Posted by
EWRoss on Monday, August 31, 2009 7:00:00 AM
People who oppose using enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) on terrorist detainees regularly cite two arguments against using them. The first is that they don't work. The second, which contradicts the first, is that we don't know that we couldn't obtain the same inform by other means.
The CIA Inspector General's 2004 "Review of Counterterrorism and Detention Activities" belies the argument that EITs did't work. It's un-provable that other interrogation techniques might have allowed interrogators to obtain the same information. Even if that were true, would that information have been obtained in time to thwart the attacks that were prevented?
On moral grounds, people argue that the ends do not justify the means--or do they. If you shoot someone in the back because you want to steal their money, it's murder. If you shoot someone in the back because they are about to murder your children, it's justifiable homicide. You don't know if you could have prevented them from doing that by other means, but you didn't want to risk taking the time to find out. Under the laws of church and state, taking someone's life is justified to save your own life or those of others.
My point here is that morality depends much on intent and the gravity of the situation. In a society so loathe to judge the behavior of people who behave badly, we must be careful how we label our leaders when they make difficult moral choices to defend the lives of the American people. Live is full of moral dilemmas. Judges and courts decide when government officials violate the law. Only God and our own conscience know when we have been immoral.