4 years ago5,000+ Views
It has been one of the most long awaited reports in recent memory. The report, led by Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein, asserts that the CIA not only lied to Congress and the White House about the effectiveness of the torture campaigns (how much information it actually brought about), but also lied about how many prisons and inmates it kept. To further add to embarrassment of the CIA, the report goes on to claim that the torture was worse than initially reported, and so bad that several CIA officers and contractors even questioned their superiors on the usage of these methods. Such questions and resistance was met with indignation and commands to keep quiet, according to records of CIA wires and emails. While this is not that surprising, as there were rumors of this kind of information leaking out, the real question should be why was this allowed? There have been many studies that suggest that extreme torture, of any kind, actually leads to a lot of misinformation since people are likely to say anything just to stop the pain. Yet, at the same time, many former and current CIA agents have said that without extreme measures, they would not be able to gather the information needed to save American lives from terrorist attacks. There must some truth to that considering that even the Obama administration was hesitant to outright condemn the methods used by the CIA in this report. There in lies the major question: how should we weigh our values and sense of justice in the face of real and immediate danger? Is it ok to become as bad as the enemy to get the information we need? I do not think it is as simple as saying that the CIA was wrong. Yes, their tactics are wrong, but what are they supposed to do in those situations? When do the means justify the ends? At what point is it too much? I do not think that the CIA should have lied, but at the same time, I do not know what the appropriate level of force or intimidation is to save thousands of american lives?
@LexParkerJr There are various things that I feel like I could debate for hours bc I know where I stand. This issue, though, I just am at a loss. I do not know what the CIA has seen or what dangers they foresee, so how can I possibly say that it has not helped? Likewise, though, are not supposed to be championing democracy, humanity, and due process? How many of these people could we really say had any type of due process? I seriously doubt they even had the ability to understand their rights
@greggr but then how do we arm the CIA and other agencies with the appropriate tools to deal with fanatical and suicidal people? Death threats or simple prison threats are not enough. These are people who are willingly prepared to die for "their cause". Even if we do not know who is good or bad, the question goes beyond how do we protect our interests and safety, regardless of whether we are the good or bad side...
Unfortunately, the issue of "good and bad" and "right and wrong" is not simple. Just as the issue of who is the enemy and who is the "good side" in war is not simple. I don't think there is a way for us to clearly say what the ruling should be in this kind of case; it's too complicated. But, torture, I think, especially the kinds of torture detailed in this report, shouldn't not be on the side of right in any case, I think.
Good article, the third paragraph does open the subject of torture up for debate.