Sunday, May 24, 2009

Belief that Waterboarding is Not Torture Turns Out to be Falsifiable

Conservative radio host Mancow underwent waterboarding on Friday in an attempt to prove that the practice was not torture (video). Despite having previously argued that the practice does not amount to torture, Mancow changed his mind after just six seconds under the water (1) (2). Like others who have written about their personal experience with waterboarding (3) (4), after his ordeal the radio host emphatically declared that the technique was "[a]bsolutely torture. Absolutely."

While this demonstration may help some to settle the issue of whether waterboarding amounts to torture, it does little formally beyond defining torture by ostention-- which, as was noted earlier (5), can be problematic. The demonstration also fails to entail any particular policy conclusions beyond the use of this one tactic. Even if waterboarding is torture (it most certainly causes physical and psychological harm (6)), it and other methods of torture may still be determined to be effective tactics for obtaining intelligence. This contention, however, will require empirical support that is currently lacking (7) (8) .

Independent of any further entailments, Mancow's experience is notable in that it confirms that his previous belief was indeed falsifiable. That is, his adamantly held belief that waterboarding was not torture was susceptible to disconfirming evidence; when presented with this evidence, he rationally decided to amend his theory. It gives one hope to think that more political differences may be dissolved through an earnest investigation and a frank appraisal of the evidence.

(1) Pollyea, Ryan. "Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture." NBC Chicago, May 22, 2009.
(2) Byrne, John. "
Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture." The Raw Story, May 22, 2009.
(3) Hitchens, Christopher. "Believe Me, It’s Torture." Vanity Fair, August 2008.
(4) Lomax, Eric. "Waterboarding: the most horrific experience of my life." Times Online, March 4, 2008.
(5) "Torture Debate Relies upon Definition by Ostention." Analytic Politics, November 3, 2007.
(6) Ballantyne, Coco. "Does waterboarding have long-term physical effects?" Scientific American, May 1, 2009.
(7) Soufan, Ali. "My Tortured Decision." The New York Times, April 22, 2009.
(8) Applebaum, Anne. "The Torture Myth." The Washington Post, January 12, 2005.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Appeals to 'Fear' Neither a Uniquely Identifying Nor Disqualifying Property of a Policy Argument

After the 'dueling speeches' on national security given this week by President Obama and ex-Vice-President Cheney (1) (2), many, mostly left-leaning commentators accused Cheney and the Republicans of using fear as--or in place of-- an argument (3). Even the President himself cautioned against continuing "to make decisions within a climate of fear" (4) during his speech (5). However, such categorical denials disregard the legitimate policy considerations that are or may be motivated by fear-- an emotion brought about by the "anticipation or awareness of danger"(6).

The mere existence of a military, let alone one that is sustained by 1/5 of the federal budget (7), seems evidence enough that fear-motivated policies can be uncontroversially considered legitimate. While military policy may be motivated by fear for life and limb, other uncontroversial policies may be motivated by different types of fears. Policies motivated by health fears (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), educational fears (e.g., public schools and college grant programs), or environmental fears (e.g, the EPA and National Parks) are typically not subject to accusations of fear-mongering. The policy initiatives driven by these fears are intended to mitigate the harm--or danger-- posed to social and individual well-being were such programs not in place. In short, whether defined broadly or narrowly, fear seems to occupy a legitimate place in arguments relating to public policy (8).

(To avoid a straw man, it is important to note that many commentators refer to a more nefarious conception of fear in their arguments. Perhaps willing to acknowledge the legitimate use of fear within certain discourses, some have accused Cheney and others of using a primal, wild-eyed fear to pre-empt the prudent consideration of policy (9). Cheney's response that a degree of uncomfortable fear is warranted given the magnitude of the threat relies, in large part, on an empirical assertion about the nature of such threats. The resolution to this particular debate may depend on whether our varying psychological dispositions will regard such evidence as warranting a more hasty deliberation. Of course, if conclusive facts about the threat are not forthcoming--and this debate reduces to a mere conflict of dispositions-- an agreeable resolution will remain unlikely.)

Despite the legitimacy of many aspects of the recent criticism, it seems uncharitable to claim that the "Republican side" of the argument reduces to mere scare tactics designed to circumvent the syllogism-- what if these threats are as real as is claimed? Even if the particular arguments advanced by Republicans were to be found unsound, fear itself can certainly perform a legitimate role in political argument without entailing odious conclusions.

(1) "Compare and Contrast: Obama and Cheney's Divergent Views on National Security." May 21, 2009.
(2) "Obama v. Cheney." The Plank Blog, The New Republic, May 21, 2009.
(3) Herrington, Stephen. "To Detain or Not [to] Detain." The Huffington Post, May 22, 2009.
(4) Official transcript, "Remarks by the President on National Security." White House Office of the Press Secretary, May 21, 2009.
The President deserves credit here for dealing with the false dichotomy between protecting the nation's security and upholding individual rights without appealing to ridicule or the use of straw man arguments.
(6) Entry for "fear." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
(7) "Updated Summary Tables." Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010, May 2009. Compare table S-1 "Budget Totals" with table S-3 "Baseline Projection of Current Policy by Category."
(8) Indeed, this notion has long been a cornerstone of western political thought. Perhaps most famously articulated by Hobbes' contention that the dangerous realities of man's nature compel us towards political incorporation (Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. 1651. Chapters 13 and 18), the notion that governments are fundamentally tasked with the prevention of violent death and other harms is universally acknowledged by the central theorists of the western tradition. While this point about theories that seek to justify the legitimacy of government should not be interpreted too broadly-- especially when it comes to the very particular circumstances of torture and indefinite detentions-- it is instructive to note that fear motivates the core legitimacy of many western political theories.
(9) Eve. "Call this a CT if you think it is. But it's the only conclusion I can reach." DailyKos, May 21, 2009.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Argument that Torture Prosecutions would be ‘Backward Looking’ is Uninstructive

In the wake of the release of the so-called 'torture memos' (1), those opposing the prosecution of officials behind the interrogation program have repeatedly decried the 'backwards looking' nature of such prosecutions (2) (3). However, as individuals are only prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, it follows that it is a necessary condition of a prosecution that it be 'backward looking.' Quibbling about this requisite quality of a prosecution is (charitably) merely a place holder for an argument about the prudence of such prosecutions.

However, if such an argument is pursued, the advocates of “moving on” will have to show that alleged crimes ought to be only selectively investigated and prosecuted—a difficult task considering the heinous nature of these particular allegations.

Regardless of the course chosen, complaints that a prosecution is 'backward looking' are uninstructive as they

merely restate one of the concept’s necessary conditions.

(1) Mazzetti, Mark and Scott Shane. “Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.” The New York Times. April 16, 2009.

(2) “Statement by Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham.” April 22, 2009.

(3) Montopolli, Brian. “McCain: Don’t Investigate Torture Memos.” CBS News Political Hotsheet. April 26, 2009.

Creative Commons License
Analytic Politics is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.