RCP Blog: Krauthammer vs VDH

[BCPVP]

Idea shamelessly stolen from RCP Blog...
An interesting contrast between two big name righties. I won't post the actual articles since they're pretty long.

Krauthammer vs VDH

Figured we needed a thread that wasn't schadenfreude or debating the legitimacy of governments. Any opinions on the two articles?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

From today's Boston Globe. Column by libertarian columnist Cathy Young.

Critique of Krauthammer

FYI - the article is free today and tomorrow. After that, it's archived and you need to register (and pay, if I'm not mistaken)

[BCPVP]

Interesting article, Kurn. FWIW, I find myself agreeing with VDH (partially because the man's a friggin' treasure trove regarding war-related stuff).

BTW, Bugmenot.com might be able to get around the archive/register thing.

[sam h]

These are both interesting articles. There are three points that I think are most important and deserve the most debate and scrutiny.

1) VSB says that "Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results." What is the evidence here? This is one of the biggest problems with this whole debate. A lot of people claim that torture is actually counterproductive, that people can and will just say whatever is necessary to make it stop. I don't think this is a question that should be dismissed lightly.

2) Where do you draw the line with the "nuclear bomb about to go off in two hours and a terrorist has info" scenario that Krautheimer talks about? If I said that a guy quite possibly has information about future attacks that may or not be in the works that could kill millions, that could probably describe any suspected terrorist. And you could use the same rationale for torturing them.

3) Lawful versus unlawful combatants. I think Krautheimer is a bit naive here when he asserts a clear line and when he ascribes "unlawful" wartime activity to a set of attitudes rather than understanding it as a product of technological progress and assymetrical warfare. They didn't lay off civilians in WWI and the Napoleonic wars because they were gentlemen. They didn't kill civilians because they didn't have airpower and because armies were slow enough to allow most people to get out of the way beforehand. Almost all major wars since WWI have involved the mass murder of civilians, because those conditions no longer hold. So I don't think the terrorists willingness to make civilians targets is at all out of step with the times or that it is a good argument for seeing terrorists as fundamentally different than enemy combatants.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
1) VSB says that "Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results." What is the evidence here? This is one of the biggest problems with this whole debate. A lot of people claim that torture is actually counterproductive, that people can and will just say whatever is necessary to make it stop. I don't think this is a question that should be dismissed lightly.

[/ QUOTE ]
VDH's() article was pretty short (probably so it can be consumed by the masses before their brains turn off). But think about it. It must have brought results, else it would be a waste of time. While I'm sure there are many cases where the victim just says whatever will stop the torture, they have to understand that that info is going to be checked and if found wrong would cost them more than the truth.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
VDH's() article was pretty short (probably so it can be consumed by the masses before their brains turn off). But think about it. It must have brought results, else it would be a waste of time. While I'm sure there are many cases where the victim just says whatever will stop the torture, they have to understand that that info is going to be checked and if found wrong would cost them more than the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure. It seems like a whole lot of information is really not going to be verifiable. A guy might say that yeah, we scoped out XXXX site for a possible attack and that I did it with my friends Khalid and Muhammed who are now in Afghanistan. How do you check that?

All I know is that a lot of experts have said that torture is not actually very effective, especially when you can't verify the truth about the information. Of course, its very hard to present evidence that torture is effective, and it might be impossible to do so without compromising some security issues. However, this is still an important question and one that seems very much up in the air to me. I can't fathom just giving this administration the benefit of the doubt on this question. They are committed to the policy and will of course say it is effective.

[BCPVP]

What I meant by "it must have brought results" was that if torture for this purpose wasn't generally helpful, than it is a waste of time and would probably be discarded.

But like I said, I'm more inclined to side with VDH than Krauthammer.