Mike the Mad Biologist offers admiration for Eric Holder resisting giving in on the “ticking time bomb justifies torture” scenario.
The exchange was helpful in learning about both the senator and the nominee. [Republican Senator] Cornyn wanted Holder to admit that he’d torture a terrorist in a “ticking-time-bomb scenario,” in order to “save perhaps tens of thousands of lives.” Holder responded sensibly, noting that we have interrogation methods that aren’t torture, and that torture wouldn’t produce reliable intelligence anyway.
Cornyn was undeterred, asking again about what Holder would do if “the only thing standing between you and deaths of tens of thousands of Americans” was torture. Holder saw no reason to play along, responding, “Again, I think your hypothetical assumes a premise that I’m not willing to concede.”
Cornyn, unaware of how absurd he appeared, insisted that Holder “assume” that the only way to get necessary information was to torture a suspect. The A.G. nominee replied, “I don’t think I can do that.”
Nor should he. Cornyn’s Jack Bauer fantasy has no place in a confirmation hearing for the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer. As Ali Frick explained, “Intelligence officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of a ticking time bomb scenario. Jack Cloonan, who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members of al Qaeda, said that he has ‘been hard pressed to find a situation where anybody’ can say ‘that they’ve ever encountered the ticking bomb scenario’ when interrogating terrorists. He said it is a ‘red herring’ and ‘[i]n the real world it doesn’t happen.'”
I’ll take it from a different tack. The prohibition against torture should not rely on getting a free pass in advance. If we say, “hey, here is an extreme case, would torture be acceptable here,” we simply move the bar in such a way as to make someone think torture is okay even in a less extreme case. So if it’s okay to save 10,000, then maybe it’s okay to save 100, or 10, or 1, or maybe just to avoid the risk of someone being seriously hurt. If we concede it’s okay sometimes, then, like the old joke, “we already know what you are, now we’re just negotiating the price.”
Which isn’t to say that, in the ticking time bomb scenario (positing its reality), someone wouldn’t feel like they were morally justified in using torture. But that doesn’t get a free pass. I might feel I’m morally justified in stealing a loaf of bread to feed my starving family, and maybe, just maybe, a judge might agree with that — but it should still go before a judge to make that determination. I shouldn’t get a free pass in advance on theft just because my family is hungry. If nothing else, it would make me more likely to steal in less extreme cases.
Or take another perspective on this question. If it’s okay, with a ticking time bomb, to torture someone to save 10,000 lives, would it be okay to torture their four-year-old son in front of them in order to get that same information? Or their 80-year-old mother? What about for 100,000 lives? Or 1,000,000? Is it okay to torture someone, not “just” with waterboarding, but with rape and mutilation? Is it okay to threaten to kill 100 people to get someone to pass along intel that will save 1,000? Is it okay to follow through on that threat in order to convince them when you threaten another 100? Can we come up with a case extreme enough to justify that sort of horrific action? And, if so, does that then mean it’s okay, and we should allow it by law?
If you have to do wrong in order to avoid a greater wrong, then you need to man up and make that choice — and live with the legal and social consequences. If you’re not willing to do that, then maybe it wasn’t all that necessary after all.