents caught up in the program, even if they end up dead.
I’m not sure I understand you. On the one hand you’re saying “None of this is contrary to my OP, or what I said anywhere”, which implies that you agree that Cheney only said he had “no problem” with the 25% as a matter of policy and not in absolute terms. Then your last sentence says “nowhere does he express any concern whatsoever for any innocents caught up in the program, even if they end up dead”, implying that you believe he has no concern about these tortured or dead innocents at all.
The second implication is the one I’m disputing. The context of the 25% question was not whether 25% of people being innocent is an unfortunate tragedy, but whether it was an indication of the wrong approach being used and his response was directed at this.
F-P: The pitting IS that Dick Cheney is a man of such moral depravity that he thinks torturing a few innocent people is a price worth paying to get some bad guys to give up some information. You’re presenting the idea of a “tradeoff” as if it’s somehow a more charitable interpretation of what he said, when that’s exactly what is depraved about it.
I used the phrase “no big deal”, and said he’s “not that concerned”. In that interview, what he said is entirely consistent with that informal phrase and a sense that he has little concern for those innocents that were killed/subjected to the techniques.
Again, how is this contrary? Someone with a shred of decency (in my view), even if they thought the techniques are warranted and necessary, would have expressed concern or sadness that innocents were subjected or, especially, killed; further, they would have stated that the 25% is too high and should be lower. Cheney doesn’t. He expresses no concern, and has no problem with the 25%.
Of course, he doesn’t consider it torture. It’s an “enhanced interrogation technique”. I guess it depends on which end of it your on whether you also consider it “enhanced” or not.
