January 21, 2002
Jim Henley continues the Abdallah Higazy conversation over at Unqualified Offerings, thankfully refusing to follow my descent into doggerel and instead focusing on the case as a cautionary tale about the potential use of torture in interrogation. No new details seem to be forthcoming about the case, so our questions regarding the path and specifics of the investigation remain unanswered.
I have to admit I'm a bit unclear about Henley's argument. His leading point seems to be that the track record of government terrorist investigations simply doesn’t warrant entrusting the authorities with that sort of power, with the Higazy case being the current example (though it appears that coercive interrogative methods approaching torture were used to elicit some sort of confession).
I’m not really sure how he moves from that point to the doomsday scenario he describes, however. His argument seems to be that if we take the step of allowing torture in order to prevent potential attacks, there will still be situations (imagine a worst-case Higazy scenario) where this leads us to make wrong choices, hypothesizing a case where a torture-induced false confession leads agents down a blind alley with disastrous consequences. But even if this were the case, it’s not as if investigation is the zero-sum game he describes, where we have to throw all of our resources at one location. Some of his statements indicate that he has a moral position against using torture, while others indicate that his take is a more practical one.
I suppose that Henley’s position on torture might be similar to my recent shift on the death penalty. While I have no true moral stance against the death penalty, a history of errors and bias have led to a nagging feeling that for the vast majority of cases the system simply can’t be trusted with this ultimate power. That being said, there are occasional extreme cases where the case is clear and the death penalty is justified.
Anyway, I suppose that Henley is busy now with his shiny new InstaPundit and Justin Raimondo links. And more power to him.
I have to admit I'm a bit unclear about Henley's argument. His leading point seems to be that the track record of government terrorist investigations simply doesn’t warrant entrusting the authorities with that sort of power, with the Higazy case being the current example (though it appears that coercive interrogative methods approaching torture were used to elicit some sort of confession).
I’m not really sure how he moves from that point to the doomsday scenario he describes, however. His argument seems to be that if we take the step of allowing torture in order to prevent potential attacks, there will still be situations (imagine a worst-case Higazy scenario) where this leads us to make wrong choices, hypothesizing a case where a torture-induced false confession leads agents down a blind alley with disastrous consequences. But even if this were the case, it’s not as if investigation is the zero-sum game he describes, where we have to throw all of our resources at one location. Some of his statements indicate that he has a moral position against using torture, while others indicate that his take is a more practical one.
I suppose that Henley’s position on torture might be similar to my recent shift on the death penalty. While I have no true moral stance against the death penalty, a history of errors and bias have led to a nagging feeling that for the vast majority of cases the system simply can’t be trusted with this ultimate power. That being said, there are occasional extreme cases where the case is clear and the death penalty is justified.
Anyway, I suppose that Henley is busy now with his shiny new InstaPundit and Justin Raimondo links. And more power to him.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]