Why torture ban should be a priority

Moral hazards are simply too great

Published November 28, 2005 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

In a remarkable story published on Thanksgiving, The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration "decided to charge (suspected terrorist) Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of al-Qaida who had been subjected to harsh questioning . . ."

Harsh questioning - as in what most of us would describe as torture, or at least its close cousin.

One of the two al-Qaida honchos, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has in fact become the poster boy for "waterboarding," a technique of submerging a prisoner's face in water so he experiences the sensation of drowning. News reports have said Mohammed, the alleged architect of 9/11, was subjected to this treatment after his capture in early 2003.

Did the use of such rough techniques on al-Qaida leaders save America from an attempted terrorist attack by Padilla, as some defenders of the interrogation policies may well contend? We may never know, since the actual charges against Padilla are unrelated to the bombing plots described by Justice Department officials after his arrest three years ago. As far as we're concerned, however, the use of torture doesn't become acceptable just because someone may be able to point to valuable information obtained through its use.

It goes without saying that torture sometimes produces useful revelations. The more important question is whether the dangers of embracing physical coercion on prisoners outweigh the likely benefits. And we believe the answer to that is yes, they do.

Among those dangers: Torture makes prisoners talk, but in the process produces much unreliable, bogus information, too; torture dehumanizes both its victims and those who inflict it, and leads the latter down a slippery slope of moral corruption; and finally, torture provides the enemy with justification for tormenting our own captured men and women.

Given such risks, the brutalization of prisoners should be outlawed even for the likes of Mohammed. The Senate approved such a ban earlier this month (although with Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard dissenting). Now it's time for the House to follow suit.

To be fair, there is one situation in which most Americans would almost certainly support brutal interrogation tactics. It's known as the "ticking time bomb" scenario - when a terrorist is picked up just after a bomb is planted at an unknown location, threatening thousands of lives. In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, the syndicated columnist Charles Kraut- hammer points out that Israel uses coercion on terrorists under certain conditions. He details one case in which the torture of a Palestinian involved in kidnapping an Israeli corporal resulted in locating his whereabouts.

But of course Israel is the target of literally scores of terrorist attacks every year, so the possibility of capturing a terrorist who has, say, just dropped off a colleague who will detonate a bomb is real. The likelihood of that happening in the United States is remote - but if Congress wants to include a narrow exemption for a genuine ticking time bomb scenario, that's fine with us.

It so happens, however, that none of the controversial cases involving allegations of authorized abuse or torture of enemy combatants by U.S. personnel - of al-Qaida leaders and certain prisoners at Guantanamo - involves a ticking time bomb.

Those cases shock the conscience - and should be banned.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News