The problem I have with this argument is the idea that this is purely a liberal vs. conservative argument. If you’re liberal, you’re supposed to be stupid, overly concerned with the rights of someone who’s been apprehended and accused of links to a terrorist organization, and of course you must lack compassion for those about to die in a terrorist attack. A conservative like us, however, is willing to do whatever it takes to torture, maim, and otherwise coerce information out of those wrongdoers he comes across. The difficulty is that things aren’t always that simple, and when things get complicated then the rules (and the above assumptions) go out the window.
I think of myself as a conservative. I don’t, frankly, give a rat’s ass about the rights of some loon we capture somewhere, who is part of a terrorist organization. The trick, however, is to do WHATEVER WORKS, when fighting terrorists, and leave the stupid political considerations to others. This is where the conservatives tend to go off the rails, because everyone assumes that if you torture someone enough, with enough skill and so forth, then you’ll get the information you need. Unfortunately, it hasn’t proven to be so, really, in any of the cases where torture has been tried. At least not in the war on terror, where we’re fighting these extremist Muslim.
For one thing, I’ve read on military blogs that when they capture someone from the Taliban or one of these groups in Iraq, the guys are often *looking forward* to the torture. They apparently feel if they can undergo a considerable amount of it, and then spit in the face of the interrogators, when they enter paradise (they assume this will be soon after) they’ll get seventy-*three* virgins, or they’ll be exceptionally pretty, or something. Regardless, having stood up to the Americans and their torturous methods is something of a badge of honor among Iraqis and Talibanis, apparently. It’d be interesting to find out what the Iraqis in those Abu Ghraib photos have had happen to them. You assume they’re out, wandering around. I wonder whether they’ve been stigmatized, or alternatively perhaps praised for what they endured.
Some distinctions should be made here. Let’s say we captured a terrorist who was part of a group that had planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. Say we knew he knew where the bomb was, and we didn’t, but we knew that the bomb would go off in 12 hours. The trick is that he knows the bomb will go off in 12 hours also. It’s sort of like the reverse of the problem with announcing that our troops will leave Iraq on a certain set timetable: all he has to do is hold out for 12 hours. Remember, if you cut off his fingers, he’s thinking to himself, in his head: “In paradise, my fingers will be more beautiful, and covered with rings mounting the finest jewels” or some such claptrap. A better move would be to try and convince him that New York was somehow worth saving, perhaps by showing him Muslim families that live there, and are prosperous, happy, and observant of their religious practices.
On the other hand, say some Muslim terrorists planted a bomb in New York, and they hired a Columbian drug cartel to help with the delivery. If we captured one of the Columbians who assisted in the delivery and placement of the bomb, I’d be in favor of torturing him. He has no real ideological attachment to the cause he’s assisting, he’s just doing it because he hates our country, and presumably he’s making money. If he’s financially motivated, torture is a good idea…no one is willing to put up with that much pain, if they think they’ll never see the financial reward involved. *Then* it would make some sense, perhaps. Not with Muslim extremists, sorry, it just doesn’t work.
