When, if ever, to torture?

[Roger Bissell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...3003108_pf.html

Torture? No. Except . . .

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, May 1, 2009

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the "torture memos" noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist "chatter" had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former attorney general Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 . . . fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained "high-value information."

There are two problems with the "good cop" technique. KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with "soon you will know" -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now.

The other problem is one of timing. The good cop routine can take weeks or months or years. We didn't have that luxury in the aftermath of 9/11 when waterboarding, for example, was in use. We'd been caught totally blind. We knew there were more plots out there, and we knew almost nothing about them. We needed to find out fast. We found out a lot.

"We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened," asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell. Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a report in The Post that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[kiaer.ts]

Krauthammer really dropped the ball on this one.

We have to make an explicit distinction between torture and interrogation.

Torture is a forcible means of intentionally inflicting pain, usually as coercion, or perhaps just as punishment or for sadistic motives. It may potentially be used as an interrogation method.

Interrogation is the collection of intelligence or information from a prisoner. It may use adverse stimuli such as sleep deprivation or more harsh methods which may be characterized as torture. But interrogation differs from simple sadism or punishment in that it aims at reliable information, not the breaking of a person as such. Indeed, we do not want false confessions, and this alone is the best argument against some interrogation methods.

Krauthammer does not make the distinction between torture and interrogation, and conflates the two terms, and has lost the battle already by doing so.

We forbid American citizens from being held without charges or from being subjected to cruel or unusal punishments, or from being forced to testify against themselves. These prohibitions obviously rule out forciblle interrogation methods against US citizens.

But Al Qaeda operatives commiting war crimes against us in foreign lands are not citizens. Nor are they protected by the geneva code. They have no rights we needs to respect beyond our own guidlines we set for ourselves. By international law it is permissable to execute them summarily, their lives are forfeit. There is no justification other than altruism for a call for us to treat such scum as human when they extend no such recognition to us.

The proper question is not whether we have the right to torture unlawful enemy combatants, but whether it serves our ends. Is the information garnered useful and reliable? Does the use of the method cause greater problems than rewards? Obviously, from all accounts, waterboarding works wonders, even for those who are prepared for it.

Do we have the right to waterboard enemy combatants as a method of interrogation? Of course - we have the right to execute the summarily as well. There is a question as to whether we should do such things. That debate was held, and the likes of Pelosi were privy to it, and they are trying to make a political crime now out of a policy which they wholeheartedly supported then.

Is waterboarding even torture in the sense of thumbscrews or cattle prods or acid in the face? Do we use it as a form of punishment? No. Do we do it because we are sadists who enjoy it? No. Do we use it to coerce confessions to criminal charges? No. We use it to garner information. One could argue that waterboarding as we practice it is coercive and unpleasant. It does not kill. It does not cause permanent damage. We do not use it to force confessions as evidence for show trials. If comfy chairs and whooppee cushions worked we'd use them too.

The truth is that those who are raising such a stink about "torture" don't care about torture at all. They don't complain about what happens to people like Daniel Pearl, etc., ad infinitum. What they oppose is interrogation itself. They would have us simply provide enemy combatants with lawyers and treat them as domestic criminals and have us ask terrorists "pretty please with sugar on top." Indeed, they want such people released, knowing that they will and have returned to their war crimes and will kill our soldiers and allies again.

Krauthammer should have made the case for the legitimacy of interrogation. He should have pointed out that it is not us, but Al Qaeda which has chosen to place itself outside the protections of the geneva convention. He should have defined torture, and explained that there is an essential difference between simply inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain, and the use of such things as misdirection, sodium pentathol, and other forcible methods to gain information from (but not to punish) those whose lives are already forfeit.

If the best way to defeat an idea is to defend it poorly, Krauthammer has just done our enemies a great favor.