Today's Logic Lesson and a Lesson in Trust

Here are two syllogisms from the Bush era.

First syllogism:

Waterboarding is torture.
Americans practice waterboarding.
Americans practice torture.

Second syllogism:

Americans do not torture.
Americans practice waterboarding.
Waterboarding is not torture.

The first one is constructed as an everyday syllogism. You place a particular activity in a larger category: Waterboarding is torture. You identify who practices the activity: Americans practice waterboarding. You conclude that the identified group falls into the larger category: Americans practice torture.

The second one is also unremarkable in its structure, except that the premise is a negative: it excludes Americans from the group of torturers. So you ask:

“How do you know Americans don’t torture?”

“It’s against their code.”

“What prevents Americans from violating their code?”

“The code is self-enforcing.”

“That sounds circular to me. Can’t you give me some independent evidence?”

“Well it’s hard to prove a negative, you know.”

“Still, can’t you tell me how you know Americans don’t torture?”

“Americans just don’t do it. It’s against their code of honor.”

“Like the pirate’s code?”

“That’s right. We have a strict code of honor.”

“But you violate the code all the time, whenever it’s convenient!”

“Remember, they’re just guidelines.”

It’s amazing how often Pirates of the Carribbean serves to explain how people think and behave! It’s the most useful tool I’ve ever run across!

That piece of dialogue does expose John Yoo’s memo for what it was: an extended effort to redefine legal guidelines about torture. That memo was so characteristic of the way we operate: forget the honor, just follow the right legal process. If you can find someone in the Justice Department to write a memo that places activities you want to practice outside the definition of torture, you’re good to go.

That brings us back to the syllogisms. Understanding that the second syllogism is a good deal weaker than the first, the Justice Department lawyers worked hard to reverse its premise. Waterboarding is torture must become Waterboarding is not torture under the guidelines.

“How do you know waterboarding is not torture?”

“Here, read this memo. It explains everything.”

“But this memo just defines things any way you want. It doesn’t make any sense. My twelve-year-old daughter could tell you that.”

“We’re the United States Justice Department. Our memo is authoritative, based on expert legal reasoning.”

“Hah! I put you way below a pickpocket for trustworthiness. Try again.”

So many issues come down to trust. If you read Yoo’s memo, you see the only reason to accept its conclusions is that you trust the source. If you don’t trust the source, the contents of the memo become nonsense.