Torture, Part II

Lots of comments on my original post on the torture memos. I want to clarify something. I think cutting someone's head off is insane and barbaric. The thought that there are people in the world capable of executing each other with power drills fills me with revulsion. But the thought that our government spent a bunch of time considering the ramifications of putting someone in a box with something that terrifies him and trapped him there, that we considered how much you could push, or slap a person and have it remain civilized and legal, well, that makes me ill, too. All of those things constitute a range of behavior to me that is illegal and inhumane. The reason it repulses me that the United States has done these things is because I hold us to the highest standards. Cutting people's heads off and publicizing it is the refuge of terrorists and cowards. I think America is neither.

That's my reaction as a person. As a reporter, and specifically as a reporter on the workforce beat, this is the question I find interesting. In the Intelligence Community, you have a group of highly specialized workers who, in any given situation, are often under a great deal of pressure and experiencing a great deal of stress. Some members of that community are given orders to do very serious things. Other people in that community have to deal with the ramifications of those actions. Invariably, there will be debate, feelings of ambivalence, revulsion, pride, patriotism, etc. If you are the person tasked with maintaining the general happiness of that workforce, and with overseeing recruiting and retention, how do you cope with the introduction of something like torture to the mix of tasks your agency performs? The intelligence community is a large, increasingly diverse group of individuals, and the reaction to torture as part of interrogation procedures must have been mixed. The media attention must have taken its toll, as must the fear of eventual prosecution. It's a fascinating and important leadership question.