The tortured logic of irresponsible Democrats

Opinion Journal:

...

The notion that the U.S. goes around unnecessarily "torturing" people without any rationale whatsoever is so absurd that it is almost never stated explicitly. But it is equally awkward for the Administration's critics to admit that the "coercive" methods listed in these memos to induce cooperation from al Qaeda operatives may actually work. Former CIA Director George Tenet has said explicitly that they do work and have saved American lives. But rather than face these hard issues directly, the scolds fall back on generalities about our "values."

If Congress doesn't want to wade into the difficult business of approving this pressure technique while forbidding that one, or making clear which methods can and can't be used in combination, then it should understand that the course it is on now will help al Qaeda operatives resist interrogation.

Congress wants the OLC memos made public, but the reason to keep them secret is so enemy combatants can't use them as a resistance manual. If they know what's coming, they can psychologically prepare for it. We know al Qaeda training often involves its own forms of resistance training, and publicly describing the rules offers our enemies a road map for resistance.

...

I sometimes think that the only thing Democrats are willing to take responsibility for is spending your money to buy someone else's vote. They have been totally irresponsible on interrogation of enemy captives who may have information on the next attack. There are just some dots they are not willing to find if it means an opportunity to bash the administration as the next coming of the Gestapo.

The latest episode involves a traitorous leak about a memo in the justice department that can be mis characterized because the leaker knows the administration will not make it public. This kind of cynical manipulation on this issue suggest it is more for political effect than rational concern. Only an idiot or someone who wants to give an advantage to the enemy would favor making this memo public.

Bret Stephens discusses the definitions of torture and the costs of not getting information. Check out the Ireland v. the United Kingdom findings by the European Court of Human Rights.

... the court concluded that the following methods did not amount to torture:

"(a) Wall-standing: Forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a 'stress position,' described by those who underwent it as being 'spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers.'

"(b) Hooding: Putting a black or navy colored bag over the detainees' heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation.

"(c) Subjection to noise: Pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise.

"(d) Deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep.

"(e) Deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the center and pending interrogations."

Remarkably, the European Court reached this careful judgment despite the fact that the "five techniques were applied in combination, with premeditation and for hours at a stretch" and that some of the detainees sustained "massive" injuries....

...

It is enough to make Democrats cringe. But is it enough to make al Qaeda operatives give up the plot to the next mass murder of non combatants?