From The Week 9 December 2005 issue:
Torture
Coming to terms with ‘the dark side’.
12/2/2005
After months of abstract debate and vague denials, said The Washington Post in an editorial, we’re finally getting a fuller picture of how the Bush administration interrogates suspected terrorists. With political pressure mounting to ban torture, CIA sources last week described six “enhanced interrogation techniques” to ABC News. These include “shaking or striking detainees in an effort to cause pain and fear,” and soaking prisoners in cold water and forcing them to stand naked and shivering in a 50-degree cell for hours. Then there is “waterboarding,” whereby a prisoner is bound to an inclined board, his face wrapped in cellophane, while water is poured over him; within seconds, he begins gagging and is overcome by the terrifying sensation of drowning. CIA director Porter Goss insisted that all of the “unique and innovative ways” the U.S. collects “vital information” are perfectly legal and “not torture.” This administration insists on playing “games with words,” said David Luban in The Washington Post , but no one is being fooleI AM d. It’s obvious to Americans, and to the world, that we’ve crossed the line into “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.”
The only remaining question, said Elisa Massimino in the Los Angeles Times, is why the Bush administration won’t back off. The U.S. Senate, by a 90–9 vote, has backed Sen. John McCain’s amendment to bar American authorities from using degrading interrogation methods. But the White House is so instinctively opposed to any limits on the “powers of the commander in chief” that it has vowed to veto the amendment. In a “civilized society,” said The Boston Globe in an editorial, it “should not be necessary” to ban torture. But with a vice president who insists we must be willing to go to “the dark side” to fight terrorism, we have to spell out some limits in black and white.
Actually, that would be a mistake, said Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard. In the global war on terror, black-and-white distinctions no longer apply. Terrorists live “outside the laws of war,” wearing no uniform, hiding among civilians, targeting innocents. When we capture an al Qaida leader, our “moral duty” is to find out what he may know “about plans for future mass murder.” And this is not just some “hypothetical” ethics problem. After the U.S. captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan, aggressive interrogation techniques yielded intelligence that helped thwart other suicide hijackings. Waterboarding was particularly productive, with Khalid begging for a chance to confess after just two minutes. “Should we regret having done that? Should we abolish by law that practice, so that it could never be used on the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?”
Yes—and here’s why, said Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times. For every drop of useful information torture produces, it can produce a flood of misinformation that can badly backfire. Consider the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi. The alleged al Qaida official was captured in Pakistan in 2001 and taken to Egypt, where he was subjected to waterboarding. Eventually, he “confessed” that Iraq had offered to supply and train al Qaida in chemical and biological warfare. That claim formed the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s pivotal U.N. speech justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Libi later recanted, and it now appears he “was just desperate to stop the torture.” By allowing Libi to be tortured, U.S. officials made “a pact with the devil.” That bargain “has not only cost us our national soul, but has contributed, indirectly but surely, to the loss of more than 2,100 American soldiers in Iraq.”
Still, let’s be honest, said Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online. Does anyone really believe it would be wrong to torture a terrorist who, say, knew about a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in Washington or New York? Even McCain has admitted that in that “ticking time-bomb” scenario, officials would be justified in ignoring a legal ban on torture. So let’s acknowledge that there are times when harsh measures are appropriate, and require the “personal approval” of a “very high-ranking executive branch official, who would then be accountable.” Rather than pretend that torture doesn’t work, or is never justified, we need to look our new, post-9/11 reality straight in the eye.
Torture
Coming to terms with ‘the dark side’.
12/2/2005
After months of abstract debate and vague denials, said The Washington Post in an editorial, we’re finally getting a fuller picture of how the Bush administration interrogates suspected terrorists. With political pressure mounting to ban torture, CIA sources last week described six “enhanced interrogation techniques” to ABC News. These include “shaking or striking detainees in an effort to cause pain and fear,” and soaking prisoners in cold water and forcing them to stand naked and shivering in a 50-degree cell for hours. Then there is “waterboarding,” whereby a prisoner is bound to an inclined board, his face wrapped in cellophane, while water is poured over him; within seconds, he begins gagging and is overcome by the terrifying sensation of drowning. CIA director Porter Goss insisted that all of the “unique and innovative ways” the U.S. collects “vital information” are perfectly legal and “not torture.” This administration insists on playing “games with words,” said David Luban in The Washington Post , but no one is being fooleI AM d. It’s obvious to Americans, and to the world, that we’ve crossed the line into “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.”
The only remaining question, said Elisa Massimino in the Los Angeles Times, is why the Bush administration won’t back off. The U.S. Senate, by a 90–9 vote, has backed Sen. John McCain’s amendment to bar American authorities from using degrading interrogation methods. But the White House is so instinctively opposed to any limits on the “powers of the commander in chief” that it has vowed to veto the amendment. In a “civilized society,” said The Boston Globe in an editorial, it “should not be necessary” to ban torture. But with a vice president who insists we must be willing to go to “the dark side” to fight terrorism, we have to spell out some limits in black and white.
Actually, that would be a mistake, said Charles Krauthammer in The Weekly Standard. In the global war on terror, black-and-white distinctions no longer apply. Terrorists live “outside the laws of war,” wearing no uniform, hiding among civilians, targeting innocents. When we capture an al Qaida leader, our “moral duty” is to find out what he may know “about plans for future mass murder.” And this is not just some “hypothetical” ethics problem. After the U.S. captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan, aggressive interrogation techniques yielded intelligence that helped thwart other suicide hijackings. Waterboarding was particularly productive, with Khalid begging for a chance to confess after just two minutes. “Should we regret having done that? Should we abolish by law that practice, so that it could never be used on the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?”
Yes—and here’s why, said Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times. For every drop of useful information torture produces, it can produce a flood of misinformation that can badly backfire. Consider the case of Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi. The alleged al Qaida official was captured in Pakistan in 2001 and taken to Egypt, where he was subjected to waterboarding. Eventually, he “confessed” that Iraq had offered to supply and train al Qaida in chemical and biological warfare. That claim formed the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s pivotal U.N. speech justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Libi later recanted, and it now appears he “was just desperate to stop the torture.” By allowing Libi to be tortured, U.S. officials made “a pact with the devil.” That bargain “has not only cost us our national soul, but has contributed, indirectly but surely, to the loss of more than 2,100 American soldiers in Iraq.”
Still, let’s be honest, said Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online. Does anyone really believe it would be wrong to torture a terrorist who, say, knew about a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in Washington or New York? Even McCain has admitted that in that “ticking time-bomb” scenario, officials would be justified in ignoring a legal ban on torture. So let’s acknowledge that there are times when harsh measures are appropriate, and require the “personal approval” of a “very high-ranking executive branch official, who would then be accountable.” Rather than pretend that torture doesn’t work, or is never justified, we need to look our new, post-9/11 reality straight in the eye.
Comment