Torture is back in the news, thanks in large part to President Barack Obama’s recent speech attacking the national security policies of the Bush Administration (despite reserving for himself the right to authorize torture) and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s speech setting the record straight.
Among those outraged by Bush, Cheney and company is Alonzo Fyfe, who argues:
Every political speech describing what the American government may do to foreign captives should be viewed as a speech on what the speaker would allow foreign governments to do to Americans.
Of course, nobody is talking about what the government can do to “foreign captives” or “foreign nationals.” We’re talking about what it can do to “terrorists,” meaning “foreign nationals whose goal is to kill civilians.” Advocacy of torturing foreign terrorists cannot be interpreted as moral permission for another country to torture any Americans aside from those engaged in terrorist activities against that country. And frankly, if a foreign government finds itself in that situation, I certainly wouldn’t object to their torturing an American-born terrorist to obtain information necessary to save lives.
As for the scenario of unjust governments or terrorist groups torturing captive US soldiers or civilians, then pointing to American waterboarding as justification, it’s preposterous. If our enemies’ actions were only, or even primarily, motivated by a desire to retaliate for comparable grievances, 9/11 never would have happened. Neither would the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing…you get the point.
Personally, I’ll take saving innocent lives over trying to psychoanalyze what might lead monsters to violate senses of moral restraint they don’t even have.
Calvin Freiburger Online 
No, we’re not talking about “terrorists”, we’re talking about “detainees”. We’re talking about torture – a violation of international law. We’re talking about the fact that all the actionable intelligence gained from those that were tortured was gotten legally; prior to their being tortured.
Please get the facts straight.
Khalid Sheik Mohammad, Abu Zubaydah….terrorists, no matter how you slice it. What “international law” does waterboarding violate (and don’t say the Geneva Convention). And as to your last sentence about having already obtained the info we got from waterboarding, I’d sure like to see your source for that.
What “international law” does waterboarding violate (and don’t say the Geneva Convention).
Isn’t the Geneva Convention “international law,” and isn’t the United States a signatory to said Convention?
Oh, and here’s a great article on how effective interrogation is without waterboarding or any other form of torture:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html
Terrorists are not fighting for any of the Geneva Convention’s signatory nations, they do not respect the rules of war (i.e., they target civilians) – the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.
Glad to hear that cookies did the trick, but obviously, they won’t all the time. I’m all for getting necessary information as peacefully as possible, but at the same time, I don’t want interrogators’ hands tied when it comes to saving lives.