Torture, the Bomb, and enemy combatants.

People like Krauthammer and Dershowitz defended torture as necessary when used to prevent such extraordinary things as an impending nuclear attack the plot for which was already unfolding.

But our military and security forces abused prisoners viciously when there were no grounds to fear anything so exceptional or outlandish, or to believe the people they abused had knowledge that would avert any such thing.

Even granting - and there is not really any good reason to grant this, that I know of - that torture was necessary to get OBL, that use also does not fall under the nuke-attack-in-progress scenario or any plausible variant of it.

That entire debate was illicitly related to the question whether terrorists can be regarded as "unlawful enemy combatants," it being equally criminal to torture them, I believe.

So far as I know, POWs, "unlawful" or not, cannot be tortured or mistreated under American law or under treaties we have accepted and never repudiated.

They can be tried and punished for their crimes under normal processes and with their normal rights intact.

But that is quite another thing.

And, so far as I know, there was never any reason to suppose any of the prisoners abused at Gitmo, at Abu Ghraib, or elsewhere fell under anything like the nuke-attack-in-progress scenario people volubly insisted justified anything, no matter how horrific.

Our military and security forces abused prisoners and treated them inhumanely partly as vindictive and exemplary punishment and partly as a routine way of gathering information useful in or relevant to combating terrorism, but not remotely covered by the nuke-in-progress scenario.

It was the Third Degree on steroids.

And it was probably widespread during the Vietnam War and often done in all our other wars, too.

War is hell.

Oh, POWs can be held for the duration, of course, with no charges and no trial.

That would be another reason some wanted the Boston Bombers considered "enemy combatants," though they lacked the necessary connection with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

On the other hand, it seems incontestable that many people would insist prevention of terrorism, deliberate attacks aimed at killing and maiming ordinary civilians going about their ordinary business in large numbers or relatively small, is itself a sufficient justification for the use of outright torture.

Not just in the nuke scenario but in pretty much any scenario.

And maybe not just terrorism, sensu strictu, but any form of mass or serial killing.

And if there is an objection, here, other than a moral or religious one, I don't know what it is.

Cases like that, in fact, were actually what Dershowitz had in mind, and Krauthammer.

Dershowitz on torture warrants

Krauthammer on when torture is warranted

They were quite frank about it and were by no means only adverting to the nuke-in-progress scenario.

In France, General Aussaresses, too old for prison, paid a substantial fine for saying torture had been useful in combating terrorism and justified during the Algerian War.

As did his publisher.

Paul Aussaresses

Of course, the real concern has always been the proper treatment and interrogation of “high value targets” profoundly in the know about plans and capabilities of a very large, international organization that will continue terrorist attacks in many places, some in the US, for as long as it survives.

It is not a case of a single ticking time-bomb we need to find quickly and disarm.

It is a question of ongoing operations of a well-funded and international organization of devoted slaughterers that have to be foiled.

And that’s pretty serious business.

Liberals want Bush, Cheney, and any others involved in bringing about the abuse of prisoners and the use of torture in Afghanistan, Gitmo, or in other places, at our own hands or at the hands of friendly governments, in connection with the “war on terrorism” to be punished.

So far, Obama has resisted that.

It is an interesting question how most Americans would feel about it.

As for me, I vacillate on the issue.

But on the whole I think I oppose such punishment.

I oppose people being punished for doing what I would have wanted them to do and am grateful they did.

Though I agree with Dershowitz relevant laws should have been changed to regularize the situation and provide necessary cover for security forces or individuals personally implicated.

Update, 5/1.

But others, like Digby, take the opposing view.

The torture memoir

To her arguments I reply that there are innocent people in prison, too. Shall we close them all?

Torture is indeed horrible. So is terrorism. Which is worse? Terrorism, I think.