Republican Candidates Debate Torture

For those who might have missed it, there was discussion of the issue of torture at the recent debate in South Carolina among the Republican candidates for President.  I’ll paste the relevant portion of the transcript below the fold:

MR. HUME: Welcome back to the Koger Center for the Arts on the campus of the University of South Carolina.

The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.

First question to you, Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?

SEN. MCCAIN: If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility.

The use of torture — we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people.

When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went — underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.

It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they’re going to tell you what they think you want to know.

It’s about us as a nation. We have procedures for interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

MR. HUME: Mayor Giuliani, the former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the current head of the CIA have both said that the most valuable intelligence tool they have had has been the information gained from what are called enhanced interrogation techniques to include, presumably, water-boarding.

What is your view whether such techniques should be applied in a scenario like the one I described?

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there’s 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 could think of. It shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of —

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: — and I would — and I would — well, I’d say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I’ve seen what — (interrupted by applause) — I’ve seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don’t want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

MR. HUME: Governor Romney, I’d like to draw you out on this.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, first of all, let’s make sure that we understand that the key in electing the next president is to find somebody who will make sure that that scenario doesn’t ever happen, and the key to that is prevention.

We’ve all spent a lot of time talking about what happens after the bomb goes off. The real question is, how do you prevent the bomb from going off? And that’s what I spent my time doing as a governor over the last four years, and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. And that means intelligence and counterterrorism.

Now we’re going to — you said the person’s going to be in Guantanamo. I’m glad they’re at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there.

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists — (applause) — and there’s no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States — not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States — has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used — not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

MR. HUME: Governor Thompson, let me enrich the scenario just a little bit. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion here that we now also have additional intelligence that indicates with high certainty that the attackers were trained in a West African country hostile to the United States, in camps openly run by the terrorist organization that sent them. What kind of response would you agree to for that?

MR. THOMPSON: I would do the first thing that President Ronald Reagan would say: Trust but verify.

Verify that that information is correct. And I would go in with all the power necessary. Colin Powell said, and I quote him, he says, “If in fact you’re going to war, have a reason to go to war. Make sure you go with all the force necessary in order to do so, and have an exit strategy.”

If there’s a country in Africa that is not friendly to America, that is anti-America and is promoting terrorism, and those terrorists are going to attack, it’s — be incumbent on all of us to make sure that we do what is right. The president of the United States has got to lead that effort, and if it’s necessary, it’s got to take those camps out as deliberately and as methodically as possible, as long as that information is credible and can be checked and make sure that it is accurate.

MR. HUME: Senator Brownback, if the decision were up to you, would you do that? And if so, would you decide to go to the United Nations, for example, first to seek some kind of international authorization to do it or would you just move in the way that Governor Thompson described?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I would not go to the United Nations in the situation you’ve described. You’ve described a situation where American lives have been lost and we think more are pending to lose. And I think your real question you have to have here as the chief executive, as the leader of the country, what are you measuring here? Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you’re going to be perceived in the world? And my standard is U.S. lives, and I’m going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.

I will do it. I’ll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, “Well, it shouldn’t quite have been done this way or that way,” that’s the way it is. But the standard must be protection of U.S. lives. That’s the job of president of the United States, and I would take it seriously, and I would do it.

MR. HUME: How would you respond, Congressman Hunter?

REP. HUNTER: Yeah, let me just say this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of Defense. (Laughter.) I would call him up or call him in. I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let’s act on it. Let’s execute with Special Operations or whoever else is necessary, and I will take full responsibility. Get the information.

MR. HUME: I’m going to come to the others in a moment, but I want to circle back to you, Senator McCain. You’ve heard reference here from me and others of the — what the administration calls the enhanced interrogation techniques. I may have misunderstood you, but it sounded to me as if you regard those techniques, or from what you know about them, as torture. Do you?

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes, and the interesting thing about that aspect is that during the debate, when we had the detainee treatment act, there was a sharp division between those who had served in the military and those who hadn’t. Virtually every senior officer, retired or active- duty, starting with Colin Powell, General Vessey and everyone else, agreed with my position that we should not torture people.

One of the reasons is, is because if we do it, what happens to our military people when they’re captured? And also, they realize there’s more to war than the battlefield.

So yes, literally every retired military person and active duty military person who has actually been in battle and served for extended times in the military — (bell rings) — supported my position, and I’m glad of it.

MR. HUME: All right, thank you, Senator. (Applause.)

Posted by Keith DeRose in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/446774/18615106

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republican Candidates Debate Torture:

» A Time To Speak from theopraxis
If you want to read something truly, deeply, and profoundly disturbing, take a look at these excerpts from the recent debate at the University of South Carolina among the Republican presidential candidates for 2008, courtesy Keith DeRose at Generous Or… [Read More]

Tracked on May 22, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Comments

I’m particularly dismayed to hear Sen. Brownback, a self-professed Christian (and a fairly recent convert to Catholicism) state, “my standard is U.S. lives, and I’m going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.” I would hope that a Christian, perhaps especially a Catholic who belongs to a self-consciously transnational Church, would consider non-American lives to be of concern, too.

Posted by: Nathan Suhr-Sytsma | May 20, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Brownback is a convert to the Catholic church–a conversion that seems, well, “strategic” at best. He seems to belong to the monstrosity of “the American Catholic Church” sketched so presciently by Walker Percy in _Love in the Ruins_: the church of Lockean property rights above all.

