Jordan bomb trial offers US a case study
Torture. Truth drugs. Rubber hoses. Electrodes to the groin. Breaking bones.
We abhor it. We deplore it. We consider it repugnant. It flies in the face of our highly touted ideals of human worth, of the dignity of each man and woman.
We scream bloody murder when our own police use mere intimidation (not even physical duress) to extract confessions or information.
It’s just wrong.
And yet — to get back to that “ends” and “means” discussion before — and yet, can we, in wartime, refuse to use such measures? Or refuse to garner any benefits from those who do? Even if it’s the only way to save lives? The only way to get information to avoid another 9-11?
Are our principles worth anything if we are brutish when it serves our purpose, or when we turn a blind eye to others who are brutish if it is to our own gain?
Are our principles worth anything if we let them stand in the way of our own survival, of learning things that will help prevent future terror attacks?
Information from torture is tainted, both morally and, sometimes, factually. After all, under torture, folks will confess to nearly anything. But sometimes it’s the only way to get the information you need. So then, you have to ask, what are the costs of getting that information? What are the costs of not getting it?
Wish I had answers to all these questions, folks. All I have is a vague relief that I’m not the one, on the ground, having to make such decisions. And a more-than-vague fear that it doesn’t let me off the hook.