Sofia wrote:the application of some questioning techniques, which may be called torture...juxtaposed with the information considered vital to saving people
That's just half the juxtaposition though, even wholly apart from the ideal of "upholding Human Rights". There's also a question of sheer pragmatism, because the cause and effect cycle of this torture/questioning goes beyond whether you get the individual prisoner to talk and thus get to "save lives" in the individual case he's involved in. (And whether what you get him to say will actually be the truth, for that matter. I would immediately start talking when tortured - and tell them whatever it is I think they want to hear, regardless of whether it's true or not. I always wonder how effective torture is, at all, in getting the truth out of people. The number of Soviet Gulag prisoners kept multiplying as ever new inmates named ever new "accomplices" under torture - like a perpetuum mobile - and whatever there was to be "uncovered" just got buried deeper and deeper in the chaos).
Cause and effect also extends to when those thousands of prisoners get out, how they'll feel, where they'll go and what they'll do next. Join the underground resistance? Blow themselves up? And it extends to their families, their friends, anyone who gets to hear or see bits and pieces of what happened to them, and how
they will react.
Torture breeds fear, which is good for control, but also bitterness and seething rage, which will come back to bite you as soon as your control slackens or fails just one bit. When released, these men will hate Americans - and many will kill Americans, first chance they get. Is my bet. And their family might too. Perhaps their neighbours as well. This may be especially true for Muslim cultures - I dont really know - just going on the spade of suicide bombings by Chechen women in Russia recently. Chechnya is notorious for the way Russian soldiers torture men and rape women to "keep order". Might work in the short run in terms of "keeping in control", but I'm not surprised that a few years later, suicide bombings abound. The question is not just whether the lives you save by getting these men to talk outweigh the moral objections - but whether they outweigh the number of lives the resulting reaction to such a regime will cost you in the long run, as well.
What I haven't really gotten from the Abu Ghaib news yet is - the inmates who were tortured, were they already sentenced or still only suspects? The fact that they were under interrogation suggests that the army didnt really know what they did and whether they did it yet? The sheer number of inmates seems to suggest so too ... Now rounding up suspects and then torturing them to get confessions is not the way to win a war, in the long run. Hell, even if they were all guilty, its not a way to win the war, if you think about those families and neighbours and what you will move
them to do, next. These are no top terrorists you've isolated in a camp on a distant island - they're mostly "common man" Iraqis, whose wives are at the gates every day and who'll be back in their neighbourhood community, talking about you, the day they're released. Not talking lofty ideals here, just pragmatics: clamping down on them with brutal torture may yield you temporary control and a breakthrough in this or that case, but in the long run, they're gonna run you out in fury at how you've treated them - either that, or you'll be forced to reign through fear. Neither should be an option. My two cents.