Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

    

     Back in the day when I was majoring in Philosophy, I took a whole bunch of courses in Logic -- Aristotelian, Set and Symbolic.  It pains me to admit how little I recall of those subjects, up to and including the names of the professors who taught them.  Well, they did begin, as I recall, at 8:00 a.m., a perfectly indecent hour for anyone attempting to grasp such concepts like "premise," "deduction," and "conclusion." Honest confessions aside, one thing I do recall is how depressing it was to realize that much of what passed for public discourse or argumentation was inherently illogical; or, as they say in the philosophy biz, "fallacious." 

   If I recall correctly, the fallacy behind most political caterwauling was best summed up by the phrase "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," which is Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this."  Or, to put it a bit less literally: "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

   Got that?
 
   NO?  Well, perhaps an example would help clarify things a bit.  The example I have in mind has been all over the news these past several days, angering, confusing and numbing just about anyone with a bit of gray matter.  For it is the "He said, she said," "When did she know it and what did she know?" sideshow surrounding the use of torture -- "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" -- during the last administration.  The Republican argument, if I follow it correctly goes something like this:

• The Bush Administration did not engage in torture, only E.I.T.
• If the administration would have engaged in E.I.T., it would have been legal, according to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
• As per our instructions, leaders in the House and Senate -- including then-Intelligence Committee chair Nancy Pelosi -- were fully briefed by the CIA about our use of E.I.T., including waterboarding, which when suiting our purposes, we will continue denying we ever engaged in.
  
• Oh yes, our use of E.I.T. -- including waterboarding -- is what has kept America free of terrorist attacks since 9/11.
• For purposes of damaging the Democrats in general and Speaker Pelosi in particular, we will now stipulate that we did indeed use E.I.T.
  
• Since Nancy Pelosi was briefed by the C.I.A. as early as September 2002 about the use of E.I.T., we will further stipulate that for purposes of culpability, she is as guilty -- if not more so -- than anyone. Therefore, either:

1. The Bush Administration did not torture anyone, or
2. The Bush Administration did use E.I.T., which was all perfectly legal, or
3. The Bush Administration's use of E.I.T. is truly what has kept us from being attacked, or
4. Speaker Pelosi is far, far more culpable than anyone else, because she knew all about it and did not blow the whistle.
5. Not only is she an accessory after the fact; she is a pernicious liar.

     Got all that?  

    It is at this point that the Aristotelian term "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" comes back into play.  For what Republicans like Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and John Boehner are arguing is totally fallacious; that since Nancy Pelosi's briefing came after [post hoc] we had begun torturing terrorists like Abu Zubaydah and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, it turns out [ergo propter hoc] that not only is she an accomplice; she is the cause of our resorting to such extra-legal activities!

   Yes, I know, it doesn't make an ounce of sense.  But wait . . . there's more!

   The former Vice President has called upon the CIA to release classified documents that he claims will prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the agency's harsh interrogation methods were largely responsible for thwarting further terrorist plots.  On May 14, the CIA released a letter citing pending legal action as the sole reason for keeping the documents under seal.  

   On that same day -- May 14 -- Speaker Pelosi held a press conference at which she bluntly accused the CIA of misleading her and several other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding. For the record, CIA spokesman George Little said "It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the Congress of the United States."  Nonetheless, he refused to answer directly when asked whether the Speaker's accusations were accurate. "We were told that waterboarding was not being used," the Speaker said.  "That's the only mention that they were not using it.  And now we know that earlier they were."

   Shortly after Pelosi's press conference, House Minority Leader John Boehner held one of his own.  When a reporter asked about the Speaker's demand that the CIA release "all details on what members were briefed," and then said that "the CIA deliberately misled her time and time again," Boehner responded, "I think the problem is that the Speaker has had too many stories on this issue . . . . I think she's posed more questions than she's provided answers . . ."  In other words, Boehner is calling the Speaker a liar.  Additionally, Boehner chided the Speaker and other Democrats for not "blowing the whistle" on the Bush Administration for its use of E.I.T. In other words, if they knew about the waterboarding and didn't raise a stink, then they are to blame . . . not the Bush Administration.

   Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

   As dizzying and maddening as all this is, it totally misses the point -- which may, when all is said and done -- be precisely the point.  For in going back and forth as to "When did she know it and what did she know," Republicans and their allies in the media have managed to deflect attention away from the real issue: the morality and legality of the United States engaging in acts of torture.

   Lost in all this fallacious argumentation and finger pointing are two pretty well-grounded -- and under-reported -- facts:

• That a letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta which was attached to the agency documents discussing the September 4, 2002 Congressional briefing [the one that the Speaker disputes] suggests that the information in the documents may not be "an accurate summary of what actually happened."  In his cover letter to current House Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Ranking Member Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) -- which has generally been overlooked by the media -- Panetta wrote that the information in the attached intelligence documents "is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs ["Memorandums for the Record"] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of individuals involved . . . . You and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."
•  That in testimony before a Senate subcommittee investigating Bush Administration interrogation techniques, former FBI agent Ali Soufan told Congress that he witnessed CIA interrogation methods on terror suspects that were, in his words, "borderline torture," and called the methods "ineffective," "unreliable," and "harmful."  Further, Soufan stated that "the informed interrogation approach outlined in the Army Field Manual "is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists;  it is legal and has worked time and again.  It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective and play directly into the enemy's handbook." To a great extent, this refutation of torture went unreported.

    Instead what has captured the attention of both the media and the public is this "he said, she said" nonsense that keeps the debate far away from where it should be. 

   To wit, is torture illegal and immoral?
  
   To give any other answer than "Yes, torture is both illegal and immoral," is to engage in fallacious reasoning.
   
  

   ©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Comments

[M.D.]

We believe that it is not legal or moral to help those who would destroy us...

[Isaac]

Once again the Republican leadership is at their top form of misleading, lying, half truths and outright distortion of the what has happened in the past. I believe Pelosi and I believe Bob Graham about what was told to them back in 2002 about torture.

[Stan]

I knew you would do a great job with this!!

You'll have to admit that the Republicans are masters in the art of attack. While the Democrats are still trying pathetically to protect {for the most part} the Bush administration. Pelossi is a disaster, and Reed is only slightly better.

It's long past time for the country to get everything out into the open. The argument that investigations will divide the country is silly. It's already divided.

[Mike]

Every thinking person knows that torture is both illegal and immoral and that the Bush Administration authorized these illegal acts. What we dont know is "what did she know and when did she know it."

I am still choking and coughing up a lot of the smoke you laid down on this issue - I am even a little embarrassed for you, that you went down the path you chose for this week's blog - you are much better than this!

[Alan Weiss]

You forgot something? Who are you kidding?