Torture Straw Man

The public debate about torture often involves a question similar to the following: "If an acknowledged terrorist knows about impending horrifying attack on our people, would you torture that man or not?" That is known as the "ticking bomb" question. Many presidential candidates were asked this question, most answered affirmatively. Also, if you listen to "conservative" media, this question is often offered as a proof that we should allow our intelligence organizations more leeway during interrogations.

But in fact that is nothing but a straw man question.

Remember the Straw Man arguing technique (or fallacy, depending on whether we are using it, or it is used on us)? It relies on construing a "straw man" - a false position close enough to the position of the opponent, but false enough to be knocked down easily, taking the opponent with it. For example, someone argues: "I do not think the new fighter jet is worth the money". The opponent replies: "You want to leave us defenseless in the face of enemy!" and gets the fighter funded.

The "ticking bomb" question is exactly that, a straw man question. If we know that a person is a real terrorist, with blood on his hands, knowing about another attack, then what the heck! Hang him upside down and flay him alive for all I care. But this is never the case. In reality, our troops round up ten potential suspects on the streets of Fallujah, out of which, as our petty informant tells us, one may know a little abut something or other. Now the question is: are we going to torture these ten, most likely innocent, people to find out who knows what? What about just waterboarding them? Using "advanced interrogation techniques"? Keeping in solitary confinement for years? Without charge, without access to defense? What if it is only two people, does it make it easier? What if it is a hundred, or a thousand?

And so, the real question to ask is: "Are you willing to sacrifice innocent people to protect us from a future attack?" And the debate on the interrogation techniques should include this question rather than the faulty "ticking bomb" one.

For many people the answer to these two questions will be the same, for others it will change. Whichever it is for you, don't let a reasoning fallacy mask the true nature of the issue.