Water Boarding

    I have a difference of opinion with my co-workers when we discuss the US tactic of water-boarding our terrorist detainees.  This discussion is only heightened with the revelation that its use led to the discovery of actionable intelligence that ultimately confirmed the location of ObL (or UbL) and allowed US forces to remove him has a continued threat.


     For me, to use water-boarding as an interrogation technique runs counter to the US rule of law when dealing with a prisoner, not to mention the possible violations of the laws of armed conflict as codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions.


     I guess I am old fashioned but I would like to believe we should hold ourselves to the standard of behavior we don't have to debate.  I was taught growing up "the end does not justify the means."  It is true that while a technique may be successful, and lead to the information we want there are second and third order arguments we should consider in the end.  So let's talk about those and let me lay out why I believe as I do.


    In dealing with terrorists and the global war against them we have to determine if they are a) legitimate combatants, or b) criminals, or c) a category we have not yet defined.  All my training up until 9/11 said terrorism was a non-legitimate form of warfare conducted principally against civilians.  Therefore terrorist organizations and individual terrorists were non-state actors who should be treated as criminals.  They were not afforded the rights and privileges of armed combatants engaging is war.  This held true regardless of their origin or their political affiliation.  If a state were to catch a terrorist he or she was subject to the legal jurisdiction of the state.  It was understood then there were states whose government supported this illegal activity and were delt with as rogue governments when a linkage could be proved.  For example  in response to a terrorist attack in Berlin's LaBelle Night Club in West Berlin, the US staged Operation El Dorado Canyon to punish Qaddafi for his direction and the Libyan involvement.


     After 9/11 we chose to blur the lines on this definition when we realized that a large terror organization, with significant financial backing and safe havens from legitimate governments were capable of massing an attack on US sovereignty within the continental US.  I would say our governments before 2000 should have realized this, but since the attacks were in Africa and the Middle East they did not put effective defense mechanisms in place.  This is a rough correlation to US preparation prior to WW2.  There are conspiracy theories that put forth the President knew Japan was planning an attack, just as there are similar theorists about Clinton and Bush.  It really doesn't matter in the end does it?  In each case we were attacked and reacted to that attack with a vengeance, swift and sure.


     So, in response to the attacks of 9/11, we focused on the retaliation against the rogue state that fostered and provided the where-with-all for the terrorist organization to attack.  We sent US Special Forces into Afghanistan to remove the government.  We did that with relatively little loss of US lives and without significant troop build up.  Unfortunately, in our support of the various war lords,  we did create a relatively weak regime to replace the Taliban, and have spent the last ten years attempting to shore that government up.


     In the course of that effort we've caught a large number of individuals associated with al Qaida.  They were caught by a US or allied Armed Force engaged in armed conflict.  Does that change their status?  There is an interesting problem here.  By statue US forces serving under US Code Title X cannot serve as a police force, this power was limited by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.  Therefore, should they no longer be considered criminals but instead prisoners of war, or that third as yet to be defined category?  Let's for sake of argument say they are prisoner's of war, if they are and we are forcing them to divulge information against their will then are we in volition of the conventions that require a prisoner only to identify themselves by Name, Rank and Identification Number.  There are, of course, a fairly large range of variables to suggest they do not constitute an organized and recognizable military force, but should we really rationalize away their rights as armed combatants, would we want our soldiers, sailors, marines and airman to have their rights rationalized away?


     In the course of war there are always acts of violence that make civilized people cry in outrage.  For example, we tried as war criminals the Japanese and German Nazi's who butchered tens and hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of civilians and military prisoners.  At the Hague we are trying today, men who abused their power in Bosnia.


    Each time we rationalize a behavior, we make the next step towards torture that much easier.  Is that really a path we as Americans want to go down?  I for one would not want us to.