1/06/2005|||110505360150583566||||||
THE TORTURE DEBATE

I just noticed that Andrew Sullivan has linked to a worrisome quote from John Derbyshire. Here's another that troubled me, JD discussing the rights and wrongs of interrogation techniques:

"Dog bites: I'd want to know the circumstances. On the whole -- and having been bitten by dogs myself -- I don't think this very important."

On the other hand (I hate to sound wishy-washy, but most issues have another hand) I agree with Heather MacDonald's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal (subscriber-only). This isn't a conventional war, and Al-Qaeda isn't a conventional enemy. (The full version of her piece appears in City Journal.):

"To succeed in the war on terror, interrogators must be allowed to use carefully controlled stress techniques against unlawful combatants. Stress works, say interrogators. The techniques that the military has used to date come nowhere near torture; the advocates can only be posturing in calling them such."

Alan Dershwitz summed up the dilemma in Why Terrorism Works:

"The tragic reality is that torture sometimes works, much though many people wish it did not."
|||Clive|||http://clivedavis.blogspot.com/2005/01/torture-debate-i-just-noticed-that.html|||1/06/2005 10:38:00 pm|||||||||
|||