What if torture really is effective

Proving a negative, as we all know, is impossible. As long as it's established fact that Khalied Sheikh Mohammed delivered a single piece of verifiable intelligence at some point following being drowned and pulled back from the brink of death 183 times, then there's an extent to which shouting "Post hoc ergo propter hoc!!" is a clear waste of breath. There's just no deductive way to prove that the torture wasn't the only way, or the fastest way, to get what needed doing done, the convictions of everyone from Ronald Reagan to Dwight Eisenhower to Winston Churchill aside. Based on that inconclusiveness, Richard Cohen is sure that taking this particular weapon out of our arsenal is bad for the country. David Broder says that since we'll never really know the truth, any investigation and/or prosecution is doomed to degenerate into pointless political bickering. (Again, by the way, so much for the liberal press.) Cohen and Broder, like the President, would prefer that we all just Look Forward.

Well, I am looking forward. Discussions about crime and punishment, as Eric Holder knows, isn't just about retribution, it's about setting the standards for future behavior. It's about making it clear, in advance, what happens when individuals break the law, so that they think twice about doing it even when it's tempting. What the Justice Department does about torture that happened in the past is a good predictor of whether torture will occur in the future, whatever transient presidential proclamations exist - indeed, the law is just about the only mechanism that we the people have of ensuring that political office doesn't come with a license to make it all up as you go along.

So let's grant, for the sake of argument, that we'll never make an airtight case against torture based on its inefficacy. That means there are two questions that require our attention. One, is whether this is the best way to fight the war against al Qaeda, and of course I would say no. In the past few days others have made this case just as well as I could, so I won't bother repeating it all here. The second question that needs answering, related but distinct, has received less attention. That is, if we do accept torture as a valid means to an end against al Qaeda, what's our argument to keep it in that particular bottle, given all the other threats out there? Indeed, do we have such an argument?

The second worst terrorist attack on American soil took place in Oklahoma City 14 1/2 years ago. Not by a foreign extremist, but by a fellow citizen, in response to perceived government overreach at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In June of this year, the Holocaust Museum was attacked in broad daylight by an avowed white supremacist and anti-Semite. Dr. George Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church by an anti-abortion fanatic, after which the killer claimed to know of other acts of violence being planned by ideological compatriots. Terrorism as a tactic is clearly not limited to Islamic extremists

It's folly, as well, to consider this all these domestic threats just a random series of isolated events, with no discernible ideological pattern. Of course, the individuals were deranged and disturbed, but they were part of a network, all the same. There were websites, support structures, funding in some cases. What's more, most of the violence was in no small part motivated and inspired by a warped religious impulse, just like al Qaeda - they were fanatics. And just to bring it all up to the present day, at legislative town halls around the country discussing health care (health care!), we have people wearing T-shirts quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We all know Jefferson wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said that, and some of these people are packing heat.

Only a fool would conclude that there was no threat to the public from domestic sources, even if the town hall creeps are just full of hot air, which, let's face it, they probably are. But make no mistake, people have already died from this kind of thing, this year, and we know the United States government takes the threat seriously. What, then, I ask, is the logic, if we allow that it could work, behind refraining from the use of 'harsh interrogation tactics' on the next Timothy McVeigh and his crew, as long as we were reasonably sure who they were? Does enforcing the Constitution represent an unnecessary, inconvenient, and dispensable threat to our safety, or not? We've concluded it could potentially be of value for international terrorists - wouldn't it be best to make accommodations to domestic law enforcement now, before we suffer another serious attack in the homeland?

It seems to me that it's enough to know what would happen if we did strap George Tiller's murderer to a table and fake-drown him until he talks. Or if we shut down every right-wing website, rounded up every dissident, confiscated every rifle, and generally suspended the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments just as long as we perceived a threat. We all know that would mean the beginning of the end of the legitimacy of the U.S. government. It would add weight to the arguments of those who take up arms against us, and make defending fundamental American decency far more difficult, if not impossible. In short, it would cause things to get worse, not better. Not because the criminals we were trying to stop deserved more humane treatment, but rather because our whole claim to moral authority in the first place is based on doing more than what is easy and expedient.

So back to macro then. If we agree that torturing those who represent domestic threats is a path best not taken, what precisely is the difference when we bring al Qaeda into the mix? Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the international arena, our policies have made things worse, not better, by the same exact logic? And if so, doesn't that mean that we were right about torture to begin with, even if we can't conclude it never, ever works?

Support Eric Holder. Let's walk through this, wherever it leads, and make sure it doesn't ever happen again, inside or outside our borders.