The more legalese I read, the more attuned I'm becoming to semantic dodges that I used to overlook. For example, we have Jeff Goldstein of the Protein Wisdom blog basically saying that 1+1=3.
He's responding to this, from Hit and Run, regarding torture methods that many seek to ban:
[W]ater boarding elicited the “vital” information from Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi that “Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons.” As a CIA-sourced ABC News investigation reports, “al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.”The administration’s position is now crystal clear. “We do not torture," we water board; we do not use Soviet-style imprisonment/interrogation tactics, we just secretly use former Soviet facilities and Red Army false-confession techniques. And if some detainees die in the process, well, bad apples and all that.
With this:
In fact, that waterboarding may or may not have worked well in the past (and I suspect it has had both successes and failures) is not really relevant to me, because what I’m interested in is how it and techniques like it should be defined and understood within a useful definition of “torture."
So, what exactly makes you believe that it has had successes? It would seem that to counter an argument about torture's lack of usefulness would be a good way to rebut that argument, but you don't seem to have anything at all. This is a classic symptom of someone who sees the facts and tries to bend them to a pre-existing storyline instead of writing the story as the facts reveal themselves. We can agree that it would be nice for you if waterboarding worked, but without brining anything else to the table, you can't even answer this straightforward and crucial facet of the anti-torture argument.
After the big logic gap, look at how fast he moves along to another part of the argument. It's as if the italics are there to distract us from the preceding inanity or something.
While on the topic, here's something else worth mentioning. If you listen to a pro-torture talking head long enough, he or she will bring up the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which the only thing standing between safety and a mushroom cloud is a pair of electrodes.
Alex Tabbarok reminds us that if you can do the time, you ought to do the crime:
Here is where economics can make a contribution. By making torture illegal we are raising the price of torture but we are not raising the price to infinity. If the President or the head of the CIA thinks that torture is required to stop the ticking time bomb then they ought to approve it knowing full well that they face possible prosecution. Only if the price of torture is very high can we expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.
Well, had you followed the links and read the earlier comments proceeding today's post (which as I noted was an extension of a discussion that had taken place earlier), you'd have realized that I cited a Navy SEAL as having told me about the successes he had waterboarding.
Here's another tonight, in the comments.
So the reason I didn't deal with Matt's argument on the level you would have preferred (which simply required finding an example of waterboarding having worked -- which I'd already done) is that it is not what interests me about the "torture" question. Instead, I'm concerned with the way we define torture, and how the abstractions within that definition create problems.
So if anyone is arguing 1+1=3 here it is the person who didn't bother to follow the debate all the way through.
This is a classic symptom of someone who sees the facts and tries to bend them to a pre-existing storyline instead of writing the story as the facts reveal themselves. See above. Physician, heal thyself.
Incidentally, not (re)including that particular rebuttal against Matt's point wasn't a gap in logic at all. It was presuming facts already in evidence in order to take the argument elsewhere.
Perhaps you should think about going back and rewording this post so it doesn't make you look simultaneously arrogant and confused.
Evidently, your comments doesn't accept hyperlinks.
So here is that SEAL talking about his successes with waterboarding:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19401/#116799
So I'm supposed to dig through comments on an old post on a different (but related) topic you've linked to, read a comment by a guy named "froggy" in which he claims to have waterboarded people and got good information from it. Then, I'm supposed to click through to his blog to find out that he claims to have military experience - a blind appeal to authority backed by nothing other than this guy's word. CIA report vs. dude with blogspot account? Still pretty weak, Jeff.
Brain-scanning lie-detection (soon to be completely accurate) changes the debate profoundly. If a detainee is caught lying, he goes on the waterboard. An irresistable one-two punch, yet innocents and the compliant would remain completely unscathed. If they are telling the truth, we know it. No reason to coerce. Click on my link to see my post on this subject.