“The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) - including the use of waterboarding - caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.” Obama’s own national intelligence director conceded that harsh methods had yielded valuable insights into al-Qaida.
Yes, sometimes the person will crack under pressure and say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, but then you check out that information to see if it could be legitimate. But to suggest that a certain technique constitutes ‘torture’ , and can never be used, is to deprive us of a valuable tool that may extract useful information. Can those who are willing to ban this technique honestly say it’s worth losing innocent lives, possibly in the thousands or millions, to avoid discomforting or frightening a terrorist?
America does not engage in true torture. It’s amazing to hear those who say that waterboarding is torture when it does not physically harm the person. If your definition of torture is anything that causes discomfort or yields information, then just about anything can be called torture. Waterboarding is not like electrocution or burning, where permanent physical damage is done. Waterboarding is mostly psychological and may be terrifying, but we are not using this interrogation method on Boy Scouts or nuns - these are terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.
The fact that so many waterboarding demonstrations have taken place should give pause to those who call it torture. After all, if it is so bad, why are people voluntarily going through it for demonstration purposes? I don’t see people volunteering for electrocution or being hit with a Roman scourging whip.
Powered by FireStats
[...] Also see Obama’s Intelligence Director Admits Waterboarding Uncovered Useful Information [...]
“Can those who are willing to ban this technique honestly say it’s worth losing innocent lives, possibly in the thousands or millions, to avoid discomforting or frightening a terrorist?”
Yes, they do. They clothe their objections in moral language, but the reality of the situation is that the same set of people who oppose pressure techniques to extract information from bad people–who would have been simply shot on sight in the old days–is the same set that thinks that a pacifistic approach to combatting violence is the safest thing to do. They see the terrorists as right and that we are wrong and therefore we don’t deserve to oppose it.
Also I think that the word torture–a specific word laden with moral significance–is being abused here. Sleep deprivation is not torture. Barking dogs and women’s dresses are not torture. Thumbscrews and hot coals are torture. Being beaten, limbs broken, etc., is torture.
Torture is also an ill-defined word to begin with, as the definition keeps changing depending on the perceived unpleasantness of the terrorists’ conditions in captivity. Never mind the fact they are provided with Korans, prayer rugs, the direction of Mecca, ethnic meals, and Geneva Convention protections they shouldn’t have as unlawful enemy combatants. No matter, America is still the bad guy to the left.