A Can Of Worms Unleashed At Q and O on Torture/Abuse

McQ at Q and O has opened a can of worms on torture and abuse. And if you have never seen a can of worms, click on the title for the whole article and the ensuing comments.

It is no secret that I love the job that the bloggers at Q and O do, and McQ is certainly no exception. I highly recommend that blog, because it gets it right so many times and they make compelling arguments for the vast majority of their claims. But on this argument, I must disagree with him.

The questions raised are:

1. Is it moral for the US to torture and/or abuse enemy combatants being held, for any reason whatsoever (to include the specific purpose of obtaining vital information necessary to save a lot of lives)?

2. And if the answer is yes, how can we claim the moral high ground when we do?

McQ is of the opinion that we should never under any circumstances resort to torture/abuse. I say, there are instances that getting vital information at a critical point in time would warrant some methods (of extracting that information) that some would consider torture/abuse. When lives are at stake (especially civilian lives), there should be the freedom to use what ever means available to prevent the loss of those lives.

Now please understand, the kind of activity that went on at Abu Ghraib is not what I am talking about. From all of the evidence we have, that appears to be a case of a group of bored night shift guards looking to liven up the shift, and served no other purpose. That kind of activity is wrong and the government needs to take swift and harsh action against anyone that does this kind of thing. Violators should be prosecuted and punished. I wholeheartedly condemn this, as everyone should.

Before we go any further, we must recognize the difference between torture and abuse.

Torture is defined as the infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

Abuse is defined as:

1. noun - the improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority

2. verb - to hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.

There are others, but these definitions are sufficient for the purposes of this argument. And, it also must be noted that torture is not a very good way to get accurate information. (Causing repeated instances of physical pain may cause the detainee to give false information, in order to obtain temporary relief from that pain.)

There are some methods used that do not cause physical pain, that fall under the definition of abuse. They do not cause pain, but may cause physical and/or mental duress. Under that duress, the person being interrogated may slip and give up some information that he would not otherwise have given, under normal conditions. Sleep deprivation is one example. Tired people usually slip at some point, when their mental acuity is compromised.

In this type or a similar method, the objective should be only to get valuable information and for no other reason. Doing it just for fun or because you can, is never a valid reason.

Let's look at a hypothetical example:

A computer is seized during a raid that has specific information concerning a name of someone that is already in custody, a vague plan, and date(s). There are also other names of individuals you don't have in custody. From the date(s), you know that something is imminent and not much time exists to link the dots.

So you start the interrogation with the name, you do have. Naturally, he isn't too cooperative. So then, does it not make sense to begin methods that can get that vital information, faster? Which is more important at that moment, the peace and comfort of an enemy combatant or thousands of innocent lives?

McQ is right for the most part. Torture is wrong and as I said, a poor way to get information. But where he and I part company is illustrated in my example. But, these cases need to be rare and these methods used only when absolutely necessary. The objectives need to meet this criteria, as I have so outlined. Any other use of these types of methods, in my opinion, would constitute abuse and would deserve the maximum punishment under law.