« Bill Easterly is blogging | Main | Sentences to ponder »
Worry less about releasing terrorists
The total population of terrorists ebbs and flows all the time. When the number goes up by one hundred, no one much notices. If the number goes up by one hundred because we release some previously identified terrorists, there is or will be a public outcry. But it's the same consequence.
Fewer terrorists are better than more terrorists, to be sure. But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place.
We evaluate outcomes differently when we feel we are in control or should be in control. We should examine this intuition carefully, since it is not always justified.
We also treat an outcome differently when we feel it allows an enemy of ours to "get back at us." I suspect this difference in feeling is not usually justified and that it is the primary driver behind the fear of releasing terrorists.
I can think of "political theater" reasons why an attack from a released terrorist would be worse than an attack from an "already free" terrorist. Overall I do not yet feel that we are thinking about this issue rationally.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
The number of new terrorists created by Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the occupation of Iraq dwarfs by orders of magnitude the number of potential terrorists that might be released for lack of evidence if we shut down Guantanamo. If one factors in terrorist sympathizers, the numbers are even more skewed.
Morality and self-interest point in the same direction in this case, and in more cases than the cynics want us to believe.
Thankfully, we finally have a government policy that we and the world don't need to be ashamed of, and in the long run, we'll be safer as a result.
Posted by: a student of economics at Jan 26, 2009 12:38:33 PM
"We evaluate outcomes differently when we feel we are in control or should be in control."
You'll have to explain this a little more clearly: not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Either way, we should weigh each case individually, on its merits, not release them all en masse. No one really cares about 100 terrorists: Fine, and I agree, we shouldn't worry too much about that. But that goes both ways. I don't really care if 100 cleared people are locked up in a detention center because no nation wants to take them, especially when they get medical care and 3 square meals. That's more than a lot of Americans can say, and that's more than what most of the people in their home country can say.
So, in the end:
I really don't give a damn about Gitmo.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jan 26, 2009 12:42:50 PM
At least we can identify a released terrorist. No one knows (despite all the databases) who the other terrorists are.
Add to that, Obama's policy only accelerates Bush's Guantanamo policy. Do you remember when there were 650 worst of the worse inmates? How about 500? How about 300? Now there are about 250. Were the rest rehabilitated?
Posted by: Marc at Jan 26, 2009 12:44:31 PM
Amen. The far right has turned these guys into supermen. Even though there are virtually no escapees from federal prisons, assume the worst and they all get free. If 250 terrorists are such a threat, why dont the already existing thousands of terrorists do whatever it is you are afraid of? Remember that we have an essentially open southern border and people like Jeffrey Goldberg have been trying to get caught by our NSA by carrying large amounts of hidden fluids and Hizbollah flags onto airplanes.
Steve
Posted by: steve at Jan 26, 2009 12:46:39 PM
But of course not all terrorists pose the same threat. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may be more valuable to al Qaeda and more of a threat to us than the average terrorist.
And one would think that the threat of detainment and the threat of punishment might be relevant to the decision whether to be a terrorist. Releasing detained terrorists would send a signal about the likelihood of that, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Thomas at Jan 26, 2009 12:48:09 PM
in similar vein, folks over-estimate car safety (esp situations where they are at the wheel)
compared to airtravel (where they are not in control) - so we know a priori that the
mammalian brain/chemistry is not one that is strictly rational
so it goes
Posted by: franko at Jan 26, 2009 12:49:58 PM
Robert Olsen says: "I don't really care if 100 cleared people are locked up in a detention center."
Maybe that's one reason that millions of people think you and, by association, other Americans like me, are evil people and deserve to be hurt.
Posted by: a student of economics at Jan 26, 2009 12:52:24 PM
Are you suggesting some kind of crowding out effect, in which released terrorists substitute for terrorists elsewhere? More likely, terrorist skill sets are complements, so releasing terrorists leads to more terrorism (ignoring the PR effect).
Posted by: Thorfinn at Jan 26, 2009 12:53:40 PM
"Worry less about releasing terrorists"
Stick to domestic policy.
