That question has been among the most hotly disputed issues at the center of the continuing controversy over the CIA’s interrogation of suspected terrorists. The report released Monday from the former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson should end the debate. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
A sadistic ends-justify-means defense of waterboarding and other brutal interrogation techniques. For all his tough talk, though, Hayes conveniently omits details about the techniques themselves, along with other information that would help bring this cynical piece slightly closer to being responsible and transparent. The hypothetical that forms the crux of his argument is such a factless shot in the dark it's not even worth considering. Note that Glenn Greenwald's blog post on this issue links to the IG report in the first paragraph but Hayes's post does not include it at all.
Hayes's meditation on the utility of torture is irrelevant in a legal context -- it doesn't matter if they worked or not, EITs are still illegal, not to mention downright repulsive and evil. Of course, Hayes isn't man enough to call *being waterboarded six times a day for a month* "torture." Nevertheless, this insane defense of what most of the civilized world considers barbarism says quite enough about his personal views. What is it that allows conservatives like him to cry ... More »
Interesting conservative perspective on the CIA's detention and interrogation program, and the effectiveness of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs). This opinion piece takes the view that EITs were effective, based on its interpretation of the CIA Inspector General's report. The author uses hypothetical examples to support his case, and while his speculations appear logical, they are so cold-hearted and detached from the much larger moral issues that they miss the overall point of this report - and fail to see the big picture. An interesting read nonetheless.
Reasonable people can – and do – disagree about the morality of using EITs. But only the most accomplished resister could continue to claim that they were not effective. More »
First, this piece asks the wrong question. The law does not depend on circumstance, except in the case of self defense. Whether or not it worked therefore does not bear on whether or not it is legal. Second, it leaves out inconvenient facts like whether or not the "intelligence" offered under torture proved to be accurate, timely, or useful. Most experts agree it usually doesn't. Last, it fails to cite the successful interrogations that did not use unlawful methods. For these reasons, Hayes' argument simply doesn't stand.
By setting up a couple of hypothetical examples and perusing the CIA Inspector General's report the author concludes that enhanced interrogation techniques were effective in garnering important intelligence in spite of the Inspector General's caveat that their effectiveness could not be determined. I remain a skeptic regarding the effectivenss of enhanced interrogation techniques but, more importantly, fault the author for consciously failing to address the overarching questions of their legality and morality.
The argument that enhanced torture techniques is well worth it is not the point. The point is the morality, ethical, and legal aspects. The special prosecute was appointed based on the justice and legality. As far as effectiveness that is not on trial. This argument can be made until the cows come home. It is a matter of belief.
Retrieving Comments
