The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its 6,000+ page report last week on the interrogation techniques of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that it has exercised on captured, suspected terrorists following 9/11. The CIA calls it “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs); the report calls much of it “torture.” The primary technique that has been debated for years now is “waterboarding.” The purpose of the report is to stir the national conscience into passing laws in Congress that will prevent inhumane torture of such prisoners in the future.
This report furthers the growing separation between the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. Some Republican members of Congress allege that the report is a political tool of the Democrats, since committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, who released the report, is a Democrat. But two eminent members of the Senate who favor the report are Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
McCain, it may be recalled, was the Republican nominee for U.S. President in the 2008 election. And he is the onlly member of Congress who was a POW, which he experienced for over five years during the Veitnam War. I live here in Arizona, so I read a lot about John McCain in the Arizona Republic newspaper and have attended one of his town hall meetings. He says torturing prisoners does not produce desired results because such victims merely tell their capturers what they want to hear, most of which is false information.
Some present and former members of the CIA dispute this, including present CIA Director John Brennan. Since this report places the CIA under severe criticism, Brennan made an unprecedented move this week by going on national television to criticize the report, generally defend the CIA’s EITs, and assert that they have indeed produced valuable intelligence which has thwarted planned terrorist acts against the U.S. and its citizens and therefore kept America safe since 9/11.
I maintain that the U.S. does not avail itself of all possible means in its so-called “war on terrorism,” which is directed mostly against radical Islamists who seek to attack the U.S. or its citizens abroad. That is, U.S. authorities do not use religion in interrogating such suspects. This refusal to “fight fire with fire” weakens the U.S. Instead, the U.S. should get to the heart of the matter by addressing the question about why these Islamists, some of whom become suicide bombers, are so engaged in such violence against the West. I don’t think our so-called “separation of church and state” doctrine prevents us from carrying out such interrogation.
Yes, Islamists want to establish a caliphate–an Islamic empire governed according to Sharia law and thus the Qu’ran. But they are also motivated toward such violence largely because of their belief about the afterlife. They believe that if they die a martyr’s death in their performance of jihad, as they understand it, they will immediately go to heaven to enjoy great rewards given by Allah. Thus, to die for jihad and thus go to heaven is better than to continue living here on earth.
Doesn’t that sound like most Christians, that when a Christian relative or friend dies, they say that person “is in a better place now.” That’s not biblical, I’ve posted about it before, and I will post about it the next time.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In