In a recent column titled “Torture is Not a Republican Value” published in The National Interest Online, former CIA agent Philip Giraldi writes that torture is bad and “produces bad information.” Giraldi maintains that “information that comes from physical abuse is unreliable and frequently false.” He adds that Bush administration claims “that torture has resulted in information that has stopped eight separate plots to attack the U.S. and Europe should be viewed skeptically, since no corroborating details have been provided.”
The holes in Giraldi’s argument are obvious.
While he says that information gleaned from harsh interrogation is “frequently false,” that, by definition, means that sometimes harsh interrogation DOES provide accurate information; information which might very well save hundreds, thousands or even millions of American lives.
In addition, the mere absence of “corroborating details” does not mean harsh interrogations have been fruitless in the past. Just because no one hears a tree fall in the woods doesn’t mean it didn’t make a sound.
Finally, Giraldi argues that “if the United States accepts that torture is a permissible practice it opens the door to the same or worse treatment for U.S. soldiers and diplomats who fall into the hands of terrorists.”
Yeah? Tell that to Danny Pearl, the reporter who had his head sliced off by terrorists. Or tell it to those four military contractors who were stung up on that bridge in Fallujah. Or that Navy SEAL who had his face shot off after he was captured in Operation Redwing in Afghanistan.
Giraldi would have us believe that if we just eschew harsh interrogations of captured terrorists, then the crazed Johnny Jihadis would become more civilized themselves and return the favor. Such naivete, especially for a former CIA counter-terrorism agent, is darned near criminal. For our soldiers’ sake, let’s all be grateful that Agent Giraldi - who will never be confused with Agent Jack Bauer - is indeed “former” Agent Giraldi.
Which brings us to the whole issue of whether or not “water-boarding” is torture and whether or not U.S. interrogators should use the method. I have a decidedly pro-water-boarding position, but even those who oppose should acknowledge that we should tell the ENEMY whether or not the method might be used. If they know it’s banned, they have nothing to fear. If they’re not sure, they do. Not exactly rocket science.
In any event, columnist Deroy Murdock inked an excellent piece this week outright defending water-boarding. Some excerpts…
“While the White House must beware not to inform our enemies what to expect if captured, today’s clueless anti-water-boarding rhetoric merits this tactic’s vigorous defense. Water-boarding is something of which every American should be proud.
“Water-boarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al Qaeda leaders reportedly have been water-boarded, most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. KSM, as intelligence agencies call him, directed the September 11 attacks, which killed 2,978 people and injured at least 7,356.
“…After U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM in March 2003, he stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually water-boarded him - for just 90 seconds.
“KSM ‘didn’t resist,’ one CIA veteran said in the August 13 New Yorker. ‘He sang right away.’ Another CIA official told ABC: ‘KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.’ KSM’s revelations helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists.
“…Imagine how many innocent people these six Islamo-fascists - and perhaps others - would have murdered had interrogators left KSM unwater-boarded and his secrets unuttered.
“Though clearly uncomfortable, water-boarding loosens lips without causing permanent physical injuries, and unlikely even temporary ones. If terrorists suffer long-term nightmares about water-boarding, better that than more Americans crying themselves to sleep after their loved ones have been shredded by bombs or baked in skyscrapers. In short, there is nothing ‘repugnant’ about water-boarding.”
AMEN!
Posted on November 16th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Those bleeding heart whiners against non injurious and non fatal interrogation don’t have a clue as to what real torture is.
They should investigate the Bataan death march and the Jap POW camps if they want to learn what torture is.
It is funny really, but back a few decades ago when I was going through Naval Flight Training, part of that training included “water boarding”. Where were all these bleeding hearts at that time asking why out own country would use something so horrible on their own troops as part of a training exercise? Once we had passed that part of our schooling, it was joked about by many of us, and we did not have any “permanent damage” from undergoing that “torture”. In answer to the question about whether it was effective or not, it definitely was. Did we feel like we were drowning? YES. Did it hurt us beyond repair? NO. It is probably the most effective AND humane “torture” that has ever been devised.
For Martin: Or would the camps in Germany be closer. Only six million folks went away and some skeletons came out.
And for VP-1 AW, back in 71 “select” soldiers got to experiance the “Monkey Cage”, 3′ by 3′ by 3′. Can’t stand, minimum movement, and you had to curl up REAL small, to sleep.
Didn’t hurt you, but did give a 21 year old civilian a wake up call.