Torture

I've appreciated Andrew Sullivan's writing over the years and have admired his staunch refusal to back down on some key issues. He supports the War in Iraq, though he is greatly troubled by the instances of torture by US interrogators against terrorism suspects.

Andrew hammers away at the torture issue day in and day out and I can understand why. Torture as a concept is alien to the United States. I vividly remember my own instinctive reaction to the photos of prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib. I was mortified. It was revolting and ugly.

I believe it necessary to make distinctions between torture of the searing pain-and-agony type that Saddam Hussein used and psychological abuse of the type meant to break down a prisoner's will to resist interrogation. This second type of prisoner treatment, while abusive, is not torture.

Andrew might take a dim view of this opinion.

Nevertheless, as important as it is to obtain intelligence from captured terrorist suspects, I believe that wide latitude should be given to CIA interrogators. For example, interrogators might direct much more forceful techniques to prisoners resistant to lower forms of stress, or for whom the intelligence gained as a result might be very valuable.

I suppose some might claim that my views on this subject are inconsistent with traditional American morality. They're probably right.

Hypothetically, say that Mr. Zarqawi is captured and there is a good possiblity that he might be in the posession of information that would lead directly to Osama bin Laden. Would I countenance shoving and bitch-slapping? Yes, I would.

For all the hand wringing over the issue of Abu Ghraib, the necessity to clearly define torture has not happened. This issue, by its very nature is taboo. As politically sensitive as it is, it requires a poltical response - one that makes clear that which the majority of Americans are willing to accept as part and parcel of the War on Terror.

Congress should take up this issue and clearly define torture.

Lipo