(In the spirit of offering unsolicited advice)
Posted by: economist at Jan 26, 2009 12:56:01 PM
Fewer terrorists are better than more terrorists, to be sure. But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place.
We don't evaluate things based on how they were before the previous situation. We evaluate things based on decisions we have to make and how they will effect our future situation.
We evaluate outcomes differently when we feel we are in control or should be in control. We should examine this intuition carefully, since it is not always justified.
Outcomes cannot be judged at all without context. An attack that would not have been possible had the person who perpetrated been kept in custody somewhere will obviously be judged in the light of whomever decided to release them.
This post puts forward a very frivolous argument. "What's a few terrorists more or less" is hardly a useful position.
Posted by: Adam at Jan 26, 2009 12:58:24 PM
If the number goes up by one hundred because we release some previously identified terrorists, there is or will be a public outcry.
Hang on a second. I've been in a bit of a shell lately, working on a project. Is anybody saying, "We are releasing terrorists." ? I thought the deal was, there was no court-worthy evidence against some of the Gitmo detainees, and so they would probably end up freed if the same standards were applied to them as to, say, an American accused of shooting his boss.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jan 26, 2009 1:03:01 PM
I think that you need to take into account what we would do if we could identify the unidentified terrorists. Would we attack them? Would we take preemptive action? Would we arrest or detain them?
Those who believe that terrorists who conspire to kill Americans should be stopped would take great issue with the "one more or less terrorist doesn't matter" attitude. If we have an opportunity to stop a terrorist from attacking us, they would say, then we should do so. If we release terrorists and they attack us, then we missed the opportunity to protect ourselves. Whatever we gained by releasing those terrorists must be balanced against what we lose.
The counter-argument is that we have created more problems by holding the terrorists in the way that we did; however, we still are failing to stop a known terrorist from attacking us again. Neither side in the argument can dismiss the concerns of the other side.
Posted by: Highgamma at Jan 26, 2009 1:03:58 PM
To clarify: I mean, is anyone in the Obama administration saying, "We are releasing terrorists back onto the streets." I know Sean Hannity is saying that, but I thought the whole point was, there is not enough evidence to convict these people in a regular court.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Jan 26, 2009 1:04:55 PM
@a student of economics
"Maybe that's one reason that millions of people think you and, by association, other Americans like me, are evil people and deserve to be hurt."
Probably one of many. I am sure there are far more important issues, though, that should be addressed, such as our general foreign policy in the Middle East. That affects hundreds of millions of people and actually is relevant, unlike the specific prisoner policy that applies to 1000 people, or .0000167% of the world's population.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jan 26, 2009 1:07:03 PM
Houses are being built and demolished (to clear the land for new houses) all the time; when the number goes up or down by 100, no one really notices. But, when 100 perfectly good houses are destroyed by a hurricane people are upset for some reason.
We have spent a large amount of resources to identify, capture and detain *these* terrorists. Sure, letting them go doesn't really affect the terrorist population as a whole (unless, as previously mentioned, we have managed to capture some of the most valuable terrorists) just as needlessly destroying some number of houses doesn't really affect the housing market.
In this way, I'm not sure how people are thinking about this irrationally. Taking release as the default scenario, we could effectively capture 250 likely terrorists for free, and Obama is passing on that opportunity. I think people are upset not because of the actual impact that releasing 250 detainees will have, but because it's a waste of sunk costs that goes directly against the goal of reducing the terrorist population.
Posted by: Ben at Jan 26, 2009 1:11:19 PM
But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place.
Perhaps not obviously. But a freed seasoned terrorist rejoins the ranks as a hero. His return raises morale. He has a much higher status and skill level than a new green recruit. Such a released terrorist has valuable first-person experience both with interrogation techniques and what information interrogators do and do not have. His return -- from the terrorist perspective -- also speaks negatively to the toughness and resolve of the U.S. (recall that 'strong horse' / 'weak horse' rhetoric of Bin Laden's). The envisioned release may be worth it anyway, but I don't think claims about the fungibility of terrorists is a good argument.
