So tonight on Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Goran and Eames are trying to figure out who dropped a soda machine on a guy. They find a suspect, and then their attention turns to the suspect’s psychiatrist. The doctor was a military reservist who had served at Guantanamo Bay helping with the interrogations, and was so wracked with guilt that she came back home and tried to see if she could use the interrogation techniques in a therapeutic way. Instead she drove her patient to a psychotic episode. At one point during the investigation, we take a break from the crime-stopping so that Goran and Eams can have a slightly heavy-handed conversation with their superiors about whether such interrogation techniques are justifiable in war.
Nice little ripped from the headlines bit, especially when I see this headline that the Bush Administration is trying to find a compromise to Sen. John McCain’s recent Senate bill prohibiting the United States from using “cruel, inhumane and degrading” means of interrogation. I can not wrap my brain around the fact that we have to have this conversation. First there’s a moral argument – we should be better than the people we’re trying to fight. Then there’s the reciprocal treatment aspect – we don’t want to contribute to an atmosphere where our own servicepeople can be subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment if captured. Plus the moral standing concerns – if we want to go preaching to other countires about how they behave, it behooves us to have our own house in order. And then there’s the whole question of whether tortue is even an effective means of interrogation anyway – if it just motivates people to tell the tortuers what they think they want to hear, it can produce as much false evidence as good leads. This article in the Washington Post tells of some of the mistakes that have been made in the CIA’s program to snatch up and interrogate suspects. I couldn’t help but be particularly struck by this passage:
The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls “erroneous renditions,” according to several former and current intelligence officials.
One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.
I guess I should be careful with the grade book this term, huh?