Republican Presidential Candidates Give Views on Suspected Terrorists' Torture
Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time….How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?
This is indeed a terrifying situation. It immediately raises the question: does torture work? In fact, there is no persuasive evidence that torture produces good information. Only John McCain,(R-AZ) who has the unusual credential of having experienced torture while serving in Vietnam, made this argument, responding that "The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what you want to know." McCain's views reflect those of other US military who have conducted interrogations in past and present wars. The distrust of torture in the military would seem to belie circulating argument that the idea that torture doesn't work is simply a liberal fiction. If it is, as Fred Kaplan at Slate wrote in 2004, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, "We don't have to deal with any moral or legal dilemmas. If torture simply doesn't work, all those difficult questions are moot."
Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, got applause for reminding the audience that he has seen the devastating effects of terrorism.
MR. GIULIANI: I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of --
MR. HUME: Water-boarding?
MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.
I'm myself not fond of this sort of equation. For the sake of moral clarity, theirs and the United States, I would rather see candidates evaluate the use of torture on the basis of principle. Otherwise, you're stuck with questions comparing numbers: what if a terrorist attack kills three people, not thousands, is torture worth it then? Scope matters, eventually, but it shouldn't be the basis for a principled response to torture.
Mitt Romney's response to the question managed to be both militaristic and hair splitting at once:
Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.
Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- (applause) -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.
Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) responded to a slightly modified version of the question with similar rhetoric. Senator Brownback:
Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you're going to be perceived in the world? And my standard is U.S. lives, and I'm going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.
I will do it. I'll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, "Well, it shouldn't quite have been done this way or that way," that's the way it is. But the standard must be protection of U.S. lives. That's the job of president of the United States, and I would take it seriously, and I would do it.
And Congressman Hunter:
I would say to SECDEF [Secretary of Defense], in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let's act on it. Let's execute with Special Operations or whoever else is necessary, and I will take full responsibility. Get the information.
Which brings us back to the question, do high-pressure techniques produce the information?
Interestingly, none of the candidates addressed any other way to get information. If, as the question claimed, "U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time," where might that information have come from? And what else could the U.S. have been doing right on the intelligence front to elicit the information? And how could that sort of preventive work be continued? Because the idea that you torture now and answer world opinion later is unlikely to be as good for American lives, in the long run, as some candidates seem to think.