Posted by: James K.A. Smith | May 20, 2007 at 09:57 PM

Before we deplore Senator Brownback’s comments, maybe we should put them back into context. Directly preceding the quote that upset Nathan, Brit Hume asked Brownback

if the decision were up to you, would you do that [assault terrorist training camps located in African country after the group running those camps attacked the U.S.]? And if so, would you decide to go to the United Nations, for example, first to seek some kind of international authorization to do it or would you just move in the way that Governor Thompson described?

Brownback isn’t saying that non-American lives aren’t to be considered; he’s saying that he wouldn’t feel U.N. authorization is required in the scenario described. Legally, he’s arguably correct; the UN charter does not require resolutions before a member nation defends itself against an attack.

He’s not talking about value of American lives versus other lives; he’s talking about the value of American lives versus international opinion.

So let’s understand the man before we accuse him of being a faux Catholic. And, if I’m remembering Love In the Ruins correctly, Percy is even-handed in his satire. All aspects of American culture get lampooned, not just those some consider “right-wing”.

Posted by: Dale | May 21, 2007 at 02:30 PM

I’m not qualified to make any calls about what kind of Catholic anyone is being, but I do disagree with Dale’s understanding of what Sen. Brownback said. Brownback says, “what are you measuring here?” — which would seem to mean here, “what considerations should be taken into account?” As if in case there was any doubt about that reading, he elaborates, rephrasing his own question thus: “Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you’re going to be perceived in the world?” Well, so this is now about his “primary concern,” and his answer: “And my standard is U.S. lives.” Well, it sounds like his “standard” concerns “U.S. lives,” but given the question he set up for himself to answer, maybe that just means that U.S. lives are his *primary* concern. So, please clear this up for us, Senator. Are U.S. lives your standard, or is that only your “primary concern”? Well, it seems he does clear it up in favor of the former answer, when he continues: “…and I’m going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.” Period. I could be misreading him, but that sounds like he’s going to do whatever it is that does the best by U.S. lives. That’s his standard. And if that’s his standard, it wouldn’t seem to leave room for other considerations.

But, at any rate, he’s certainly *not* just speaking about whether he’ll go to the UN. That may be what Hume asked him, but these guys seldom answer quite the question they were asked. (Political debating 101: Just answer a question you want to answer, trying to make it close enough to the question you were asked that maybe your switcheroo won’t be noticed.) By the time he makes his key statements, Brownback has made it clear that he’s talking about what concerns and considerations will guide his decisions in the relevant situation.

Posted by: Keith DeRose | May 21, 2007 at 05:31 PM

Well, I was being a little unfair to Sen. Brownback: He does first answer Hume’s question about whether he’d go through the UN — however briefly — before going on to answer the question he wants to answer. Still, by the time he makes his key statements, the question he’s addressing is the one he set for himself, which concerns what his “standard” will be.

Posted by: Keith DeRose | May 21, 2007 at 05:34 PM

I could be misreading him, but that sounds like he’s going to do whatever it is that does the best by U.S. lives. That’s his standard. And if that’s his standard, it wouldn’t seem to leave room for other considerations.

I’d suggest that you are misreading him, Keith. He sets up an admittedly false dichotomy (another typical ploy of politicians): U.S. lives or international opinion. He chooses U.S. lives. Nowhere does he suggest that American lives are more valuable than others–that’s something that you infer, and then condemn him for it.

You’re interpreting his comments in the most negative way possible. That might be useful for painting Brownback as a racist or a fascist, but how does that lead to any meaningful dialogue?

I’d suggest that if you give Brownback the benefit of the doubt, he’s saying that he will value U.S. lives over international opinion. That sounds reasonable to the voter and makes for a good soundbite, especially when “international opinion” is just as susceptible to manipulation by cynical politicians as the U.S. government (anyone remember when Sudan was chair of the UN Human Rights Commission?).

Instead of assuming that Brownback is an amoral monster, why not assume that, even if he’s wrong, he’s attempting to articulate a morally defensible position. The issue becomes the danger of discounting the value of international opinion; that, contrary to Brownback’s dismissive attitude, such opinion may actually provide information that helps to protect both American lives as well as others.

That’s a real issue for debate. Brownback doesn’t have to be evil–just wrong.

Posted by: Dale | May 26, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Admittedly, with respect to this issue, it’s tough to interpret remarks made within the context of the speaker’s self-created false dichotomy. I was and am inclined to understand his remark, “And my standard is U.S. lives, and I’m going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period,” as expressing the standard he intends to use. I understand the false dichotomy as providing cover for that position: to make your standard sound attractive, you contrast it with a standard nobody would back, rather than with the most attractive competitor you can think of.

For me, it’s like this: If a candidate is trying to defend, say, a tax rate of only 5% for millionaires, he might do so by contrasting his proposal with an unreasonable alternative: “And I think your real question you have to have here as the chief executive, as the leader of the country, is what will this tax rate on millionaires be? Will it be 5%, or 105%? And my answer is 5%, and I’m going to do everything within my power to make it 5%, period.” I would not be inclined to interpret the statement as merely saying that of those two options (5% or 105%), he prefers the former. I’d interpret it as the candidate really proposing a 5% rate, but trying to defend it by contrasting it with an unreasonable alternative that he made up for the purpose of such a contrast.

Posted by: Keith | May 27, 2007 at 02:25 AM

Wow! Sen. Brownback seems to be the Absolute Master of False Dichotomies! See this blog post, which concerns his use of what seems to be his favorite mode of arguing on a completely different topic: evolution:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-sam-brownback-doesnt-believe-in.html

Posted by: Keith | May 31, 2007 at 08:41 PM