Michael Hayden makes the case that (1) enhanced interrogation techniques and torture worked, and (2) valuable intelligence came from those detainees who underwent those methods.
So that there is no ambiguity, let me be doubly clear: It is nearly impossible for me to imagine any operation like the May 2 assault on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that would not have made substantial use of the trove of information derived from CIA detainees, including those on whom enhanced techniques had been used.
This directly contradicts the many assertions from the Left that those techniques don't work. When multiple CIA directors have attested to their effectiveness, and when Leon Panetta affirms that valuable information was obtained from those interrogations, I tend to believe them.
But might doesn't make right, and just because we can does not mean we should. Our nation is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that requires the people serving under our flag to treat its prisoners and detainees humanely. Because we fell well short of this standard, the Bush administration committed war crimes, aided by legal counsel who enabled the principals to give the CIA the green light. In addition, we paid a political price, losing goodwill in the Muslim world and among our allies.
Conservatives and Republicans should uphold the principle that--even though we may disagree with this and that--we are a nation that respects the rule of law. In the case of the detainees, many, if not most, in my party pissed on that principle. I'm glad bin Laden is dead, but this does not excuse the manner in which we found his location. No, it wasn't worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment