http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJAIERgWhZQ&feature=related

What do you say about it “Have I take a right decision ?”

If we lived in a world of perfect torturers, I think we _might_ occasionally torture. I say “might” because:

First, we all recognize that people will say anything under torture, so you can’t just shout “Confess!”, nor should you ask leading questions, but rather should limit yourself to, for instance, self-confirming information, or information where it’s unlikely they could give a specific answer unless they knew and where the information will only support further investigation, or something like that.

Second, you have to take the interests of the tortured party into account; once you weigh that against (a) the probability of getting useful information and (b) the usefulness of the information, you might not want to do the torture anymore.

Third, for good or bad reasons, torture gives us bad PR abroad if it gets discovered, and that may be worth taking into account.

So these are the main reasons why I say that in a world of perfect torturers, we _might_ want to occasionally torture.

So the main reasons to pull back from that are that we don’t live in a world of perfect torturers:

(1) We’re afraid that people will ask leading questions, questions that don’t generate self-confirming information, etc., so the information gained from torture will be incorrect.

(2) We’re afraid that the torturers, because of wishful thinking and similar cognitive biases, will overestimate the probability that they’ll get information and will overestimate the value of the information.

(3) We’re afraid that the political benefits of torture include merely conveying the image of toughness, apart from any actual benefit.

(4) We’re afraid that the torturers will underestimate the value of non-torture to the tortured person, particularly when the tortured person belongs to an enemy group or a racial or ethnic minority, is a criminal, etc.

(5) We’re afraid that the government will use torture not for the good reasons of protecting other people’s rights but for the bad reasons of oppressing its own citizens, and that the availability of torture will make a turn for the worse all the easier (this is where the concerns you alluded to from Hayek and others come in primarily).

And I’m sure I could list other reasons. But the bottom line, for me, is not that torture is bad in itself (which makes me differ from many people who comment on torture), but that it’s too likely to be misused.

But having said all that, it’s not clear that these reasons lead inexorably to a blanket prohibition against torture, even if we were placed in a ticking time-bomb situation. Hayekian and similar concerns against government power usually work well as arguments to be skeptical, not so well as arguments to avoid entirely. (This tends to be true of Hayekian arguments generally.) And while Hayek is good at identifying costs of government power, he never gives a satisfactory framework for weighing those (newly recognized as large) costs against possible benefits.

Dershowitz’s answer is to make the process transparent: Given that we know that torture will happen (basically it’s unrealistic to think that governments will avoid torture in a ticking time-bomb scenario), we should make it as open as possible, and require “torture warrants” like we require search warrants for property.

One argument against the Dershowitzian solution is that “regularizing” it will also normalize it in people’s minds; the magistrates who issue the warrants may be rubber-stamps, and once there’s a warrant, people may no longer see it as objectionable.

Another argument is to recognize that people will do it anyway — and to recognize that they’ll be right to do it in some circumstances — but still insist on a bright-line rule against it. Because, on this view, a bright line isn’t meant to be followed in all circumstances, but it’s meant to mark conduct as illegal so the person who does it is ready to take responsibility afterwards if necessary, and thus won’t do it unless, in his judgment, the situation is serious enough that he’s ready to accept the consequences. (This is like the difference between a “fine for speeding in all cases” rule and a “fine for unreasonable speeding” rule. Under both rules, it’s O.K. to speed if it’s really necessary, but the second rule requires the cop to judge reasonableness, while the first rule allows you to judge reasonableness based on whether you’re willing to pay the fine.)

For instance, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional authorization, but then he was ready to take responsibility and had Congress ratify it as soon as he could. (I might be getting some facts wrong, but that’s approximately right.)

Anyway, those are a couple of ways of dealing with it. I don’t know the right answer, but I just like to get the framework right.

“I can see that torture can be “useful” in getting facts from someone through force, facts such as a date that someone was shot, etcetera. But not only does torture deny the other any confirmation, the torture is imposed with the intention of deriving specific types of information. So even the “facts” discovered may be uncovered under incorrect pretenses, the context may be completely skewed, leaving the confessor in a position where they have given truths amidst falsity. This isn’t communication.”

If I understand you correctly, given the context of our conversation, the following would be an example of what you mean.

One could in fact find a body from information gathered from torture. This is self-confirming in Sasha’s sense. But the fact itself may be used to confirm a theory that is incorrect. So if an interrogator says, “where is the body that such and such a person murdered?” he may be able to derive the location of the body through torture, but he may see that information as confirming his false premises about the events.

This reminds me of something I was reading of Sir Karl Popper recently on his idea of falsifiability in science. Popper points out that certain theories can use any fact to confirm themselves. He gives the example of Marxism, which sees every fact as confirmation of the theory of class conflict and material historical development toward socialism. Once someone has accepted this paradigm, no information will change their conclusions about the nature of the world. The theory is self-confirming.

Are those who use torture willing to have their whole paradigm changed? Can they only see information that confirms their current beliefs? If so, they will only find confirmation through their investigations. You on the other hand, with Arnett, believe that we need to be profoundly open to the other, no matter how unreasonable they may seem to us, because a real understanding of the other might introduce something into our own understanding which will help us transcend our current understandings and theories.

This also reminds me of Ron Paul’s admonition that we ought to understand the reasons for terrorism, which does not imply that terrorism is in any sense acceptable, or that terrorists aren’t individually responsible for their atrocious acts, but merely that we have something to learn from understanding the other that could help us reduce the causes of violent conflict and terrorism.

It seems clear to me that torture has a tendency in the long run to obscure the truth, even if in the short term it might give some valuable information.

In “Why the Worst Get on Top” Hayek explains that when individuals are given power to do things that are against conventional values, specifically values that respect the individual, the people who fill positions capable of exercise such powers tend to be unscrupulous and unethical as those unwilling to do the dirty work step out and those who are willing replace them.

Those doing the interrogation most likely have incentives to get information that provides results. But political incentives and personal interests of those in power don’t necessarily correspond to actually discovering the truth or protecting citizens. Appearing “tough” and appearing as if something is being done may bring in the votes or get funding.

I am also thinking of the story relayed by Paul Craig Roberts in his Tyranny of Good Intentions of Nikolai Bukharin who was put through a kangaroo court by Stalin to get him out of the way. Politicians given power will use it to further their ends.

These are definitely long run tendencies. Lack of Habeas Corpus and torture clearly lead to tyranny. But it’s also clear to me that innocent people will be put at risk of mistreatment even in the short term if those in charge of gaining information for national defense aren’t checked by established liberal legal principles.

I’m interested in having some dialogue about this. Also, what do you think of these ideas and Dershowitz’ arguments?