Only the Medium Lobster carries the arguments for torture through to their logical conclusion:
Posted by DeLong at June 15, 2004 07:59 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postFafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.: The Medium Lobster has been disquieted of late at by the latest round of Iraq torture scandal news. There has been much uproar - among that irritating minority which have not been studiously scrutinizing the week's top story, the beatification of Ronald Reagan, at least - regarding the powers of the president and the incompatibility of torture with a liberal democracy. In the midst of all this, the Medium Lobster would like to offer those with cooler heads some perspective as to the merits of harsh interrogation.
Imagine there is some weapon of mass destruction planted by terrorists in the heart of a city, ready to go off - a "ticking bomb," if you will. Would it be wrong to torture a terrorist to find the location of such a device and save the millions of lives at risk? Hardly. Now, what if instead of torturing a terrorist, interrogators had to torture a confederate of that terrorist - some associate who would know where the terrorist was so they could locate that ticking bomb? Is that dirtying of our hands such a high price to ask in the goal to protect millions? I think not. Now, what if instead of a terrorist's comrade, interrogators have a terrorist's relative or neighbor? Is it still justified to go as far to save innocent lives? I should hope so! And what if that terrorist has a lot of relatives and neighbors - hundreds, even? Would it be wrong to grant blanket authority to torture hundreds of prisoners knowing full well that any of them could have the crucial information required to save a city? Certainly not! And what if the threat we're faced with is not a bomb at all but an even more pernicious threat - a rogue nation with the potential capability to someday construct that bomb? Would it not be America's right - no, her duty - to invade that country, occupy it, and set up a system of torture-like interrogations to rid that country of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction once and for all? Absolutely!
Indeed, the most unsettling question being raised by these latest news items is not the issue of torture itself, but the question of whether America will be strong enough to use that torture to defeat the enemies of life and liberty. The Medium Lobster can only hope that this great nation will retain its nerve.
I would ask the Lobster: then why settle for torture when one can nuclearize to dust the rogue country without even risking some soldiers lives? Wouldn't that be an easier, faster, cleaner solution to the whole problem of rogue nations? Also, we know that many Al Qaedas are hidden in the mountains of western Pakistan, why don't we nuclearize the whole area until only coakroaches can survive in there? We could go on bombing until there are no more enemies...only peace!!!
"use that torture to defeat the enemies of life and liberty"
Hmmm ...
"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Posted by: Shavano on June 15, 2004 08:42 AMJust noting that the last and most bizarre possibility is the one that actually happened. Sigh.
Posted by: Matt on June 15, 2004 08:49 AMManfredi: I would ask the Lobster: then why settle for torture when one can nuclearize to dust the rogue country without even risking some soldiers lives?
And who would extract the oil afterwards, silly?
Posted by: a on June 15, 2004 08:52 AM"And who would extract the oil afterwards, silly?"
Robots - the logical conclusion - after a while they'd be the only ones left on the surface - everyone else in their deep mountain safe retreats, waiting a few hundred thousand years for the dust to settle.
Posted by: fatbear on June 15, 2004 09:01 AMA methodological note on "slippery slope" arguments--it reminds me of Wittgenstein's parody of it (paraphrasing from memory, can't refer to the source): There is a small stove in a cold room. When I stand close, it warms me up. As I move away from the stove, that effect lessens, until eventually it doesn't warm me at all. Yet I can't pin down the exact point where it stops warming me up. Hence the heat from the stove doesn't exist.
Posted by: walons on June 15, 2004 09:08 AMOne "warms" up at the point where the warmth is equivalent in intensity to the warmth accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.
Posted by: S0C7 on June 15, 2004 10:06 AM"enemies of life and liberty"...
http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Counts.htm
The enemy within?
Posted by: laservisor on June 15, 2004 10:55 AMThe more I read fafblog, the more I need to read it. The exchange between "chris" and his father about the motorcycle, in which the motorcycle stands in for the torture memos and the torture itself, is priceless.
KG
Posted by: Kate Gilbert on June 15, 2004 11:22 AMBart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Tony: Enjoy your gift.
-- "Bart the Murderer"
thanks to episode capsules at SNPP
Posted by: ArC on June 15, 2004 11:48 AMThe slippery slope arguement is BS. It should be wrong and illeagle to torture even if it meant saving a million lives. That said, this is why we have the jury system. If someone used torture and it saved a million lives, the jury can (and should) not vote to convict. But torture to find evidence of something suspected should be punished and a jury would likely concur. Read the Federalist Papers for the original arguements for the jury system. The slippery slope is just the reason to have jurys and not magistrates.
Posted by: BD on June 15, 2004 12:50 PMTHE BUSH PRESIDENCY IS A NIGHTMARE FROM WHICH I AM TRYING TO AWAKE.
