A middleground on interrogating terrorists?

Clifford D. May has some thoughts on the debate over interrogating terrorist prisoners:

On one extreme of the debate over interrogating terrorists are the Jack Bauers, those who — like the lead character in Fox’s hit series 24 — think you do whatever it takes to get the information you need from someone plotting mass murder. At the other extreme is the antiwar Left: They wouldn’t harm a hair on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s head to save Disneyland at Christmas.

Part of the problem is how the debate is framed from the start: One side says some terrorists will reveal important things if subjected to discomfort far short of torture. The other side says that any discomfort in an interrogation is torture.

Definition of torture. Torture should be ruled out. But is waterboarding a form of torture? That seems to be the point where the debate stalls for lack of consensus. It looks awfully uncomfortable and scary, but is it in the same category as drilling into knees and skulls, or pulling out fingernails and fingers?

May:

I also wonder: How much must we tell al-Qaeda and other terrorists about what to expect? If terrorists know they may be waterboarded, they will prepare themselves to withstand the ordeal. In fact, waterboarding has been used to train and toughen American commandoes and spies.

I say let Congress decide on waterboarding. If the members believe it is torture, outlaw it; if not, clearly describe the limited, supervised circumstances in which it may be used. Perhaps Congress informally has decided already.

Don’t torture prisoners, but don’t tell them we don’t torture them.

Frank Warner

Comments

[jj mollo]

I'm for enforcing the McCain test. If John McCain says it's OK, then go ahead.

There is some intelligence lost in creating a torture-free zone covering every place that Americans are in charge. On the other hand, is not reputation worth a little more? If, for instance, we get in the habit of admitting our mistakes, then people may begin to believe us when we claim innocence. Yes we killed some civilians in place X and we're sorry. No we didn't kill any civilians in placy Y. If people actually come to believe us, then surely such credibility is worth more than the cost of fessing up. Likewise, if we claim the cloak of decency, people may come to rely on that. Maybe they will take advantage of that, too, but unlike Macchiavelli, we want people to fear us only when they take up arms against us.

[Frank Warner]

Just for clarification, I added to my post that if Congress believes waterboarding is torture, then it should ban it. If not, then it should describe the limited, supervised circumstances in which it may be used.

[jj mollo]

According to Small Wars Journal, waterboarding is torture, period. The only legitimate function it serves is for training purposes, and then only when closely supervized. Read the whole thing!

[Frank Warner]

JJ, I'll read!