Today I have but three questions to ask of the defenders of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or “torture” as the opponents of using these techniques would prefer to call them.
First, assuming that using those techniques can be successful in providing high value intelligence, and that there is a possibility that foregoing their use could result in severe loss of life from a terrorist attack, and assuming also, that using those techniques is prohibited by US Law, international treaty, and the President’s oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States, then how many American lives are the torture defenders willing to risk to defend our legitimately enacted treaties and laws and to uphold our constitution? In World War II, we risked millions of lives for the sake of Liberty, and for our democratic system, and we incurred many hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Are the defenders of torture willing to risk as much now to defend our system, or does their defense of “torture” mean that they are willing to risk little or nothing because they, in fact, place very little value on our system of Government?
Second, when someone uses “enhanced interrogation techniques” on someone else in a “ticking clock” situation, and assuming that the recipient of such interrogation is strongly motivated to end the “unpleasantness,” how can the interrogator, within the “ticking clock” time frame, tell the difference between a story designed to provide he/she some relief from pain and suffering, and the truth? Would not the motivation of both the knowledgeable and the ignorant recipient of the interrogation be to tell a false story whatever they knew or did not know? Doesn’t the use of torture create a high probability of false “storytelling” from the knowledgeable and the ignorant alike?
And third, the history of the Bush Administration and its servants such as Alberto Gonzalez, Michael Hayden, Michael Mukasey, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Condoleeza Rice, and Vice President Cheney has been a history of secrecy, half-truths, misdirection, and outright lies to the public. So it’s very relevant to ask the simple question: Given that you’ve lied and dissembled to the public over a period of many years, when you tell us that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques have worked and saved lives, why should we believe you now?