Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Don't say this.

I was listening to Hannity on the ride in this morning (hey, I gotta get my laughs somewhere), and he and his guest, Minnesota people-hater Representative Michele Bachmann (of "we should investigate all Congressional Democrats for anti-American activity" fame) were discussing the practices of waterboarding and denying prisoners Constitutional rights, and the implications of them. Specifically that because of them, we haven't been attacked by terrorists since Sept., 2001.

There are two purely logical mistakes with this statement (which may or may not be the same depending on your brand of argumentation theory). I've heard friends that are quite bright repeat this argument, so I don't know if they aren't thinking through it or what, so today I begin my one-man campaign to bring the world to its senses.

The first error is causal. While it is possible that treating the prisoners at Gitmo the way we have may have played a role in preventing a future attack, it is equally (or perhaps more) possible that a future attack just wasn't planned in the first place. So the cause of the lack of attack could have been the torture, but in the event that there wasn't ever going to be a future attack, the torture didn't cause anything (except torture). I suspect that if interrogating prisoners at gitmo did prevent an attack, we would have heard about it (edit: in the form of a concrete, specific example), since the amount of political street cred that would have resulted would be the equivalent of winning a dance-off against Robert Muraine. The fancy Latin term for this sort of fallacy is cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just because A and B happen doesn't mean that A caused B.

The second error is effectual. While denying Habeus Corpus may help in preventing attacks, it's logically incorrect to say (without proof) that the lack of an attack was an effect of the ins, outs, and what-have-yous of Gitmo. It's convenient to say that it was an effect of torture, but that doesn't make it correct. It could have been the effect of any number of things, substantial or not. We haven't had an attack since Obama was elected president... could this be an effect of his devilishly handsome good looks? Could it be the result of the literally pope-worthy Reuben I made last night? The Romans called this post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because A happens and then B happens doesn't mean that B was an effect of A.

Anyway, if you hear someone say that Bush may have shredded the Constitution, but at least he kept us safe, just recount the tale of the glorious pastrami-stacked, sauerkraut-stacked goodness I consumed last evening, and how it may or may not be the cause of my impending heart attack.

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on January 27, 2009 (boomark / email).