At last night’s debate, Tim Russert asked a pointed question of the Democratic candidates:
“Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”
He asked about the infamous ticking bomb scenario. To their credit, the candidates refused to countenance torture. Obama was first up:
“America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations and I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.”
Next, Joe Biden responded very clearly that he would not do such a thing, as torture does not work. Then came Clinton, who basically melded together the answers of Obama and Biden:
“You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period. I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.”
Nobody tried to defend torture. In general, this is to the credit of the candidates, but there are still a few unresolved questions. For a start, if something is intrinsically evil, whether it works or not should not really be a consideration. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of our ingrained consequentialist culture. Also, both Obama and Clinton used some fuzzy language about “hypotheticals”, seeming to suggest that the issue was not quite as settled as they first suggested. And there is also the issue of comments made by Clinton a year ago, when she seemed to suggest that the ticking bomb scenario would be an exception to her stance against torture. If she has indeed changed her position, well and good, but it still leaves some lingering doubts about her full commitment to the dignity of human beings held as prisoners.
Still, contrast this with the rhetoric on the Republican side, where adolescent bravado seems to hold sway. Yes, leading candidates are on record supporting the Khmer Rouge-perfected waterboarding technique, and making infantile calls to “double Guantanamo” and hire Jack Bauer (a fictional character on a TV show). Here was Giuliani’s answer to a similar questionback in May (where the questioner specifically mentioned waterboarding):
“In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there is going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of. Shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In