Torture

You know, sometimes people use words to convey a sense of extremity, or to liken one thing to another. I think they're called 'similes,' but I'm not sure.

I didn't always pay the closest of attention in English class.

At any rate, we'll say something like "it was like torture to sit and read obsidianhustle.com," (well I hope not that) or maybe "it was close to torture during Hell Week while I was on line," or the like, knowing full well that we don't really mean it was like torture because an extreme few of us know what real torture is like, thank God. And if we ever did, somehow I doubt that we'd be comparing life's little bumps and bruises to being forcefully abused while restrained.

Of course, lately, torture has been in the news a lot. Mainly because the United States seems to have been caught with the red-hot poker in hand, as it were, and the CIA has been destroying the evidence.

If you do a search on alleged torture, you'll find plenty of links to keep you reading, and shaking your head in disgust. But I'd like to concentrate on one Abu Zubaydah, he formerly of Al Qaeda. This is no saint, no angel, and certainly not a good Muslim. But did he deserve to be tortured?

According to ABC News, the CIA officer who interrogated the al Qaeda leader Zubaydah, claims that subjecting him to 35 seconds of waterboarding produced valuable information that thwarted terrorist attacks.

Interesting.

Apparently the agent said that just over half-a-minute of the simulated drowning technique and a night later, Zubaydah told his investigator "Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate."

For real?

That's about as reliable as George Bush telling me that God wanted him to be president, and equally as believable. That is to say, not at all.

What I find interesting is that, for one, torture, by admission of torturers/interrogators, rarely if ever works. People have this awful tendency to do whatever they have to do to get the pain, any kind of pain, but especially physical pain, to stop. We'll take drugs. Drink to excess. Lie. Just to tell you what you want to hear, so you stop hurting us. So the chances are that Mr Zubaydah took option three.

Next, it seems that Mr Zubaydah is certifiably mentally impaired. "The guy is insane, certifiable, split personality. He was like a travel agent, the guy who booked your flights....He was expendable, you know, the greeter....Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar's Palace, shaking hands," so said Dan Coleman, a source for Ron Suskind's book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11.

Nonetheless, according to CIA sources, Zubaydah was waterboarded, beaten, repeatedly threatened, and his anti-psychotic medication was withheld. He was then bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh lights.

Under this duress, Zubaydah told his interrogators that shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda, along with banks, and apartment buildings. As a result, it seems, the authorities were running hither and yon to protect these "soft targets."

I'm not sure if I believe any of those things were a target. And given Al Qaeda's operational tempo -- one major attack every decade or so against a US target -- I'd think we might have a bit of a wait on our hands, as they plan their next spectacular attempt. But I'm sure the Base enjoyed watching our authorities scurry from place to place.

My point is, the red state crowd has bought the story that causing people extreme distress can get you what you really need. Let's call it the 24 Syndrome. You know, Jack Bauer comes in, they torture a suspect, get the information in the knick of time, and all is good. Does anyone really believe that real life works that way?

I sure hope not.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not for coddling terrorists. They're criminals and they deserve to enjoy the finest in penal accommodations at some of this country's most dank and dismal prisons: Angola, Pelican Bay, Maryland Correctional, Attica. But torture is simply counterproductive, and the professionals will tell you. Army Col. Stuart Herrington (ret.), a combat interrogator who has done the deed in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (and probably some highly-classified and unnamed places) said this of torture to the Washington Post in 2005:

"In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the 'batting average' might be lower: 'perhaps six out of ten.' And if you beat up the remaining four? 'They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop.'"

Fascinating.

I'm sure the red folks will tell you that we liberals, progressives, libertarians, and moderates are all misguided. We don't understand the "real world," and we're soft on crime, terror, etc. But let me ask you this: given their track record, considering their abysmal handling of a post-9/11 world, would you listen to them?

Sure, I would.

About as much as I'd listen to a mentally ill guy whose been beaten, threatened and sleep-deprived.