Read other letters about this article

• Friday, December 5, 2008 05:48 AM

  DCLaw

  Some weeks ago I noted the basic conundrum that the same exigency (ticking time bomb scenario) that someone like you thinks counsels in favor of torture in fact informs us of its lack of usefulness. That is, in an emergency situation where time is rapidly running out, a terrorist could easily provide misleading information that in fact thwarts government efforts to prevent disaster, without enough time to check the veracity of the information.

  The dilemma is that sometimes you simply cannot extract meaningful information from a human subject in a short amount of time, using any method. Many people can't seem to come to grips with this, and insist that the only fault is in the physical restraint of the captors. This is an emotional response that I believe is based at least in part in a desire to see a "bad guy" suffer in some way for something that has or might occur.

  I'm sorry I missed the earlier discussion. As to the efficacy question, I agree that if there is no valid reason to think that the torture will produce valid intelligence in a timely manner, then there is no point (or excuse) in doing it. Under the political-legal construct we have discussed, a president would only be justified in ordering torture if the president honestly and reasonably believed it would work to prevent a greater harm. As I mentioned before, I just don't know enough about these interrogation techniques to give an opinion whether and when they would succeed in extracting useful information. I acknowledge that in many situations, the reliability of information extracted coercively is dubious. I should think, however, that this is not always the case. Those hard cases are the ones I am troubled by.

  While I have no doubt that arguing for torture under emergency circumstances can represent for some "a desire to see a 'bad guy' suffer in some way for something that has or might occur," that isn't what I think or what I am arguing. I am focused on what works. If waterboarding NEVER works, then there simply is no argument for it. Period. If it ALWAYS works, then there are circumstances where it can be justified, morally at least in my view. The hard questions arise b/c we have no such certainties to guide us.

  Have a nice day.

  —wbgonne Read wbgonne's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel