There is currently a hubub in the news about some Bush Justice Department memos that were released recently by the Obama administration. These memos and legal opinions describe the use of torture by U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, in the “War on Terror” under the Bush administration. It’s not a pretty picture. Apparently the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” was more widespread than had previously been reported. Predictably this has resulted in a hue and cry for investigations and prosecutions. Over on Fox News, however, it’s a different story. Go figure. Here’s some video analysis from Fox. Michael Hayden, the ex-head of the CIA, explains the pro-torture position well in this video from Fox News Sunday.
Setting aside for the moment the whole discussion about what determines legality in such cases, and strictly focusing on the justification for the use of torture, the argument from the pro-torture side is that it makes us safer from terrorists, and since ends justify means in their opinion, the CIA and other agencies should have free reign to extract information however is most expedient. Sure, sounds logical on the face of it, right? There’s only a couple of problems with it. For starters, torture is a notoriously amateurish way to extract information from suspects. There is data going back hundreds of years that show that building a rapport with a prisoner will result in more reliable information in less time. This is because people being tortured will say anything to get the pain to stop and so they make things up. Then the interrogators go and investigate the information, which can take weeks, and around they go again.
The next problem is that the ends do not justify the means. Much of philosophy through the ages has examined this question. The overwhelming consensus from many wise heads who have applied brain sweat to the problem and written about it is that using positive results to justify unpleasant tactics is selfish and unenlightened in the extreme. This is, however, one of the fundamental assumptions of the pro-terror camp. They believe, in their fear, that they are morally justified in any action in self-defense, including preemptive attacks, torture, and violating the Constitution left, right, and center. In their fear they have given their enemy the victory, by compromising the very meaning of America.
Also, the claim that disclosing the details of these techniques endangers our safety is wrong on a couple of levels. First, Al Qaeda has had plenty of opportunity to acquire detailed information about these techniques from tortured prisoners who had been released. Therefor, the quantity of information in the wrong hands has not been changed materially. Second, it’s a pretty weak torture technique that can be thwarted by foreknowledge. As long as we’re going to be torturing people let’s use some effective techniques, like the rack, and thumbscrews. Third, these techniques will never be used again (at least under a Democrat administration) so the point is entirely moot. The right wing talking heads that are going on about this, such as Mr. Hayden and the heart of darkness himself, Karl Rove, are standing on thin air. Their arguments are ridiculous and offensive to the intelligence of the American people.
Finally, even if it is legally valid for the U.S. government to withold from certain categories of prisoners the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (which is far from clear), the U.S. is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions which prohibit torture. This means that it is illegal for the U.S. and its agents to engage in torture. Illegal, not just blatantly immoral. Those responsible for breaking the law should be brought to justice. Otherwise we will be allowing their fear to continue to besmirch our country’s image. Mr. President, it is your job to enforce the law, not make or interpret it. Now do your job. Make sure your Justice Department serves Justice, not political expediency.