Dept. of Muddled Arguments

I see (via TPM) that the Obama administration is objecting to the release of information about the harsh interrogation techniques (read: torture) used by the CIA.

The CIA argued yesterday that Bush-era documents detailing the videotaped interrogations of detainees should not be released, citing national security concerns, reports the Washington Post.

The videotapes, which depicted harsh interrogation tactics, were famously destroyed in 2005. As part of a wide-ranging lawsuit, the ACLU is seeking the release of CIA emails discussing the tapes, handwritten notes taken after reviewing the tapes, and a photograph of one high-value detainee, Abu Zubaydah, among other items relating to the tapes.

Their arguments for fighting release seem muddled.

CIA director Leon Panetta argued in a statement that releasing the material "could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed."

Panetta wrote that the "disclosure of explicit details of specific interrogations" would give al-Qaeda "propaganda it could use to recruit and raise funds." He called it "ready-made ammunition."

I read an argument that bears consideration in there, buried under some garbage. If the release of this information could legitimately compromise national security by "informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when," then I can understand the basis for holding it back. However, if that is the case, then we must at least listen to what Dick Cheney has been saying lately (and Lord help me, my fingers are giving up acrid smoke while I write this) about the CIA's interrogations producing valuable intelligence. National security hawks can argue that the Obama administration is essentially validating these statements by protecting the information obtained. I would counter that torture is immoral and counter to the principles that undergird American society, even if effective, but there are those who disagree who will find their arguments strengthened by the Obama administration's stance.

However, I am not sure I believe that the content of the intelligence learned could not be redacted while still making available the information about how it was obtained. Which brings us to the garbage.

The argument that the information would be "ready-made" ammunition falls flat for a variety of reasons. First of all, if we behave outrageously, we must expect that people will respond with outrage. If that outrage takes the form of violence, we must protect ourselves, but that doesn't mean that we have legitimate cause to suppress evidence of our own wrong-doing.

Second, I think this is the wrong perspective. Right now, the torture of prisoners in the so-called "Global War on Terror" is an accepted fact worldwide, euphemisms like "enhanced" or "harsh" interrogations notwithstanding. Everyone knows it happened. We don't know how it happened, exactly, and propogandists can thus make it as big and repulsive as they wish. By releasing the information, we allow the evil we have done to become, in effect, right-sized. It may cause embarrassment and difficulty on foreign policy and national security fronts, but it will be out in the open, and won't take on larger dimensions in the darkness of our collective imaginations.

Finally, America needs to have its self-image as a uniquely good country debunked a bit. Yes, I actually believe that America is a good country on balance. But the belief that God's relationship with America is unique, and makes us uniquely virtuous, is for the birds, no matter what certain politicians may say. Being reminded of our own fallibility as a society will hopefully prevent some of the more ill effects of national hubris in the future.