Actually I’m referring more to extreme interrogation techniques than to torture. Torture is cutting off fingers, ripping off fingernails or intensive electrical shock. Water-boarding is an extreme interrogation technique.
The fact that the CIA used water-boarding to extract information from a couple of terrorists has gotten a lot of play in the media lately. Despite the fact that the government claims that the extracted information allowed terrorist attacks to be averted, most of the media accounts have been highly critical of the use of water-boarding. (But they seem to have been more worked up over the fact that the CIA destroyed video tapes of the interrogations. If they think it’s so bad why do they want to watch it?) They seem to be saying that saving innocent lives does not justify scaring the crap out of a known terrorist.
If you think you’re opposed to using extreme interrogation techniques under any circumstances, consider the following scenario: Your daughter has been kidnapped. Due to a lucky break the police have arrested a man they are certain is the kidnapper. Although he won’t tell the police where he is holding your daughter he has told them that she is locked inside a large tank that is slowly filling with water. He says that she will drown in 48 hours if the police don’t meet his demands, which are to be given a million dollars in cash and transportation to a country of his choice. He says that he will tell the police the location of your daughter when he reaches his destination.
Would you bet your daughter’s life that the kidnapper will keep his promise? Or would you encourage the police to use some innovative forms of persuasion to convince the kidnapper to reveal her location?
Considering the possibility that the kidnapper is lying and your daughter is already dead, would you discourage the use of torture because doing so would make you as bad as the kidnapper? Or would you want the kidnapper to suffer as much as your daughter likely did?
If you would choose to take the so-called high-road on this I’m glad you’re not my parent. If it were my daughter in this situation I would choose to use any non-life-threatening means available to break the kidnapper.
In principle this scenario is no different than dealing with a person that you know has information critical to preventing a major attack on our country that could kill thousands of people. The key element in both is that there is no doubt that the person has critical information and is refusing to give it up.
I believe the reason so many people in this country condemn the use of extreme interrogation techniques under any circumstances is that they don’t have a clear stake in the outcome. It’s a lot easier to take the high moral ground when neither you nor close loved ones are directly threatened. We should all take the time to consider whether our moral stances would survive if the bad stuff is happening to us.