Jeanne at Body and Soul points out Slate's The Torture Feature, a kind of "State of Torture" report. It introduces the "torture debate" by saying that "Many Americans feel uneasy about the idea of torturing prisoners;
others accept that desperate times may call for desperate security
measures."
The article goes provides an excellent primer on the legalities involved - what rules that the US has said it will follow and the ones that it won't, and how the US has done at complying with its own rules (three guesses). It reviews the chain of command, the reports that the military has produced, and a taxanomy of torture.
The feature's conclusion should have been the lead - in it the authors finally begin to to touch upon the whys of the choices made, and to address the costs of those choices on the US and the detainees on whom torture and murder has been practiced.
"These policies were deliberately designed to carve out exceptions to international rules regarding prisoners of war that the United States had once championed and led the world to embrace..."
"The real legacy of American interrogation practices, post-9/11, is that practices and justifications that should have been reserved for the worst of the worst (assuming we could know who they are) began to be used indiscriminately...The effect has been to turn America from the world's leader on many issues of international human-rights law into the world's tyrant."
"Absolute rules are favored in wartime because they work. There are few slopes more slippery than that the one from small war crimes to large ones; any wartime action, however heinous, can always be justified by some perceived necessity."
Supporters of torture are not, in the end, interested in whether it
works. From top to bottom I believe that torturers are interested in
punishment. They want to take out the pain and anger of our victimization on 9-11 on the
bodies of those who have been unfortunate enough to fall into their hands, be they innocent or guilty.
That's part of why the practice of torture hasn't been successfully limited to those people and those places it was "authorized." As soon as it became an acceptable way of treating some prisoners in some places, it became an acceptable punishment that anyone with enough anger and fear felt justified in using.
Now that the justifications are in place, they begin to be used in more places, against more enemies, for more reasons, and our souls blacken with the evil we allow. How long until we begin to justify the same treatment against enemies within, and how long until it becomes acceptable for anyone to decide and administer the punishment they determine is justified?