Fevers were running high in the wake of 9/11, and many high-level officials from the president to CIA bomb-ticking “24” paranoids—to say nothing of amateur sadists at Abu Ghraib —lost control of reason. No amount of rationalization will justify the use of unduly “harsh treatment,” or if you will, “torture.” Granted legitimate POWs are a respectable cut above the thugs of al Qaeda and deserve relatively humane treatment from their captors. Terrorists, however, are not “noble” soldiers defending their country right or wrong. They are murderous fanatics who in battle normally under fire would be killed unless the order to take no prisoners was lifted for the purpose of interrogation, which indeed would be extremely harsh under combat conditions, yet short of methodic torture even though if the captive situation were reversed chances are beheadings would be the end result.
There is understandable ambivalence over the current buzz over the release of the “torture” memos, precisely because the “harsh” treatment was perpetrated on such unsavory characters. Still, we are a nation of laws and not men who occasionally are irrational despite the excuse of 9/11. After all, if there were indisputable evidence that some captives were responsible in the masterminding of violating our country, then a speedy court martial would result in speedy execution, rather than the nonsense of illegally trying to extract relevant information which clearly was not the case or the officials would have uncovered the whereabouts of Killer bin Laden in lieu of such fantasy that the data led to more plots against the nation.
Even if it were true that torture draws reliable intelligence, this nation should be above medieval inquisitions which could also spread to all captives including our own. Those who were allegedly engaged in such unlawful tactics should be reprimanded and a public censure against the previous administration for violating the trust of the people.