Terrorists, Secret Prisons, and the CIA
This Washington Post article is sure to bring resounding cries against CIA tactics of holding al- Qaeda members captive "as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system" indefinitely throughout a system of secret prisons around the world.
Let me start by saying this is not a black and white issue. To unequivocally state that torture is always wrong would be naive and foolhardy. There are certain instances where torture is necessary to protect national security. In the event that another large scale terrorist attack on American soil was imminent and the CIA had a high ranking freshly detained al-Qaeda officer in custody wouldn't it be their duty to prevent the attack at all costs?
I am hardly advocating a willey nilley approach to torture. I believe that it should be banned unless under the most dire of circumstances, and even then it should be at all times subject to closed door Congressional and Judicial oversight. The regular army should not be allowed to practice torture, rather, it should be under the exclusive control of the CIA, akin to the SAPs that Seymour Hersh wrote about. By no means should the U.S. practice torture on anywhere near a widespread scale.
This is most certainly one of the rare instances where the slippery slope argument applies. Just look at the torture at Abu-Ghraib that was a direct result of allowing limited torture elsewhere.
My inner conscience tells me that torture is always morally wrong. My realist thought process tells me, however, that in the most dire of circumstances it is necessary for our national security. I most certainly do not want another Abu-Ghraib, but I also am terrified about the prospect of another 9/11. Can we prevent another 9/11 without resorting to torture? Or even if we do implement torture on a limited basis can that even be successful in the fight against al-Qaeda? These are questions that I just don't know the answer too.
Read more about torture at the Atlantic.
Let me start by saying this is not a black and white issue. To unequivocally state that torture is always wrong would be naive and foolhardy. There are certain instances where torture is necessary to protect national security. In the event that another large scale terrorist attack on American soil was imminent and the CIA had a high ranking freshly detained al-Qaeda officer in custody wouldn't it be their duty to prevent the attack at all costs?
I am hardly advocating a willey nilley approach to torture. I believe that it should be banned unless under the most dire of circumstances, and even then it should be at all times subject to closed door Congressional and Judicial oversight. The regular army should not be allowed to practice torture, rather, it should be under the exclusive control of the CIA, akin to the SAPs that Seymour Hersh wrote about. By no means should the U.S. practice torture on anywhere near a widespread scale.
This is most certainly one of the rare instances where the slippery slope argument applies. Just look at the torture at Abu-Ghraib that was a direct result of allowing limited torture elsewhere.
My inner conscience tells me that torture is always morally wrong. My realist thought process tells me, however, that in the most dire of circumstances it is necessary for our national security. I most certainly do not want another Abu-Ghraib, but I also am terrified about the prospect of another 9/11. Can we prevent another 9/11 without resorting to torture? Or even if we do implement torture on a limited basis can that even be successful in the fight against al-Qaeda? These are questions that I just don't know the answer too.
Read more about torture at the Atlantic.
<< Home