by Mark Bowden
The truth about torture itself is not clear-cut. Those who argue that it simply does not work go well beyond saying that it is wrong. They do not even consider it a moral question. After all, if threatening or mistreating a detainee will always fail to produce useful intelligence, who other than a sadist would bother? I am not convinced. I think the moral question arises precisely because torture, or more precisely, fear, can be an effective tool in interrogation. If we as a nation ban it, we do so despite that fact. We forgo the advantages of torture to claim higher moral ground. In order for that be to a virtuous choice, as opposed to a purely practical one, it means we must give up something of value—in this case intelligence that might forestall tragedy.
That is not the choice our nation made back in 2001, when this story begins. The fear that contaminated our military prisons in subsequent years became a scandal. It would be very tidy to conclude that because it was wrong, it was also useless, that it yielded nothing of value. ZD30 doesn’t do that, nor should you.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all of the editors and copy editors who have saved me from a great many errors and grammatical atrocities in these stories. I am particularly indebted to Cullen Murphy and Graydon Carter at Vanity Fair, and to Scott Stossel, James Bennet, and Yvonne Rolzhausen at the Atlantic.