By Any Other Name...

Torture has been in the news for several years now. It has been alleged, and even alluded to by coalition officials, that aggressive techniques have been used to elicit information from detainees accused of cooperating with our enemies. These techniques have been described by some advocates as simply alternative interrogation methods, by opponents as plain torture and by sound-bit junkies as "torture light."

This debate has brought up a number of questions:
- Is torture effective?
- Is our country torturing detainees?
- Should our country torture our enemy detainees to elicit information?
- Should our country torture our enemy detainees to prevent a catastrophic attack?
- Is "24" one of the best shows on television?

OK, that last question isn't related, but should be.

Like many other topics, the various partisans don't do the debate any justice because they nuance their positions so significantly that each side is debating the merits of the other's nuances, not primary positions.

For example, the real question should be, "should we torture enemy detainees to gather information," as you might see CTU agent Jack Bauer do in the fictional series, "24"? Everything else just gets us off track.

So, let's start with the misnomer questions:

- Does torture work?

Opponents of torture argue that we shouldn't torture our enemies and that it doesn't work anyway. They go on to quote the FBI techniques which use verbal persuasion, rather than physical manipulation. The answer: Of course torture works. It may not always be reliable; it may produce some incorrect answers; but it does work. This is why groups as diverse as the CIA and al-Qaeda teach techniques to avoid giving up information under duress and torture. This is why narco-terrorists, such as the Colombian Cali Cartel, with no interest in the rule of law torture captives (and not just because they are sadists). They know that if they need some information, duress, fatigue and threats contribute to breaking down the will of the captive. This of course assumes the captive actually has the information they need.

- Should we torture our captives?

The first known revolutionary insurgency featured the Chinese Communists, led by Mao Zedong, against the Chinese nationalists. One of Mao's principles of the insurgency was to offer their captives the opportunity to join them, and if they didn't, to release them. This wasn't done because Mao was a nice guy (he ultimately instituted policies leading to the mass starvation of more than 30 million Chinese, among other things). He did this because he knew how important it is to win the hearts and minds of his opponent. He knew the nationalists were torturing insurgents and he also knew that his more humane "catch-and-release" would endear his cause to the population.

- What if it is to prevent a catastrophic action?

This statement is a non-sequitur. Except on television, this has never happened and will never happen. The statement exists only to suggest the impossible.

The reality of the situation is that torture is effective in obtaining information, but at what cost? All detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere are accusing torture. Were they tortured? We will never know, but we do know that by permitting the argument, we are losing the support of the populations necessary to fight the "global war on terrorism." What distinguishes the United States as "the good guys" is that we treat our prisoners fairly. The "bad guys" torture their captives. The "bad guys" try their prisoners in a kangaroo court. The "bad guys" hide their prisoners.

We can't afford to be the "bad guys." It is not part of the American way.