Does torture work? Can we get reliable, actionable intelligence by torturing people? That ugly debate has raised its head again after the death of Osama bin Laden. Some are claiming that waterboarding provided vital information that led to his whereabouts and ultimate demise. But are these claims accurate? With the information available currently, there is no way of knowing for sure. It is entirely possible that other methods could have extracted the same information. The more important objection, however, is that the accuracy of the information obtained from waterboarding is not known. Maybe waterboarding led the U.S. to Osama. Good. But, it is only one data point. What if waterboarding also gave us 99 false leads? That would make enhanced interrogation methods only 1% accurate. Without more data, it is simply not possible to declare waterboarding to be more successful at gathering authentic information than any other method. Thankfully, science can help. A very straightforward experiment could provide a nearly definitive answer to the torture question. Critically, if you are willing to suspend ethics and morality, I would like to offer a modest proposal: a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Normally, biomedical researchers conduct RCTs to determine the effectiveness of new treatments or experimental drugs. In our experiment, we will substitute potential life-saving therapies with waterboarding. Patients in need will be replaced with terrorists indeed. Start with 100 terrorists. (If concerns about statistical significance arise, that number could easily be bumped up to 200 terrorists.) Finding voluntary participants could be challenging, but several potential enrollees are already waiting at Guantanamo Bay. Then, split them into two interrogation groups. The first group will constitute the “control” group. They will receive cookies and milk. The second group will be the “experimental group.” They also will receive cookies and milk, but a regularly scheduled daily waterboarding will be added, as well. After five or ten years, all the information gathered from the two interrogation groups would be analyzed and assessed for accuracy. If the control group was more accurate, then waterboarding does not work. But, if the experimental group was more accurate, then the CIA may want to consider ordering more buckets. Using this technique, there is no limit on the torture methods that could be tested. Sleep deprivation, constant tickling, and forced watching of Justin Bieber music videos could constitute follow-up experiments. Of course, this project does pose some moral hazards. However, science is not in the business of dealing with pesky issues like ethics. Just ask the U.S. Public Health Service about all the African Americans they let die from syphilis in Tuskegee, Alabama. Science could settle the torture question. How badly do you want to know the answer?
Read more:
Science Could Solve the Torture Debate
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here . Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.] That’s not a quote, obviously, but well, how else do you interpret this ? CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden. “We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” he told NBC anchor Brian Williams. When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Panetta simply said “that’s correct.” So, um, can we stop claiming that waterboarding doesn’t work? I mean let’s back up a little. Just about everyone opposes hard-core torture, like ripping out fingernails and electroshock (except maybe in a ticking bomb scenario). And only a few loons want us to limit our interrogation to name, rank and serial number. The question is when does interrogation become torture, and one thing you can say for certain is that waterboarding is close to the line. It might be barely over it, or barely under it, but it’s clearly a close call. So I completely respect anyone who says it is torture even if I disagree. But the most ridiculous claim is that it supposedly doesn’t work. Now of course pressuring anyone in any way to get a mere confession is of dubious value. Torturing a guy to say “I did it,” is unreliable. But if they are telling the truth, they can tell you things that are objectively verifiable. Consider, for instance, this classic scene from Dirty Harry: The context of the clip is this. The psychopath had buried a girl alive and claimed he would give the location of the girl (giving them the chance to save her) if they paid a ransom. They paid, with Eastwood delivering it, but the man refused to give the location, and so the torture in that scene followed. So it was a “ticking bomb” scenario. Also, alluded to and not shown, they find the girl where the psycho said, but she was already dead. If memory serves she never had a chance of being saved in time. Now if that hypothetical went to trial, the confession would be excluded from evidence (and in theory the body might be, too). Why? Not because it was unreliable. Even in isolation the mere fact he knew where the girl was buried was highly incriminating. But instead all of it, including the fact he knew where the body was, would be excluded on the theory that even then torture is not justified, and thus they wanted to remove an important incentive to police to engage in such conduct. So let’s please stop the childish claim that waterboarding—hell, even torture—cannot be effective. And let’s instead have the adult conversation about whether we as a people believe it is morally justified and if so, when. [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Here is the original post:
Leon Panetta: Okay, I Admit it. Waterboarding Gave Us Some of the Information That Led to the Killing of bin Laden
The Evangelical L eft made much of U.S. “torture” policies under the Bush Administration. Like the obliteration of the Death Star in “Star Wars,” that administration’s conclusion presumably would have mollified Evangelical Left activists. But the campaign earnestly continues. Does President Obama now stand accused as a torturer too? Duke University’s seminary is hosting an anti-torture conference (“Toward a Moral Consensus Against Torture: A Gathering of Students, Clergy, People of Conscience, and People of Faith”) later this month, prompting one seminarian recently to blog : “To the extent that American Christians continue allowing their government to torture — motivated by ever-growing fears and the demands of feeling secure — they must also recognize they no longer stand with Jesus in the world.” So in the eyes of some, “torture” evidently did not end with Bush. One of the torture conference sponsors is the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which explains that President Obama “only halted torture — he does not have the authority to end it completely.” Apparently for the torture concerns to subside, there must be a “thorough investigation” of U.S. torture polices, Obama’s executive order against torture must be legislatively ratified, Guantanamo as a “symbol of our country’s use of torture” must close, renditions must be further restricted, and the U.S. Army Field Manuel must ban “pro-longed isolation, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation.” Finally, Americans must repent of their purported pro-torture views, which illustrate “how corrupting the use of torture has been to the soul of our nation and the souls of our people.” Until Americans repent, “we will always be at risk of electing more politicians who support the use of torture.” The campaign against U.S. torture must continue.
The Financial Times reported
Former President George W. Bush has famously declared in his new memoir any lack of regret for waterboarding three al Qaeda killers in 9-11′s immediate aftermath. He plausibly asserts that their waterboarding produced actionable intelligence saving lives from impending terror international attacks. Of course, all three al Qaeda operatives remain imprisoned and are reportedly in good health. Despite the passage of eight years, the waterboarding of three beastly mass murderers still excites selective outrage, especially on the Religious Left. The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), which includes a host of Mainline Protestant denominations, left-leaning, Catholic orders, liberal evangelicals, and the Islamic Society of North America, naturally is indignant. Responding to Bush’s recollection, it wants a “comprehensive investigation of our nation’s use of torture” and asks: “Should we as a nation hold accountable those who violated U.S. law and our most fundamental moral standards?” NRCAT presumably wants formal charges against President Bush. Like most such religious groups, NRCAT’s interest in “torture” is focused almost entirely on the U.S. and its aggressive interrogation of al Qaeda prisoners in the hair-raising months after 9-11. Ongoing and less ambiguous torture polices by various communist and Islamist regimes, widely practiced against political and religious dissidents rather than terrorists plotting murder, do not much interest NRCAT. National Council of Churches (NCC) chief Michael Kinnamon, whose group belongs to NRCAT, even penned an aggrieved column in the Huffington Post contrasting President Bush’s “claimed” Christian faith with his approval of “torture.” Kinnamon helpfully quoted Jesus’ Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as an ostensible command against waterboarding.
