The K.F. Stone Weekly

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

Don't Let the Light Go Out

  

   Writing a piece about torture with its attendant cast of thousands is as imponderable a task as writing an article about a Wimbledon match while it is still being played.  In the case of the tennis match, no sooner would one begin describing a 125-mile-an-hour service before a forehand volley, backhand return, lob, and overhand smash might occur.  Obviously, its one heck of a lot smarter to wait until the match has concluded before writing the story. In the case of the former -- torture -- about the time one finishes a paragraph or two, a new revelation, charge or declassified document becomes available, thus making what has just been written obsolete. 
  

   In the current unfolding story about torture -- which involves the Obama White House, the CIA, DOJ, OLC, DOD, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney," Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, et al -- one obviously cannot -- and must not -- wait until the story has concluded before committing it to print. It is far too critical and deserving of far more light than almost any other issue before the American public.  For the use of unlawful, immoral and inhuman forms of torture -- regardless of what "they" are doing and regardless of whether it is euphemistically referred to as "rendition" or "enhanced forms of interrogation" -- raises questions that are at the very heart of what defines the United States of America.

   Over the past week or more, we have begun asking a lot of questions, such as:

• "Who was responsible for Okaying the torture?" 
• "What if any acts of terror were averted as a result of the torture?"
  
• "When did the U.S. first begin using torture?"
  
• "Where were these interrogations carried out?"
  
• "Why did President Obama first state that no one will be prosecuted?    

    

   Despite the fact that we still have more questions than answers, it is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Bush Administration used the horror of 9/11 for their own purposes.  That day of unbelievable tragedy and pain became their rationale for legitimizing torture -- a kind of "any-port-in-a-storm" approach to national defense.  Before too long, the administration proclaimed that they had uncovered "evidence" of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and of the existence of WMD's in "al-Qaeda-backed" Iraq.  All of this, of course, provided the rationale for beginning that preemptive war -- a war which is now the longest in our history.

   Before the end of the Bush Administration, there was already evidence both the United States military and the C.I.A. were engaging in what at best were "questionable" -- at worst "illegal" -- forms of "enhanced interrogation."  During the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama attacked the Bush Administration for such acts, and proclaimed that once in office he would move swiftly to root them out.  Millions of voters were attracted to the Illinois senator because -- among other things -- he had an obvious moral center. 
  

   The disclosures occasioned by all the recently declassified documents have given birth to a myriad of debates.  As of this writing, it is unclear precisely what role or roles will be played by the House and Senate.  Which committee or committees will start issuing subpoenas?  On the House side, will it fall to Ike Skelton's Armed Services, Jane Harman's subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism risk Assessment or John Conyers' Judiciary to hold hearings?  Over in the Senate, will Carl Levin (Armed Services), Dianne Feinstein (Selected Committee on Intelligence), Joe Lieberman (Homeland Security) or Patrick Leahy (Judiciary) choose to pick up the gavel?  And once the subpoenas begin flying, who will seek immunity and who will simply refuse to testify, thus bringing about both a legal challenge and a constitutional showdown? 

   Indeed, will the White House seek to outflank Congress by appointing its own "Blue Ribbon Commission on Torture?"  Or, will Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi (both of whom appear to have had knowledge of what the Bush Administration was up to) name their own "Joint Special Investigation Committee?"  The possibilities are endless.

   President Obama's initial response to torture was crystal clear:

   The United States does not and will not engage in torture; the United States does not and will not violate international law.

   Period.

   But then came that gnawing, vexatious inconsistency:

   Neither those who carried out these illegal acts nor those who formulated the legal justification for them will be liable to future prosecution!  In the case of who actually performed the illegal acts, they were "only following orders" [This is hauntingly like the Nuremberg Defense, Befehl ist Befehl.]  In the case of those who dreamed up the legal justification for said acts -- members of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice -- all the president would say is that "we seek to look not backwards but forwards."

   This was indeed a shocking conclusion, coming as it did from a president who spent the past 16 years as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Well, within the past 48 hours, the president did "clarify" his thinking, and state that the matter of future prosecution belongs not to the White House, but to the Department of Justice. Without question, this is the right way to go.

   To most thoughtful people, the issue of torture (and our response to it) is one of both legal and moral import.  For generations, we have been a nation of laws and not one of men and women.  For generations, we have been a beacon of light in a world that often languishes in darkness.  Our devotion, our commitment to what is lawful and humane has given both hope and direction to people living on seven continents.  But now it has been revealed that for a time, the United States of America has been operating not in the light but rather the shadows; that we have justified the use of illegal torture techniques by convincing ourselves that in order to assure security, we must become as diabolical as our enemies.

   Regrettably, there are those who persist in seeing torture as a primarily political issue.  Cheney, Gingrich and Rove -- among others -- say that those who are against "enhanced rendition" are weak, short-sighted cowards bent on giving aide and comfort to our enemies.  Talk shows and so-called "news" programs are rife with "experts" who proclaim that not only does torture work; it has kept us safe. I have been told to my face that "If water-boarding, sleep-deprivation or tearing out their fingernails saves even one American life, it is worth it."  I listened in on Rush Limbaugh the other day.  In the middle of a rant about "weak-kneed, lily-livered liberals," there was a slapping sound, followed by the "Mouth That Roared" sarcastically proclaiming, "I just slapped myself in the face.  Oh my, I've just been tortured!"

     I do hope that both those who did the actual torturing and those who created the legal justification for those acts will be prosecuted.  I don't care how high up the political food chain it goes . . . even if in the end it includes Democrats as well as Republicans. 

    This should be not a political issue.  It is definitely no laughing matter.  It is terribly serious and rests at the very heart of what has long made America a light unto the nations.

    Don't let the light go out. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone