FOR TORTURE:

Major Catch, Critical Time (DAVID JOHNSTON, March 2, 2003, NY Times)

Of all the milestones in the Bush administration's 18-month campaign against terrorism, the apprehension of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, possibly the most fearsome of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants, came at a critical juncture.

President Bush's critics have been complaining that his focus on President Saddam Hussein had distracted the nation from the war against Al Qaeda. The steady movement toward a war in Iraq had only seemed to escalate the risk of another terrorist attack.

But Mr. Mohammed's arrest was a heavy blow to Al Qaeda and good news for the United States, when that has been a scarce commodity. [...]

"Other than bin Laden, there is practically no one we would have liked better to have in custody," a senior American intelligence official said today. "It's pretty damn significant."

Though Osama bin Laden is still elusive, and his second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a prized target, Mr. Mohammed was viewed both as the "mastermind" of Sept. 11 and as Al Qaeda's most skilled operational planner.

"He holds the ignition keys," said Magnus Ranstorp, deputy director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland. "He could tell what is being planned, on what scale, who is involved and where they are. This is a huge blow to Al Qaeda, because Shaikh Mohammed is the contact man for operatives all around the world." [...]

With Mr. Mohammed transferred to American custody after his capture, in an arrest carried out by Pakistani authorities and guided by C.I.A. officers with the assistance of the F.B.I., intelligence officials expressed hope that Mr. Mohammed's cooperation might yield more valuable insights into Al Qaeda than any other detainee has provided so far.

The officials said he could describe the organization, financing and planning of the Sept. 11 hijackings. Moreover, because he was Al Qaeda's chief operations officer, he could also explain the terror network's current plans for attacks. He could even provide fresh clues about the whereabouts of Mr. bin Laden himself.

In addition, he may be able to provide more details about the operational abilities of Al Qaeda. Intelligence officials have said that the terror network was badly disrupted by the war in Afghanistan, but it has never been clear how much Mr. bin Laden has been able to rebuild his ability to carry out terror operations.

It is apparently not possible to overstate the magnitude of this arrest. Folks are saying that in purely operational terms, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is more important than Osama himself. He's the guy who will know exactly what is planned and where and how and who's involved. This though brings us to a topic that we've been dancing around ever since 9-11, because it so offends our democratic sensibilities, but which can no longer be avoided: torture.

When, in the Fall of 2001, two liberals--Jonathan Alter and Alan Dershowitz--raised the specter of using torture to extract information from captured terrorists, they were attacked from all sides and, because it was still only speculative, defended by few. One aspect of the criticism is actually correct, that confession extracted under torture are worthless as a matter of fact and of law. However, if we are sufficiently honest with ourselves and serious about the war on terror, it seems obvious that the point is not to get Mohammed to confess--he can never be allowed out of custody again, regardless of legal niceties--the point now is to find out what he knows about those who are still planning to kill any Westerners they can get to. And here the problem of false confession is minimal. He might try to misdirect us somewhat, but it will be possible to check the information he gives. On the other hand, the same terror of torture that forces people to confess even to things they have not done may suffice to get him to reveal genuine information that can save lives and destroy al Qaeda. we would, of course, rather not use torture, but the alternative, of allowing him to remain silent even though innocents will die as a result, is just unacceptable.

If this seems extreme to you, ask yourself a simple question: if 9-11 could have been avoided by torturing a captured terrorist, one you know to have blood on his hands, would you still rather not do so? Or, consider this: Would you be able to explain to the victims' families why you did not do so?

MORE:
-U.S. now might have to consider what once was unthinkable, Dershowitz says (Tina Hesman, November 5, 2001, St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
-Time to Think About Torture (Jonathan Alter, 11/05/01, Newsweek)
-Torture Laws (Inigo Thomas, November 28, 2001, Slate)
-In case anyone's forgotten: torture doesn't work (Christopher Hitchens, November 14, 2001, Guardian)
-Tortured Thought: Alan Dershowitz has spoken up vigorously on the subject (William F. Buckley, January 29, 2002, National Review)
-Legal Torture?: Is there a place in the U.S. justice system for torture? (CBS, Sept 20, 2002)
-Why terrorism works: Alan Dershowitz says the world community opened the door to al-Qaida by rewarding Palestinian terrorists--and makes the case for national I.D. cards and torture. (Suzy Hansen, Sept. 12, 2002, Salon)
-Dershowitz advocates making torture an option (Jeremy Reynalds, January 28, 2002, Enter Stage Right)
-The Wide World of Torture (Alexander Cockburn, November 26, 2001, The Nation)

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2003 9:04 AM