More on Torture
Nice summary of recent developments on the torture front from Phillip Carter’s intelligence blog.
Oddly enough, I think we are missing a key issue in the discussion. Much of the coverage of the torture issue has focused on the process by which it was authorized. Much of the commentary has been either pro or against torture on principle, with many on the right aghast that anyone would object to torturing terrorists. Many people from a law-enforcement background object to torture because they consider it ineffective. Some people object to the practice from a public diplomacy perspective. These are all important issues, but they all assume that what they ought to initially question:
The problem is not torturing terrorists, it is torturing terrorist suspects.
Actually, torturing terrorists is a problem as well, but it is a fundamentally different one. While I believe we need to think long and hard before using torture at all because ultimately it is an abhorrent practice, personally, I am not going to lose sleep over the mistreatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Nor does it particularly bother me that he might be held indefinitely without any real due process or fair trial. There is plenty of evidence in the public record about his activities.
The problem is with all the other low-level guys and random detainees, many of whom genuinely know nothing, and at least some of whom were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is simply unreasonable to assume that all of the people we have captured and detained — whether at Gitmo or Bagram or elsewhere — are all unambiguously guilty of such heinous acts that we should turn a blind eye to their mistreatment. And until there is compelling evidence on this score, we are not talking about torturing or indefinitely holding terrorists, but rather of terrorist suspects. For me, that makes all the difference in the world.
