Hanlon’s razor asks an interesting question. The murderer of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas last week fits the profile of a domestic terrorist, and claims that more strikes will take place over the summer. He refuses to divulge details.
Would the same people that support(ed) harsh interrogations in Guantanamo support waterboarding Scott Roeder until he talks?
Would you?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Good question.
As long as there is credible evidence to suggest that Roeder has any knowledge of planned attacks, I’d say shackled, hood, and a bucket.
But I think we all know that Roeder is not exactly all there mentally, so the possibility of such credible evidence is remote.
The murder of Tiller was, iirc, the SECOND such murder of an abortionist in the history of the US, the first occurring some 11 years ago, I believe. It is not quite in the same class of terrorism as the 911 conspirators, who are connected to the London subway bombing, the attack in Spain, the shoe-bomber, etc, etc, etc.
Nonetheless, if there were credible evidence that he knew of more such murders being planned, I would not be opposed to harsh interrogation techniques.
Enkidu, I think it’s the fourth in America (Gunn, Britton, Slepian are the others)
I’ve been thinking about how I would answer the “Would you?” question — and I think I would not advocate torture or “harsh interrogations.” The role of the criminal justice system should be to provide adequate deterrence through humane punishment to preclude such events – not to act as an off-the-record means of gathering intelligence after the fact.
No doubt its a thin and shaky line as to what’s justified and when, but I believe I fall on the side with those who believe that a justice system willing to compromise its morals lacks moral credibility. Whatever the case, an interesting discussion point.
Rod: I have plenty of respect for that position, but we’re talking about a common moral dilemma here. If you can save a life by the temporal discomfort of another, are you morally obligated to do so?
It is not be the role of the criminal justice system, but it’s certainly the role of law enforcement to use legal means for the prevention of crime.
Scary: I think its a question of certainty. Certainty that a suspect has any information to share and the certainty that such information would be actionable. That is to say, the decision to employ torture depends upon uncertain assertions about what a suspect may know; this is compounded by the fact that get actionable information in timely fashion would commonly require the use of torture on suspects – not convicted criminals.
I continue to believe that the possibility of doing good is not worth the certainty of compromising a nation’s moral base & credibility.
Whoa, torture? Who called waterboarding torture? I called it temporal discomfort, which is some pretty serious sugar-coating, but you’re implying that waterboarding is in the same league as, say, digital amputation.
There should be a line that is never crossed, no matter how critical it is to get the information out. There should be another class of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that require a steep burden of proof and multiple permissions before they are used. Maybe add complete transparency (for the use, not the information) to add another deterrent to their use.
It’s another discussion entirely to decide on the classification for each individual technique, waterboarding included.
I continue to believe that a distinct probability of doing good is worth the certainty of causing temporary, reasonable, and proportionate pain and suffering. Even typical interrogation techniques cause a degree of mentail pain and anguish.
Scary – I wanted to say thanks for making me question my preconceptions about “torture,” what constitutes it, when its justified, etc., and indicate that I’ll pick up this thread of discussion in a later post.