My opinion is purely normative, but in my estimation, saving American lives was worth the marginal costs to Americans involved in these activities. I do not believe that the marginal costs are trivial. I have taken a few quotes from an officer who participated in torture during Argentina's dirty war reported by Andrew Grahm-Yool in "State of Fear," Eland, London & Hippocrene Books, New York. Argentina is not the United States. The torture was more severe and applied more generously to a larger range of people by less trained interrogators, but I believe there are enough parallels to make the quotes suggestive of marginal costs to those in service to the United States.
On motives, in which the quote suggests that interrogators lost human sympathies, perhaps due to cognitive dissonance.
Don't give me that nonsense about human rights. That is just a political slogan. We were the real defenders of rights. We fought for a way of life, for society without subversives...On torture,
...I never tortured. Torture is inflicting pain for personal pleasure. I dealt punishment to my enemy, under orders from my superiors. And if you want to know, we all get to the stage when it becomes a game; the subversive knows that. You are playing to get things out of him. Time is on your side, but you cannot give him time, because then he will gain on you as you begin to realise what you are doing. I am working to break him as quickly as possible. You feel sorry to cause pain, but you work quickly. You don't look a his face, even when you put the prods in the mouth; you keep their eyes covered. The secret is not to look at their eyes. The other secret is do not draw blood.On the interrogators,
The younger men seemed to be much, much harsher. They were given authority over the subversives, and they made it power over life and death.On the age of the interrogators,
[They were] very young. Conscription age boys who had signed on as regulars, young corporals...They had to be stopped from giving punishment, because they would have left the investigators with nobody to question...The young are all extremists--in their ideals, their violence, their moods. They don't know caution or care.On the cost to the interrogators,
Once, when I went to the military hospital, the doctor said that the army had employed 150 psychologists in 1978 and 1979 to treat young officers who had operated against the subversives. I don't know if it is true.David Rivkin and Lee Casey, who served in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush, and were U.S. delegates to the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, write of the care that interrogators took to protect the long term health of detainees ("The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture," Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2009).
But when you are told something like that, there is always a root of truth in it. The young officers had to be taken care of, because not all could be allowed to leave the service. Some had to be promoted.
The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation.I believe that the careful monitoring was of greater benefit to the interrogators than the detainees in reducing the psychological costs of interrogation.
Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."
Posts
In times of war, many atrocities are committed and none are so great as the killing of the innocent, non-military, who are often the target. Personally, I don't understand why "persuasive" methods are so frowned upon, especially if you look at the ramifications. The "marginal benefits" gathered from these little sessions are vitally important, containing accomplices names, possible targets and who is funding the terrorist attacks. Nothing that our country could inflict on these perpetrators is anything like what they would do to our people, military or otherwise, just for being Americans.
ReplyDeleteLisa Huffhines
I agree. I strongly believe that harming a few people in order to save many is worth the loss. In economist terms...the marginal benefit was well worth risking the mental health of a few people. Sometimes other ways of interrogation are not as effective and do not get information. If torture is not allowed as a form of getting information then we are putting more innocent lives at stake than if we do torture a couple of people.
ReplyDelete-Bryan E.
I strongly disagree. Our marginal benefits from torturing are costing America respect; marginal costs far outweigh the benefits. Where is our integrity? We honor ourselves as being a free, democratic country, outlawing torture in our Constitution. How can other countries respect us or trust us when we cannot even follow our own laws. Torturing others gives the U.S. a bad name, and could end up hurting us in the long run when foreign countries cannot trust us enough to trade with us. Are the marginal benefits from torturing terrorist suspects worth trade deficits? I think not. There is no excuse for torturing another individual, no matter how great you think the marginal benefits are.
ReplyDelete~Lorena Vargas
Torture brings with it positive marginal benifits. You can look at the marginal benifit of torture this way; say there are seven of eight terrorists being interrogated who give up little information under humane terms, the eighth however has to be waterboarded before he finally gives up a plot to assasinate the president. The marginal cost of torturing this one man is extremelly lower than the marginal benifit of foiling a plot to assasinate the president and the ensuing chaos. The American military organizations and government will not be looked at any differently because of a little bit of toruture. It is the job of the military and the government to safe-guard the well being of United States citizens, and if that means the torture of some terrorists then I am fine with that. If torture is looked at economically it can be seen that the marginal benifit is indeed large.
ReplyDeleteTrey G.
Reading this post immediately made me think of the show 24. In the previous season, the Counter Terrorist Unit was disbanded and Jack Baur put on trial for harsh interrogation procedures. But this only put America in a more vulnerable position. Without Jack's interrogation methods crucial information would never have surfaced and thousands of innocent lives would have been at stake on more than one occasion. I don't think this situation is too far from being a reality with all of the crazy violence groups around the world that hate America. People in these groups are hateful, selfish people and I have a hard time feeling sympathy for their pain. I feel that the marginal cost of causing suffering to a few criminals does not even come close to the marginal benefits of gaining necessary information that could save the lives of honest, amiable citizens.
ReplyDeleteCatherine L.
I noticed your use of the term marginal cost often in this blog, and looked up the exact definition, which is: "The marginal cost of production is the increase in total cost as a result of producing one extra unit." (http://moneyterms.co.uk/marginal-cost/). The extra unit is torture of people that are possible threats to US citizens. The cost is possible bombings, mass killings and other horrific experiences some, in which we have succeeded in evading. Therefore we have not seen the effects of stopping the use of torture, giving many simplistic people a view that isn't researched or thought through. Differing views are important in this nation, but simple, easy to choose views are useless. Negative effects occur, in all situations including this one, individually (to the tortured) it is more negative than positive, but nation-wide the positives surely outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDelete-jessica g. (mdwy)
I agree with your stance on this issue. I firmly believe that violence is not a good way to solve problems, but in this case if somewhat agressive interogation tactics are going to save our country, I am more than happy to oblige. The marginal cost is only negative to those who are being interogated, and honestly, if they are being interogated, they probably did something to deserve stern questioning. The marginal benefit is the security we as Americans can have with our government making certain the enemies will know the consequences of their actions. Without agressive interogation, many enemies would probably escape punishment and our country would be less safe.
ReplyDeleteLauren Ragan (MCC)
I go back and forth on this issue. I feel that yes information is needed and needed fast but sometimes the way of getting it is sickening. What price do we pay for our freedoms and what price to others pay for possibly attacking those freedom? I know that by doing this it makes our country safer but I feel that it could be a little more regulated.
ReplyDeleteJennie Bryant MCC
Call me silly, but economically speaking I wonder about the costs for the psychologists for the interrogators, and if our government also paying for the medical care for those in prison following torture. It does seem that the U.S. government is trying to be rational- in other words- trying to achieve their objectives of finding out the information they need. The problem is, if you are dealing with prisoners who WANT to be martyrs, then you have a problem, and the only people we are hurting are the interrogators, and we are out of money AND mind. The trade-off does not seem right in this sense.
ReplyDelete