From a recent and already-notorious editorial by Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard, 12/5/05 – http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp:
Does anybody care to defend Krauthammer’s position here? Is his “principle” persuasive? Are there situations where torture of prisoners should be allowed by law?
(Also, does that “haggling over the price” line come from Shaw? I always thought it was Winston Churchill.)
I’m not aware of any case where a terrorist who had recently set a time bomb to ticking was captured. Indeed, torture proponents have been unable to come up with any case in all of history where torture clearly provided useful information. The circumstance seems so far-fetched that I see no reason to allow torture for “ticking time bomb” scenarios, or any other scenarios.
Cal Thomas wrote an editorial promoting torture; it appeared in my local paper today. He mentioned nothing about ticking time bombs, nor about gathering intelligence. He says bluntly,
In other words, torture has nothing to with helping our law enforcement agencies prevent terrorism. It only has to do with punishing people so that the possibility of punishment will supposedly deter them. I don’t agree with it, but at least this one conservative is honest about the use of torture as a means of gathering information.
No and no and it won’t work. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the hypothetical fanatic knows he only has to endure until the bomb or whatever goes off. If he knows he only has to stall, then he’ll stall by lying or endure any torture you come up with. The time bomb scenario simply doesn’t work.
Besides, torture is simply evil. If we torture people, we deserve to lose.
I think the “haggling about the price” line is unbelievably sexist. It’s just another way of saying all women are whores. How about if we substitued this:
“I asked him if he would ever have sex with someone without their consent. He said no. How about if it was the most beautiful woman in the world, and she was going to die from cancer in a few minutes anyway, and you didn’t have a chance of getting caught, and you just took Viagra?. Well maybe then, he replied. OK, I said, we have established you are a rapist, now we just have to find out the circumstances.”
I certainly won’t defend it. If his hypothetical were ever to occur:
The terrorist winds up tortured whether there’s a law against it or not.
If the torture saves a city from being nuked, no prosecutor in their right mind would touch the case.
If the torture didn’t save a city from being nuked, no prosecutor in their right mind would touch the case.
On the other hand, what becomes of our society if we permit torture under our laws? I would still call it a society, but I sure wouldn’t call it civilized.
No, he’s making a lot of assertions of fact that I don’t believe, and some assumptions as well.
My first question: how do you know that the person you have captured is the person who planted the bomb or even knows about it? How certain are you that you have the right person?
My second would be to ask Krauthammer for a cite for this assertion:
Frankly I don’t believe it.
And this is all aside from the question of whether torture works as a method for deriving information.
Honestly? Yeah, you’d be a rapist, and we would have to find out the circumstances. It’s kind of appalling to me that this is in doubt.
Same thing with Krauthammer. If you accept legal torture under any circumstances, then yeah, we need to figure out exactly what those circumstances are.
That’s why it shouldn’t be legal. If someone believes it’s that important to torture someone else, let them pay the legal price for the torture.
Daniel
John McCain has defended this stance, which is peculiar since he’s set himself up as the champion of anti-torture legislation. Krauthammer asks (maybe not in the OP’s editorial, but I’ve heard him ask this elsewhere) why not clarify that in the legislation rather than leave it up to the individual to risk?
IOW, the “shocks the conscience” test is situational-- something that would shock the conscience in one situtation might not in another. Which is pretty much what CK is saying.
No, it’s a clever way of saying that, for many people, what they might not do in one circumstance they would do in another. But try out your verision at a party sometime and see how many laughs you get.
McCain does not have remotely the same stance as Krauthammer. McCain’s stance is more like that of WeVets or Lefty - he clearly says in your cite that torture should be illegal, it’s extremely unlikely (million to one) that such a scenario should ever occur, and if it did occur, such actions would have to be ordered by the President, who’d take any responsibility for breaking the law on himself.
To describe him as a torture-supporting scumbag like Krauthammer is highly disingenuous.
It’s intersting to hear conservatives like CK back “situational ethics”; I thought that they believed in moral absolutes. Yes, in that convuluted, hypothetical ticking time-bomb situation it might be justified to use torture. Stealing is illegal yet we don’t have the law mucked up with exceptions saying that taking a loaf of bread is OK if your family is starving. We rely on some sense of discretion on the part of prosecutors and juries.
I would hope none, but then I don’t think the original joke is funny either.
If a deranged Girl Scout had released a motorized toy tugboat in the Mediterranean containing a non-negligible quantity of Ice-9, and the only way to discover its whereabouts was to scour the flesh from Charles Krauthammer’s skull with a belt sander…
Ahh, screw the boat. Just give me the sander.
Krauthammer says torture should be OK in extremely rare events and McCain says it should be OK in the same extremely rare event. To say that those two positions are different in any meaningful way is highly disingenuous. The fact that McCain references the president is only relevant if you think the president has an inherent ability to break the law. Do you?
The positions are indeed different - look at the source you yourself quoted;
(my bolding)
The difference between the two positions is that Krauthammer is saying torture is acceptable in extremly rare events, and thus should be legal. McCain is saying torture is acceptable in extremely rare events, but that regardless it should be illegal. He’s saying that if, indeed, it is so vitally important that torture be used, the person ordering it (in his example, the president) would order it and still accept the consequences of committing an illegal act.
