More on the torture debate
Power Line has an interesting piece on how Gonzales' critics responded to the hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenario -- a detainee has knowledge that could prevent an impending attack on a civilian target, but he's not talking.
It's a contrivance, certainly, and a scenario that as far as we know has been confined, thus far, to Hollywood films. Still, it's a worthwhile thought experiment. I've posed this scenario to a number of people at different points, and they usually simply mumble something about how the premise is "unrealistic."
Well, let's hope so! But that answer is still a cop-out. A scenario doesn't need to be likely in order to illustrate the logical limitations of an argument. Actually, it's not an "argument" we're talking about -- it's merely a pious, emotion-driven, high-minded mantra, such as "The U.S. should never engage in torture! Period!"
But how realistic is that, really? Once you have admitted that there is a conceivable situation, no matter how contrived, in which torture may be the less distasteful alternative, you are forced to come down off your moral absolutist high horse and engage in a dialog.
The real discussion is not to be had at the extreme margins of the debate. It's the big gray area in between that needs to be explored. The "ticking bomb" exercise is only useful in helping people acknowledge that we're all on the slippery slope here, whether we like it or not.
We can all agree that the U.S. should eschew thumbscrews and bamboo shoots as a matter of policy -- but where does that leave us concerning less severe techniques, such as sleep deprivation, psychological operations and others? The whole debate is far too complex (and dare I say "nuanced"?) to be dismissed with simplistic Tonto reasoning ("Torture bad, Kemo Sabe!")
Heather MacDonald explores the big gray area in an excellent article in City Review. It's well worth reading in its entirety, no matter which side of the debate you're on. She points out some of the grim realities of interrogation in the post-9/11 world, as well as some of the dangers of tying interrogators' hands too tightly. Again, we're not talking about thumbscrews here, but very effective stress techniques which are not pleasant, but which few reasonable people could consider torture. Often, in fact, merely convincing the prisoner that you are willing to use torture can be sufficient to get them to crack.
Don't expect a substantive debate on these issues in the Gonzales confirmation hearings, however. That will be left to the blogosphere and the opinion journals. I think Gonzales' critics in the Senate will stand up and preen and posture and bloviate and then most of them will end up voting for him anyway. It'll just be further proof that the whole thing is pure political theater, devoid of any real substance.
That's my prediction, anyway. We'll see how it plays out.