Torturing America

Torture has reentered the public debate in light of the Obama administration's recent declassification of several CIA memos (a good summary of the timeline of events can be found here).

In releasing the memos, Obama was trying to disavow torture as a technique, but only served to reignite the debate. Former Vice President/bunker-dweller Dick Cheney has claimed that the full versions of these memos, and others, actually to justified the use of harsh interrogations - that is, they showed that waterboarding etc. produced specific and actionable intelligence. The next day, Admiral Dennis Blair, the National Intelligence Director, said as much an an internal memo shown to the press.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs summed this debate up well:

“That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country.”

Like with many controversial issues (abortion, American Idol) there are two legitimate sides to this argument - we should never torture under any circumstances, as it doesn't actually work and causes irreparable harm to U.S. interests, OR torture is justified in extreme cases in order to protect the country.

The scenario often used to support the use of torture is a 24-like ticking time bomb where the country must do whatever it takes to stop an imminent threat. "Shouldn't," supporters argue, "we do anything we can to save American lives?"

This is a disingenuous argument.

I would argue that a strong case for using "especially" harsh methods, torture, whatever you want to call it, would involve the following:

1. A high-value detainee that possesses valuable information
2. This information is not speculative, but highly actionable
3. This information cannot be obtained any other way

Herr Cheney is making this very argument. But how do you explain the following:

• First, the Bush Administration had argued for years that the U.S. did not torture. Then, once waterboarding was revealed, he said that torture was necessary to protect America
• Memos allegedly exist that (i) are able to be declassified, (ii) demonstrate restrained and focused uses of harsh interrogation, and (iii) led to actionable intelligence. If such memos exist, why did Cheney first request their release this March? Why did he first make that request public now? Why were these memos not hung from the South Lawn to completely validate the entire GWOT strategy?
• If waterboarding etc. are not torture, and these are perfectly acceptable methods for Al Qaeda terrorists, why restrict their use for only high-value targets? Why vigorously announce how "the United States doesn't torture people?"

There's something to be said for diligent analysis. If seasoned operatives from all branches of the military sat down, researched 50 years of interrogations (both U.S. and foreign) and determined that this was a repugnant but necessary tool, then so be it. Furthermore, if its use needed to remain secret for national security purposes, that would make sense too. Should it be revealed, they could then vigorously defend its use on the principles outlined above.

However, when the actual process involved several cabinet officials hurriedly approving this, with no research, they lose the moral high ground. These procedures were based on Cold War-era tactics that could produce false confessions:

In December 2001, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Baumgartner of the Air Force, who oversaw SERE training, cautioned in one memo that physical pressure was “less reliable” than other interrogation methods, could backfire by increasing a prisoner’s resistance and would have an “intolerable public and political backlash when discovered.” But his memo went to the Defense Department, not the C.I.A.

Our country was founded on the rule of law. America fought for freedom as to not be at the whim of a regent, but a predictable set of legal and ethical guidelines. If Bush had strictly followed the Geneva Convention, and were faced with a "ticking time bomb" scenario, and it became public, surely one could logically defend their actions. However, to torture as a matter of policy, and to cover up our actions so much as to invite skepticism, suggests that this is not a necessary tactic, but the development of a far-reaching interpretation of executive authority.

Furthermore, should this scenario ever actually happen, I would be okay with the CIA using whatever means necessary to prevent the deaths of innocents. In other words, in some cases it may be okay to cross moral lines to achieve a utilitarian outcome. Yet, when the proposed methods are not only arguably ineffective, but actually lead to false confessions, this only wastes time on the ticking time bomb's clock.

It's not worth destroying everything the country stands for in the name of panic.