Torture

Everyone is missing a big point in this torture debate. Republicans tend to say, what we are doing to these men falls short of torture. Waterboarding is not torture for such and such a reason. And then Democrats say well how would you like to be waterboarded? And Republicans say well I wouldn't like it at all, but we have evidence these people are depraved criminals and waterboarding might help prevent crimes. This is no different, they say, than zealous policemen interrogating a subject until he breaks down. We don't get many charges of torture against that. This is no different.

Nobody seems to notice that these terrorists -- the ones who are terrorists -- are presumably very dedicated people. They have a huge incentive to keep their plans secret. They think God will be mad at them otherwise. To a very religious person, there's not much scarier than holy disapproval.

If we do get any useful information out of them, it's because we pressured them really hard. In other words, interrogators made it clear that they would suffer more if they didn't tell, than if they did. Considering the depths of their feelings, it would have to be a lot of suffering. Therefore? We don't even have to know anything about the techniques involved. If a very dedicated man cracks, he has been tortured.

I think pundits get confused because suspects being investigated by the local police for a local murder are seldom this committed to their cause. A man who has just killed his wife probably wants to confess, on some level. His conscience bothers him. So the police often don't have to apply much pressure to get him to break down. Unless I have mistaken ideas about terrorist masterminds, they are not on the same level. To get any information out of them, it just has to be torture. You can have a debate about the merits of torture after you acknowledge this, but I'm surprised nobody has yet.