Shots Across The Bow

Interrogation, Torture, and the Geneva Conventions

I just got into a long debate over at Knox Views about defining the difference between torture and interrogation, based on this post by R. (IANWTCHR) Neal

I'm reproducing one of my last comments here, because I think it provides a critical perspective on the question:

OK, since we're having trouble defining the differences between interrogation and torture, let's change our approach a little. Government is above all a practical business. Debating ideas is all well and good, but you have to take actions based on those ideas, and those actions will have consequences.

So let's take a look at them.

Assume for the sake of argument that our captured subject is an al Qaida operative with knowledge of an imminent attack on American soil that will kill a large number of American citizens. He is our only lead on the operation, and getting information from him represents our only chance to save American lives. For this argument, we will state that the captive, despite not fitting the description of a lawful combatant will be treated in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Art. 17 of the Conventions states that POWs shall not be subjected to any coercive treatment of any kind in order to elicit information.

You're the President. How many American lives will you sacrifice to continue to extend protections he does not qualify for to this man? This is the question that the President faces every day. Not John McCain. Not Colin Powell. Not Condoleeza Rice. Not any of the other experts, talking heads, and commentators. The President, whoever is sitting in the chair at the time, has the awesome responsibility of balancing American ideals with American lives.

So ask yourself, how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to extend Geneva Convention protections to a man who by definition does not rate them?

1?

100?

1000?

10,000?

I haven't gotten any answers to that question yet, nor do I really expect them. It's more of a thought experiment than a question to answer.

But here's the thing; if you try to dodge the question, to twist away from the awful implications it poses, then you aren't really qualified to understand what President Bush is trying to do.

Because the way I phrased it is the way our President must see it, otherwise he wouldn't be doing his job. He has to decide how to apply our principles, and the consequences of those decisions are his alone to bear. He knows that if we miss a scrap of information, it could cost American lives.

I know that if I were in his position, I'd want every scrap of power I could ethically get my hands on to elicit that information, because, as some on the left are so fond of reminding us, even one innocent life lost is too many.

But maybe that's just me.

Posted by Rich at September 21, 2006 12:06 AM | TrackBack