Torture for our time

Was scanning some Middle Eastern news sites and came across this article from the Khaleej Times:

Most people around the world reject the use of torture to glean information, even if it could save the lives of innocent victims of a terrorist attack, a poll published on Thursday showed.

The survey was conducted for the BBC by PIPA, a group associated with the University of Maryland and funded by charities such as Teresa Kerry's Tides Foundation and Ben and Jerry's. The bottom line of the finding?

“The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture,” said Steven Kull, PIPA’s director.

For perspective this group recently conducted a poll asking people in several countries how terrorism suspects should be treated, whether as illegal combatants or generic suspects with full rights of due process. Here's their headline:

Americans Support Full Due-Process Rights for Terrorism Suspects ... Majorities Oppose Rendition of Suspects to Countries that Practice Torture

Just remember who started the rendition program and when, and ask yourself why this wasn't a major topic back in the day. Whoops sorry liberals, Clinton digression disease strikes again. Back to the chalk line..

Surely the bulk of responders don't really think we should capture AQ suspects and not ask them any questions, therefore we're discussing methods of interrogation and not whether suspects should be interrogated. The question becomes when does interrogation slide into torture.

But hey, let's all let out a collective "D'uh". NOBODY in their right mind condones torture in the conventional sense. We need to know precisely what defines the unconventional sense if this survey is to mean anything. For example, to some torture might mean going without Twinkies for a day.

John McCain just came off a showdown with Bush on this topic, which basically specificates Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a solution that led to a passage of a bill on the matter. Feel free to peruse the link and read about the allowable 'harsh methods', that is unless you've already committed them to memory.

For those playing at home here are the PIPO questions asked in the survey. Drum roll, please:

A) Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives, or

B) Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture

Not too terribly slanted, but not comprehensive enough. Let's propose a few more:

A) If your government strongly suspected a terrorist had prior knowledge that a plan was in process to explode a nuclear bomb in YOUR city, perhaps under your neighbor's house, would you be in favor of "harsh" interrogation methods being used on that suspect?

B) Suppose terrorists kidnapped your child and are holding her in a small sealed hole in the ground. The air is running out. One of the terrorists is captured, but refuses to talk. Would you support leeway in the authorities' ability to interrogate that suspect?

When questions are moved out of the philosophical and into the personal people tend to respond differently. This was clearly in evidence in the survey results as a majority of people from India favored leeway, not surprising since they hold the dubious distinction of hosting the most recent attack. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just makes the results different.

Most rational people agree on the potential slippery slope of this issue. The perverbial fly in the ointment continues to be the modern spectre of WMDs and other mass casaulty options available to terrorists, which makes it harder for world leaders to uphold Jeffersonian values in efforts to protect the citizenry. Remember, even the Jeffster considered this conundrum in his day and offered an opinion. Check out the sidebar.

Upon deep reflection it sometimes seems that unless we can find a way to disarm the entire planet, or unless Klaatu makes an appearance and does it for us, the answer to this question will remain elusive and left to situational practicality. After all, what good is Geneva, the Constitution or due process if we're all blown away?

DER TORTUREMEISTER? 10/19/06

Cap'n Ed covers the topic and links to footage of Clinton's take on the matter.

I keep harping on this like a broken record only because we see story after story about rendition with nary a hint of historical context. It was the Clinton government who developed and shaped the modern program blamed on Bush today. Fact is, support for rendition is bipartisan. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact seems to be more evidence of which entities are really trying to divide America.

In sum, if we're going to have a rendition program it seems to make more sense rendering captured AQ to secret CIA detainment camps rather than exporting them to places like Egypt, where torture is a certainty. I don't like the thought of either, but two successive American presidents of different political stripes apparently disagree and think it necessary. Who am I to argue?