Dean's World

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

But times are more dangerous today, naturally...

No, we didn't waterboard terrorists, spies, and saboteurs back in the 1940s. We summarily executed them.

A military general is not a terrorist; the two situations are not remotely comparable, and laws and customs have reflected that for a long time.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, did not spill the beans on terrorist operations intended to murder American civilians after a nice steak dinner and a rousing battle of pawns, rooks, and bishops -- and nor was he executed. He was made very uncomfortable for about 150 seconds, with no lasting damage, and American lives were saved.

So the question the terrorist coddlers have to answer is this: are your family's lives worth a couple minutes of discomfort for a mass murderer? Because mine are, and I'll be damned if they'll be sacrificed for someone's high-minded notions of what constitutes fair play.

Let's acknowledge that waterboarding can cause death. Yes, it has to be done poorly, but it _can_ happen. Let us also acknowledge that while being waterboarded, I don't know if I'm in the hands of someone skilled (who thus won't kill me), and someone unskilled (who might kill me). How long would it take for me to confess that I... well, anything?

Not very long. I promise: grab me at random and start torturing me, I'll confess to anything as long as you make it stop. Does that create actionable information on which my tortures can base future plans? Nope. That's why torture is inadmissible in a court.

That's just one of the reasons we don't torture anyone. Even putting aside petty concerns of right and wrong, torture has too high a rate of false-positive. We end up sending our boys and girls around the world chasing the ravings of a man we've driven mad.

Or maybe we grabbed the wrong guy. Perhaps we took someone who was innocent of anything, and are now beating coercing a confession out of someone who knows nothing. We're wasting precious time and energy tracking down bad information. We've just handed an important advantage to the terrorists.

Perhaps we have other reasons for torturing people. Maybe we like the reputation we have gained for being a nation that treats our prisoners poorly. But there are other ways of getting information. The fact that torture was our first, last, and- so far-- only though is frightening. The fact that anyone could apologize for it more frightening still.

Hoepfully we're not just torturing our audience at this point.

Andrew notes, correctly, that torture can be used to elicit false confessions. The Soviets were of course masters of this technique, with those subjected so pliable they would repeat the false confession in open court at show trials. In the U.S., courts observe strict guidelines regarding how police interrogate and whether such confessions are admissible, because a coerced confession is likely to be false. Yes, you can make someone say whatever you want with coercion.

But the fight against terrorism isn't a court of law, and the intent in interrogation of a terrorist generally isn't a court-admissible confession, or to make someone say whatever you want. The goal, rather, is actionable, verifiable intelligence that can save lives. And at that, coercive techniques excel (yes, including torture, although we do not torture and I don't think we should).

As for waterboarding's risks, yes, it is somewhat dangerous. We accept certain levels of risk in order to offset other risks. For instance, tens of thousands of people die from prescription drugs and surgery. Why do we continue to take drugs and undergo surgery? Because overall, those things save lives.

And Andrew's point about picking up the wrong guy, or one suspected only of trivial knowledge, is a serious one. Coercive techniques cannot be used lightly, and every case should be rigorously examined to determine whether there is a serious threat of people dying without the information being sought. If overly aggressive interrogators do subject someone innocent to a couple minutes of serious discomfort on false intel, there should be consequences, and recompense.

But taking coercive techniques off the table entirely just doesn't make sense. Because maybe we have the right guy.

Maybe it's September 10th, 2001, and you have an uncooperative suspect whom, according to reliable intel, knows the names of some radical Islamists planning one-way flights the next day.

Perhaps some people can say "Too bad for those 3000 people and their families, I don't think anyone should be subjected to a couple minutes of discomfort to save a few thousand lives." I can't.

I think Asimov put it best: Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

...comes from Martin Shoemaker:

Jeffrey, you answer me this: I'll volunteer to be waterboarded if you'll volunteer to be raped. Since you think both are torture, if I can take it, you can take it.