Torture - Never or Almost Never?

Would we feel different about how the government and military had handled the recent torture issue if we were actually getting valuable information from the detainees that could save US Military lives or the lives of innocent civilians in the continental United States? What if the government put out this message: “We do not condone the procedure of torture, but we will, when the situation requires, use inhumane measures to extract information from people that have timely intelligence that will help keep our soldiers safe and the homeland more secure.” I think this would have a much more positive impact, than the message currently delivered “We support and encourage torture of all suspected terrorist and insurgents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

At dinner last night, we were discussing an op-ed in the NY Times yesterday, which originally ran in the LA Times on November 11, 2005 and written by David Gelerntern. He describes how Senator John McCain is taking the easy way out with the torture issue. Obviously, in large sweeping generalizations, torture is bad, and no right-minded person is going to disagree with that statement. Here is Gelerntern explaining why the Senate got it wrong:

Those who oppose the amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to use torture or other rough interrogation techniques. What they think is that sometimes the CIA should be required to squeeze the truth out of prisoners. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option we've got.

Gelerntern also presents what I am going to call the “24” scenario based on the Keifer Sutherland television show of the same name. The issue revolves around the concept of using inhumane methods on the prisoner to extract time sensitive information to save one or many lives:

In 1982, the philosopher Michael Levin published an article challenging the popular view that the U.S. must never engage in torture. "Someday soon," he concluded, "a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of ives, and torture will be the only way to save them."

Suppose a nuclear bomb is primed to detonate somewhere in Manhattan, Levin wrote, and we've captured a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. But he won't talk. By forbidding torture, you inflict death on many thousands of innocents and endless suffering on the families of those who died at a terrorist's whim — and who might have lived had government done its ugly duty.

The other question going around the table was another no brainer; if a family member is suffocating and someone possess the knowledge or information to save them, would you do everything in your power to extract the information necessary to save the family member? Anyone who is married or a parent would obviously answer in the affirmative. Therefore, the question is not that we will not ever torture, but when would be permissible and under what conditions?

These various scenarios leave many questions unanswered. How much time between a known upcoming event will justify this type of response against another human. How much information is extracted and is there actual value associated with the information gathered. How many detainees, as a percentage, are actually being put through this type of regiment and why the need for cloak and dagger to move them to another country? In addition, what is the political fallout for knowingly admitting to using these methods, when the United States is trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab community?

Even as a staunch libertarian, it is understood that the government, the military and even business needs to keep secrets for the overall good. The bottom line is the government seemed to try outsmarting the public, without providing the justification or reasoning on why they want the CIA to utilize torture. What is most disturbing about this situation is how different this could have been with a little better spin. Instead, they tried to pull a fast one and pull the wool over the public’s eyes hoping no one would ever find out their dirty little secret. Then when the alleged truth is uncovered, they seem to want to justify torture rather than say it we want to use inhumane treatment of prisoner in limited select cases to gather time sensitive intelligence matter. This gives the media much less rope to hang the actions of the government, and would rather allow an intelligent debate of the above questions, rather than just taking the easy way out.

We do not torture such terrorists to punish them. God forbid we should do as they do. But if torture (used with repugnance) can stop even one such atrocity, our duty is hideously plain.

I suspect that in 20 years, all the truth will finally come out so we can truly figure out if the actions taken were justified. Did they prevent loss of life? Was this information relevant and accurate? How has the political situation in the Middle East evolved in that time, and what effect did our presence have? There are many questions and no good answers.