Insofar as the excesses and wrongs committed (partly in pursuit of information, partly due to the breakdown of discipline) have been identified and fixed by the system itself, then that reflects well on the system. In almost all cases, the rule of law still governs the US, and both your country and the world is better for it. But if you say often enough that exceptions are going to be made, that this particular enemy, for whatever special pleading reason requires going beyond the rules, the rules will quickly cease to mean anything. This is not how the US has proceeded internally, and that is to their credit, even if the initial actions are not. I agree, not enough disciplinary action was taken, especially higher up the chain. If it is made clear that the only people who will suffer are the poor shmucks who do the dirty work, then that removes all credible deterrent for the brass not to order it, or not to look the other way when it happens.
What goes on through rendition in places like Uzbekistan is another matter. The CIA is apparently willing to cross lines that the military is not. It would also be much more reassuring if they didn't have convenient "accidents" over potentially key pieces of evidence needed to review their conduct. It's one thing to cross the line in a crisis, it's entirely another to try and cover up that fact long afterwards.
I do not believe torture has provided much useful intelligence. Almost all of what we know about Al Qaeda, or its Iraqi namesake, has been obtained by other means. You are correct, the reports are contradictory. We will slowly know more, but probably never know all. My sense is that the realists have long since admitted that very little of use was obtained from torture. The defenders of the program are either ideologues, or people closing ranks to protect themselves or their friends. But so long as enough information is classified, any bluff is an effective bluff.
I'm a pacifist in approximately the sense that Russell was, although I don't agree with him about everything. Ends which can be accomplished without violence, should be. Ends that require violence can only be justified on grounds of necessity. There are situations where violence can be necessary, from individual self-defense all the way up to world war two. But any time violence is unleashed, the most important thing to understand is how likely it is to have consequences far beyond control. As you say, eggs will be broken, and putting things back together again is always much harder than breaking them apart.
-Jester
What goes on through rendition in places like Uzbekistan is another matter. The CIA is apparently willing to cross lines that the military is not. It would also be much more reassuring if they didn't have convenient "accidents" over potentially key pieces of evidence needed to review their conduct. It's one thing to cross the line in a crisis, it's entirely another to try and cover up that fact long afterwards.
I do not believe torture has provided much useful intelligence. Almost all of what we know about Al Qaeda, or its Iraqi namesake, has been obtained by other means. You are correct, the reports are contradictory. We will slowly know more, but probably never know all. My sense is that the realists have long since admitted that very little of use was obtained from torture. The defenders of the program are either ideologues, or people closing ranks to protect themselves or their friends. But so long as enough information is classified, any bluff is an effective bluff.
I'm a pacifist in approximately the sense that Russell was, although I don't agree with him about everything. Ends which can be accomplished without violence, should be. Ends that require violence can only be justified on grounds of necessity. There are situations where violence can be necessary, from individual self-defense all the way up to world war two. But any time violence is unleashed, the most important thing to understand is how likely it is to have consequences far beyond control. As you say, eggs will be broken, and putting things back together again is always much harder than breaking them apart.
-Jester