Emerging details about the investigation that culminated in the killing of Osama bin Laden have re-ignited debate over the practice and effectiveness of torture. John Yoo, former Justice Depaertment official in the Bush administration, cites the interrogation program he helped define as responsible for producing the actionable intelligence that led to bin Laden:
Sunday's success also vindicates the Bush administration, whose intelligence architecture marked the path to bin Laden's door. According to current and former administration officials, CIA interrogators gathered the initial information that ultimately led to bin Laden's death. The United States located al Qaeda's leader by learning the identity of a trusted courier from the tough interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, and his successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi.
In response, editors at the NYT claim the technique played a small role in finding bin Laden and cost the nation far more in terms of harming our reputation abroad:
There are many arguments against torture. It is immoral and illegal and counterproductive. The Bush administration’s abuses — and ends justify the means arguments — did huge damage to this country’s standing and gave its enemies succor and comfort. If that isn’t enough, there is also the pragmatic argument that most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means.
Read the editorials here:
WSJ;
NYT
No comments:
Post a Comment