(In honor of the 100th anniversary of James Joyce’s Bloomsday, June 16, 2004)
Walons writes:
"A methodological note on "slippery slope" arguments--it reminds me of Wittgenstein's parody of it (paraphrasing from memory, can't refer to the source): There is a small stove in a cold room. When I stand close, it warms me up. As I move away from the stove, that effect lessens, until eventually it doesn't warm me at all. Yet I can't pin down the exact point where it stops warming me up. Hence the heat from the stove doesn't exist."
The Medium Lobster, who transcends all stoves and wielders of stove pokers, has not asked me to inform you, Walons, that you are confusing "slippery slopes" with the somewhat similar "heaps" or as the ancients called them "sorites". One pebble surely does not maketh a heap, nor does adding one more pebble to that pebble, nor does adding just one pebble ever make a heap, so you cannot really make a heap, ever.
The slippery slope argument is in a way the opposite. The slippery sloper says, boy, you better watch out, because if you keep addin pebbles like that you will end up with a heap eventually. I mean he says that "in effect", because literally he is talking about going down a slippery slope and ending up at the bottom in Palookaville or whatever.
The heap and the slope are naturally easy to confuse though, not that the Medium Lobster is ever confused about anything.
Bob T.
Posted by: Bob Thermidor on June 15, 2004 02:17 PMThe memo on torture basically states that Mr Bush is unlikely to be convicted of war crimes based on his prisoner interrogation and abuse policy.
Where is the "moral clarity" in that?
Posted by: bakho on June 15, 2004 02:17 PMBob,
Not sure I agree. I start with something true (warm), and keep changing it a little, only to end up with something patently absurd (cold). Doesn't mean the original wasn't true. Wittgenstein's point was that you can't say there's no warmth in the stove.
Posted by: walons on June 15, 2004 02:45 PMWhen did torture stop just being wrong (immoral)?
Posted by: Paul on June 15, 2004 03:21 PMLet's be a little cautious. Before we torture someone in for the sake of their actual or potential innocent victims, let's make sure that the victims are, in fact, innocent.
Posted by: Zizka on June 15, 2004 05:02 PMIs it morally correct to torture rich tax evaders till they tell you the locations and access codes of their tax haven bank accouts?
Posted by: walter willis on June 15, 2004 05:39 PMDespair makes for good literature. We are living in a literary time. Fafblog is classic. Our own Lenny Bruce. There's a silver cloud in every lining.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell on June 15, 2004 06:03 PMSo we're back to "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out'?
Posted by: Palolo lolo on June 15, 2004 06:38 PMNow I'm really scared. I thought that the piece was hysterically funny. But apparently even the majority of readers of this blog didn't answer yes to *all* of the questions. What happened to making sure first that the guilty (terrorist) actually *is* guilty?
Posted by: Emily on June 15, 2004 07:33 PMZizka -- Any thoughts on how we determine whether the potential victims are innocent? do you contemplate torture? or shall we use the burning spar test? or how about the water test, always liked that one.
bakho -- unfortunately, the moral clarity is all too apparent in the torture memo. Its purpose was not to determine whether Mr Bush would be likely "to be convicted of war crimes based on his prisoner interrogation and abuse policy." As Prof Froomkin and others have shown, the memo's analysis is, quite demonstrably, bogus in terms of both criminal and constitutional law, to say nothing of international law. The purpose of the memo is blindingly clear -- to ensure that Mr Bush will not be convicted of any crime, because he will be able to point to advice of counsel.
Posted by: nadezhda on June 16, 2004 12:08 AMEmily - why, it's simple! You just torture them of course until they tell you if they're guilty. Or else die. Just like witches - if they drown, they were innocent.
--Thw whole "torture saves lives!" meme ignores the problem that we have *no* Middle-eastern intelligence personnel or background or humint worth spit, so no way to ask meaningful questions which is the *heart* of interogation (*not* torture) or context to frame the answers when we get them...
Yeah, we're SOL in a CF that beggars descritpion, tactically, strategically and logisitically, with
Posted by: bellatrys on June 16, 2004 07:10 AMignorant lunatics with delusions of god-emperorhood running the show and any number of little orcs and gollums willing to serve in their train for a share of the loot...
Posted by: bellatrys on June 16, 2004 07:14 AMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 02:32 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 10:57 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil on July 8, 2004 03:28 PMGet it up mate, it's fun!
Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 08:54 PMMuppets love Viagra!
Posted by: Viagra UK on July 14, 2004 04:18 AMIt gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!
Posted by: cialis uk on July 14, 2004 11:32 PMIf you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!
Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen on July 16, 2004 06:27 AMHire a car to feel higher!
Posted by: Car hire on July 20, 2004 05:23 PMHire a car to feel higher!
Posted by: Car hire UK on July 21, 2004 12:04 AMKeep this info up!
Posted by: Kreditkarten online on July 27, 2004 10:44 AM