The Right, when descriptive, says the detainee who gave valuable information regarding the courier that led to bin Laden's hideout was waterboarded. The Left says he was not. Sometime soon our country needs to come together and demand the truth, and that goes for all information, not just in regards to the debate over whether or not torture had any part to play in the Navy SEALS operation in Pakistan two Sunday's ago.
After reading Glenn Greenwald's opinion piece, "The Illogic of the Torture Debate," I believe the following points and assertions should be considered by all who care to discuss the issue honestly:
1. No one that should be taken seriously has argued that torture unequivocally CAN'T lead to useful information, just that it USUALLY DOESN'T. Experienced professional interrogators have cited examples where our intelligence chased fictional characters as a result of utilizing false leads produced from the torture of detainees.
2. The case against torture has a number of variables. (1) it's illegal, (2) it's used by al-Qaeda to recruit, (3) our application of torture justifies it's application against our own troops in the minds of our enemies, (4) it does in fact USUALLY result in bad information, and, as former military interrogator Matthew Alexander said on DemocracyNow! a few days ago, its use likely slowed down the discovery and neutralization of bin Laden and other public enemies because of false information which, consequently, resulted in wasted time and squandered resources. (5) last but certainly not least, torture is by all means immoral. No amount of violence can justify its application.
3. You've likely heard this assertion before: GOVERNMENTS LIE. I keep this in mind anytime a network host is attempting to have mandarins like Donald Rumsfeld persuade me one way or another on a particular issue. Furthermore, why would I take Rumsfeld at his word in regards to torture and the justice brought upon bin Laden when both his own and the reputation of the administration he worked for is being questioned? He's simply making a case in his own defense.
Am I wrong to assert that torture or the euphemism of enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, did not lead to the discovery of bin Laden? Maybe in a few years new information will contradict what's now considered fact from the Left: the detainee who gave U.S. intelligence info on the courier did so under extreme duress, but he reportedly wasn't waterboarded (just ask the CIA).
Clearly, the case against torture has far more strength in professional numbers, i.e. professional interrogators, than the case for it, which is championed by ideologues with something to lose; who've gone on the offensive in preparation for the inevitable time spent in a defensive position. The Left has strength in numbers, details & documented experiences. The Right just might have a more deluding, bigger mouth.
0 comments:
Post a Comment