Is the use of torture as an interrogation technique ever justified?

Yes

1 of 16

by Donald Finley

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Is the use of torture as an interrogation technique ever justified? The politically correct scenario to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a captured terrorist with information about an imminent 9/11-scale attack. Most people believe it is obvious that to save many hundreds or thousands of lives, nearly any method used to gain the information to thwart the attack would be justified. High ranking Bush administration officials have publicly stated that this exact scenario was real, and such techniques stopped a planned terrorist attack in Los Angeles, saving an untold number of lives. Case closed.

Not really. Politics trumps reason, logic, common sense and intelligence combined. The Obama administration can gain political points, appease the George Soros far-left fanatics and gain international acclaim by politicizing this debate. The criminalization and potential prosecution of Bush administration lawyers, interrogators and high ranking officials hang in the balance at the time of this writing while the politician-philosoph er wannabes and journalist-philosoph er wannabes argue one side or the other. At the same time, Congressional Democrats claim ignorance and seemingly admit not paying attention to briefings for several years where Congressional Republicans say details were clearly outlined to resounding and nearly universal approval. Some Democrats call for hearings so Republican heads will roll (figuratively), while Republicans insist the fingers point back at the Democrats and say that committee attendance records and transcripts will prove it.

So much debate, so little progress. All of this leaves the average American knowing just three things. First, we weren't attacked again during the Bush years, when these techniques were used. Secondly and thirdly, Democratic Congressional leaders don't read bills before they vote on them, and they don't listen in important committee meetings.

The issue is really quite simple. Three words explain it all deterrence, love and pre-emption.

The entire Cold War was about deterrence. Hurt us and you are guaranteed to get hurt back. Mutually Assured Destruction, in terms of nuclear arms, told the first attacker that things, places and people he loved would also be destroyed, with a high likelihood that he himself would be killed. Deterrence works only through fear of losing something loved. The American judicial system works the same way. The threat of losing much loved freedom or life itself deters criminal acts. It isn't perfect, but it is effective.

Naturally, however, time offers the opportunity to find work-arounds. The Islamic fundamentalist extremist discovered that with a bit of brainwashing, he could convince people en mass not to love life, and thus was born the modern suicide/homicide bomber. This unfortunate creature not only couldn't be deterred, he or she actually relished the promised reward a hastened glorious afterlife. Then came 9/11.
President Bush's only option, as would have been any president's only option, was to take away the first attacker option, thus his policy of pre-emption. Another first attack would have displayed national weakness and a disregard for the safety of the populace. This pre-emption policy worked throughout the remainder of the Bush presidency because of our nation's strength, and his resolve to never allow such an attack to ever occur again. But how do you stop something you don't know about? You find out. Because we are humane on the battlefield, and didn't kill everything that moved, we captured a great many enemy combatants. Most were of the same Islamic fundamentalist extremist ilk, so if they knew anything at all, they wouldn't willingly tell us. This is where "enhanced interrogation techniques" helped.

These techniques also helped us to understand the nature of our enemy. The more we understood, the more frightening the potential. By the time we saw the videotaped beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg, the nature of our enemy was crystal clear and very frightening.
As former Vice President Cheney said, "We can't win this by turning the other cheek." Those who condemn humane methods of interrogation, even if enhanced, should ask themselves what it is they love. With hundreds or thousands of lives at stake, to unequivocally stand fast in the corner with those who proclaim torture of any degree is always forbidden is to state there is nothing worth loving, not the lives of the innocent, not the homes and cities of our citizens and not the principals of liberty and freedom our nation was founded upon. Let us all be grateful such people who wallow in our nation's freedoms aren't asked to help preserve them, for they don't understand what love of country' is about.
Deterrence succeeds when the consequence of actions is too great to risk those actions. On a level playing field, the victor is determined only by attrition or endurance. That is not the way the United States of America wages war. Overwhelming superiority in power, personnel, weapons or technology has been our ticket to victory. The asymmetric nature of the current fight, however, negates much of our advantage. No one can meet us toe-to-toe militarily, so their only chance is to meet us on the field of ideology, and ours is an open book for the world to see. Our kinder, gentler nature is not feared. Our judicial system is laughed at. Jihadists know nothing of fairness or justice. It's live or die. It's Muslim or infidel. It's strength or weakness. So what can deter them?

What about this? If they are captured, let them know that we will torture them, and do so mercilessly for extended periods. Will that make things worse for our captured personnel? Ask Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg. To deter extremists, perhaps we have to play on their home field, by their rules, and be better at it than they are. If they die in a suicide/homicide attack, what if we imprison their entire family for life? Would that quickly result in an ideological change? Would it start to touch upon something they love, and begin to deter such actions? Yes, these are extreme, and I certainly don't advocate them, but illustrate only that animals and barbarians are not deterred by civilized consequences. If the kinder and gentler policy makers continue to adhere to the moral high ground against those with no morals whatsoever, it is our very own infrastructure that will be our downfall. There are only two ways to win, and one of them is not to change their minds. First, effectively deter them such that they will change their actions by making them fear the consequences, or secondly, continue to fight them until we have killed them all.

Learn more about this author, Donald Finley.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.