The Case for Torture

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable to human rights groups here in the United States and in Britain. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies.

Personally, I'm not willing to conclude that torture was used as I'm not willing to take some international human rights groups word for it. Their definition of torture and mine probably aren't the same.

That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. In light of that, how important was it that he have an attorney present during questioning? What if he'd been granted a lawyer and, during the subsequent delays, the terror plot was carried out?

Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation...how far is too far? Is making the room uncomfortably hot or cold torture? How about sleep deprivation? How about humiliation and fear? How about a few slaps to the face?

When we're talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?

It begs an answer.