What We Have Here Is A Failure To...Well, Just A Failure

Osama bin Laden-hunter Michael Scheuer and conservative opinion writer Charles Krauthammer both think that torture (specifically waterboarding) is A-OK, but they use different arguments to reach their respective conclusions:

Scheuer makes the "If Lex Luther's hand was about to press the button on his death ray, surely Superman would use his heat vision to lop the guy's hand off!" argument:

In surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: 'Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God's permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities." Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail. Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing. Reporting the interrogation's results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: "What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?"

Americans should keep this worst-case scenario in mind as they watch the tragicomic spectacle taking place in the wake of the publication of the Justice Department's interrogation memos. It will help them recognize this episode of political theater as another major step in the bipartisan dismantling of America's defenses based on the requirements of presidential ideology. George W. Bush's democracy-spreading philosophy yielded the invasion of Iraq and set the United States at war with much of the Muslim world. Bush's worldview thereby produced an enemy that quickly outpaced the limited but proven threat-containing capacities of the major U.S. counterterrorism programs -- rendition, interrogation and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks.

Krauthammer makes the, "Just like manslaughter and flagrant fouls, there's all sorts of variations of torture so let's not blow this out of proportion" argument:

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

[snip]

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the "torture memos" noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist "chatter" had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Well.

First, let's address Scheuer. The idea that torture is cool as long as it's someone like bin Laden is basically a variation of "If you could go back in time would you kill Hitler as a baby?" That question itself is stupid; not because it involves Hitler but it refers to something highly implausible (time travel). You might as well ask, "If you could become invisible, would you rob a bank?" To infer that "because it's bin Laden" opens up the door to a multitude of "you gotta look at the person" rationales. Are we now saying that as long as the person does something evil we should torture them? Is there a threshold? What is it?

Next, there's Krauthammer. His two exceptions boil down to a scene from "24" and the most dramatic moments from "007" movies. Because as long as we're pretty sure the alternative is Armageddon or John McCain says it's fine, we're justified.

What neither of these guys address it the question that's been mentioned in this space before: What makes you think that a person who's willing to kill himself for their cause will give in to torture? If we're talking about terrorists who fly planes into buildings, does Scheuer and Krauthammer really think these guys haven't prepared themselves to the various "methods" of extracting information?

And more to the point: what makes them so sure that we'll get relevant information? All we have to date are claims from officials from the previous White House; well, they also said Saddam Hussein had WMDs so forgive me if I'm skeptical.

The more people try to justify this mess, the more O'Donnell sounds like a genius for saying, "They only approve of it because they know it would work on them."

UPDATE: Glad to see that I'm not alone.