Time to torture another suspect.
There seem to be a lot of folks upset by the widespread support for “enhanced interrogation techniques” among the Republican hopefuls in last night’s debate. Romney said “we ought to double Guantanamo . . . And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used–not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.” The good folks at FP Passport filed this under the headline “Twice the Gitmo, Twice the Fun.” Giuliani went even further, saying that interrogators should use “every method they could think of” in order to get information out of terrorists. I think Tancredo had the best response when he said what I expect many Americans were thinking:
McCain, who has long been an opponent of such measures, was the only serious candidate who seemed to have any qualms about using enhanced interrogation techniques:
So a couple of points here. First off, Romney’s proposal to double the size of Guantanamo was a little silly. Matthew Yglesias asks “What does that even mean?” Well, we all know exactly what it means: he doesn’t have any problem with keeping suspected terrorists in a legal no-man’s land free from the interference of the ACLU and its ilk. But if doubling the size of the detention center there offered any kind of advantage–and I don’t think it does–then how about quadrupling it. Still, Romney got the point across…just because the rest of the world has a problem with Gitmo, the Republican party doesn’t (and I think most Americans don’t either, otherwise the story would cause as much anger here as it does over there). As for Giuliani, his response was superb–he made clear that he would not hesitate to do what was necessary, regardless of the political consequences or the effect it might have on the country’s image, which, if you listen to the Democrats, couldn’t possibly be any worse, so why worry? But I think what’s really interesting here is that while Tancredo mentioned Bauer by name–and let’s be honest, Bauer’s interrogation techniques are obviously not frowned upon by the millions of viewers who watch him torture another bad guy each week–McCain’s response struck me as the most Baueresque of all. Bauer tortures people out of necessity, not as a matter of course. It just so happens that he’s confronted with a ticking time-bomb situation each week. Still, he understands that torture is both ugly and illegal, but in that “million-to-one scenario” that he finds himself in on an hourly basis, he “take[s] that responsibility.” Bauer understands that he is breaking the law and that he may be held accountable for his actions–when terrorist mastermind Marwan hired an ACLU-like lawyer to slow down CTU’s interrogation in Season 4, Jack quit his job, had the suspect released, and proceeded to break the guy’s fingers in the parking lot as a private citizen. He was subsequently arrested for his misconduct, but he did what was necessary, and he took responsibility for his actions. This is precisely the kind of torture policy we ought to embrace. Of course, torture should be illegal, but there may be times–one in a million, perhaps–when the laws must be broken out of necessity. At those times, the decision should be made at the top, and the man who makes that decision should be prepared to face the consequences. However, if the public deems the action appropriate, as it does every week in Bauer’s case, then there should be no consequences. McCain never said he wouldn’t allow torture, he just said it shouldn’t be official policy–if any of the candidates articulated a 24-style policy on torture, McCain was the guy. On a final note, Fred Thompson may not have been at last night’s debate, but, for what it’s worth, a reliable source informs us that 24 is the former senator’s favorite show.