What’s the difference in practical terms? Under Krauthammer’s scheme, many people will be tortured, because doubtless some people in charge of prisoners may personally find it acceptable. This can be anyone from the guards up to the president. Thus, many people (terrorists or no) will be tortured, and (as torture is not a helpful solution) evil acts will be committed for no gain. Once in a million tries, it’s possible that the torture will, indeed, help save lives - it’s unlikely but possible that could be a similar to 9/11 event.
Under McCain’s scheme, people will not torture - because, if they want to do it for “fun”, they’re not going to risk being caught and tried (for the most part). Additionally, those people who think torture is legitimate will also be put off from committing an evil act that (in 999,999 in a million cases) will be unhelpful. In the one in a million chance, however, that suspect will still be tortured by whoever is in charge. Lives will still be saved, because, while illegal, being tried yourself i’d imagine to everyone is much less important than saving lives.
Krauthammer’s scheme: Many tortured unecessarily. Will save in one-in-a-million terrorist event.
McCain’s scheme: Less tortured unecessarily, those that do punished. Will save in one-in-a-million terrorist event. Will result in trial and possible punishment of one-in-a-million torturer of the terrorist.
To me, the schemes are noticeably different, and I for one would rather that a torturer of a terrorist to stop a 9/11 style event is tried (from which likely he will be let off lightly, but could possibly face a harsh punishment) than many being tortured.
Here’s another point. How on Earth would we know that a terrorist has set a time bomb ticking somewhere? The obvious circumstance is that somebody saw him starting the countdown, but if that were the case then we know where the bomb is, hence no need for torture. Under what other circumstance would we know for certain that the terrorist had actually set a time bom ticking?
Hypothetically, we could capture terrorist A, who promptly informs us that terrorist B has set the nuclear bomb somewhere in New York with a timer. Then we somehow capture terrorist B. But that’s quite unlikely. If A is hardcore enough to participate in a plot to nuke New York, he’s probably not going to squeal on B that easily.
Further, under Krauthammer’s rules, it would be easy for terrorist plotters to trick the United States into torturing a suspect wrongly. Every torture case is a propaganda coup for the terrorists and a blow to American efforts to build a coalition. All of our former European allies have already moved away from us because of America’s widespread use of torture.
We did this just two weeks ago:
I’m sure CK would be happy if the statute had a “requires authorization by the president” clause in it. That’s the key. McCain wants to say that the president should go ahead and break the law, and he’ll probably be exonerated later because the action didn’t “shock the conscince” in that extreme case. That may be true. Meanwhile, of course, it’s not the president who’s going to be doing the torturing-- it’ll be some lower level guy. What’s that guy suppose to think? Is he going to break the law knowing all he has to do is say he had authorization from the president? “I was just following orders” is not exactly a proven defense as we all know.
CK isn’t advocating any specific law. He’s saying that a blanket ban, with no exceptions, is the wrong way to go, especially if you think there should be some exception even if only in extremely rare circumstances.
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that yes, the torture will likely be harsh (surely that’s the point?). Thus the person torturing must be punished. However, if that torture brought about important information (which in the million-to-one scenario stops a 9/11 style event) then that can be taken into account at the trial.
The guy is “supposed” to think “Ok, I don’t want to torture this person, but I will because it may give me information that can save many lives. I may be arrested and tried, and even sentenced harshly for my actions, but my actions will have saved lives, so i’m willing to accept that.” McCain isn’t saying “only the president has the ability to order this and not be arrested”, he’s saying ALL OF YOU INVOLVED will be arrested. It’s not a proven defense? Ok. Lives will have been saved - one or several “innocent” torturers will be punished. I’m not seeing your point.
McCain is saying a similar thing, but on a different level - CK wants a system where the decision on whether to torture or not to torture is acceptable is made by the president -> down the chain of command to the police/guards - torture is carried out - lives may be saved (or much more likely not). McCain wants a system where the decision on whether torturing was right to occur after the event - so that we know all the ramifications and can take them into account.
The point is; if YOU faced the choice between doing something illegal (and recieving punishment for it) or many people would die, you’d pick the illegal action, regardless of the punishment. Maybe you’ll get exonerated - maybe you’ll be sentenced to death. But lives will have been saved in this million-to-one chance event.
Or, under CK’s system, there can be miscellaneous torture for many people based on the whims of however far down the chain of command CK thinks people should be able to make the decision to torture. Both ways will save lives in the M-T-1 scenario. One will have much more torture - the other, a noble person who acted selflessly will be punished. I know which system i’d rather have.
Mild hijack, if it’s permissible: In the course of discussing Krauthammer’s statements and their defensibility, would some of you be so kind as to give me your reaction to something I’ve noticed over the past couple of years. When I began reading his columns, he seemed to be a level-headed conservative, with whom I might disagree but without rancor, a John Mace of the pundit world, if you will. But over the past year or so, his position seems to have migrated to a rather bitchy doctrinaire stance, almost an “It’s right because the Right supports it” perspective. Is it me, or do some of you get the same sense?
At the risk of hijack:
Horsecrap; its saying that that woman is a whore, and its true. In your hypothetical, that man is a rapist.
And I’m with John Mace and Krauthammer on this. McCain’s solution essentially makes a criminal of someone acting with direct presidential authorization and in good faith thinking it will save multiple lives. I find that an unacceptable position.
Me too; and there’s the crux of the matter.
He is not an irrational far-right hack as you seem to imply (eg. Coulter). He is a conservative intellectual who’s always been a smidge imperious, but I think he’s also one of those who has become exasperated by the increasing influence of the Dean/MoveOn/Moore hard left has over otherwise more moderate Democratic politicians.