Torture Neither Effective Nor Moral

TW: As this piece states there are two bases from which to oppose torture- moral and efficacy. I believe either suffices and would argue for both. New evidence supports the lack of efficacy from torture. Darth Cheney continues to imply efficacious torture yet hides behind alleged secrecy relative to his assertions. No one at the CIA can apparently provide any such data.

Obviously if one always claims "secrecy" when pressed for data an argument is not possible. This is always a convenient excuse for criminals within government. With a new administration one would hope if any such evidence exists it could be publicized (in an appropriate classified setting).

Economist:
"I HAVE argued in the past on this blog for an open debate about the efficacy of torture (apart from the ever-present moral debate), which would use information gained from America's experience in the war on terrorism. Over the weekend the torture-is-ineffective side of the argument got a big boost. The Washington Post reported that America's torture of Abu Zubaydah produced little more than false leads, wasting the time and money of the nation's security agencies. (Any useful intelligence Mr Zubaydah provided came pre-torture, say officials.)

The article is a fascinating read, detailing how Mr Zubaydah came to be falsely described as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations". But, more than anything, the article frustrates those who want to have a serious debate about torture. A debate that the last administration refuses to participate in, yet claims to have won. The Post reports

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.

So let me get this straight: The agency that is charged with stopping terrorist attacks claims to have stopped a "great many", while the man who authorised that agency to use torture claims that those techniques worked, yet neither can provide any evidence to support their claims, even in a classified setting. And this is supposed to make for a convincing argument?

The case for a torture commission is often attributed to those with vindictive motives. But is also in the interest of anyone, like Mr Cheney, who genuinely believes that America's detainee policies saved lives. Shedding light on those policies may undermine American security, as Mr Cheney would argue, but no more than ending those policies completely, which, as the current debate stands, is the likely outcome. Those genuinely interested in America's security should welcome an open debate on the matter. And yet they don't. Why is that?"