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 26, 2009 1:14:15 PM
So, is the point that closing Gitmo will provide more value in international goodwill especially in the Middle East then it will take away through letting detainees out? I think this is probably true but Tyler when you write a post like this you shouldn't be so coy. Also the sentence "But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place" implies that there is no selection bias amongst captured fighters...do you really believe that? I guess depends on how you define terrorist but I think no matter what closing Gitmo (or moving it to the mainland more specifically) is on the whole a good thing.
Posted by: dsflkfjh at Jan 26, 2009 1:23:03 PM
Jihadist terrorists become that way for a host of reasons, and at the margin there are no doubt some for whom the existence of Gitmo was the final straw that pushed them into the movement. But what about Guantanamo's deterrent effect? Consider the IRS, which audits less than 2% of tax returns. The existence of the audit program dissuades many more than 2% of the taxpaying public from cheating. Gitmo may increase the anger (if that's possible) of those who are willing to blow themselves up, as well as their number, but the less-than-true-believers who may join the terrorist ecosystem---the bankers, the IT guys, the taxi drivers--may decide that the risk of detention makes the cost too high.
Posted by: Steve Y. at Jan 26, 2009 1:25:25 PM
This makes some sense on its surface, but I'm not buying it.
Let's make an analogy:
Your total net worth goes up and down all the time. When the number goes down by a $100, you don't much notice. If it goes down by $100 because you withdrew $100 from an ATM and are then mugged, you raise a fuss. But it's the same consequence.
So, therefore, we shouldn't care if we are robbed? And should do nothing to prevent it?
I think it is the opportunity cost here. You already have the terrorist where he can do no harm; you've expended time and money (and whatever else) to reach that position. It is better to protect that investment than to throw it away. So to speak.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Jan 26, 2009 1:30:50 PM
Does this work for domestic criminals as well? Should we empty out our prisons?
Posted by: Norman Pfyster at Jan 26, 2009 1:35:05 PM
"But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place."
Agreed. Take 'em to a high pass in the Hindu Kush and let 'em go.
As for whether Gitmo was a good idea, my take is that an enemy that isn't worth torturing and/or killing isn't worthy of being considered an enemy. That is, torture and mayhem aren't unpleasant side effects of war, but tests to determine whether or not we should be at war.
Posted by: Randy at Jan 26, 2009 1:42:04 PM
I think the point of this post is semi-retarded as well. Apply it to another population, serial murderers. 100 serial murderers is no big deal, there are probably at least 100 that are free in the U.S. (definitely the world) there is no real difference between a serial murderer that has been tried and convicted and one that is still at-large, so let's just release 100 that we have in custody...makes no sense. This is the first time in reading this blog for two years that a post author has demonstrated less reason than an average middle schooler.
Posted by: Robin Rhea at Jan 26, 2009 1:45:16 PM
It's funny how some of you stop thinking on the margin once terrorists are the topic at hand. I said worry *less*, not don't worry at all.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jan 26, 2009 1:50:53 PM
Actually, I'd say that the overall threat posed by a released terrorist is less than that of a new terrorist, since in the case of the released terrorist we know who they are, what they look like, etc. I would assume, for example, that the government has taken steps to ensure that the people released from Gitmo (and most of the people at Gitmo have already been released) remain under surveillance.
Posted by: Blackadder at Jan 26, 2009 2:06:45 PM
"The total population of terrorists ebbs and flows all the time."
Then I guess the key question is why.
Do our actions in killing or capturing them cause a net ebb or a net flow?
Many of those in Gitmo want to be martyrs. If released, which I have trouble believing you are actually proposing, I believe they will kill innocent people, muslim and non-muslim.
Do you agree? If so, are those deaths acceptable? If not, why not? If they are, then why? How would you integrate your answer with the comment "But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place."?
I'm not trying to make you wrong here, I am just trying to penetrate what I see as inscrutability.
Posted by: cliff at Jan 26, 2009 2:07:24 PM
