Human Nature: Science, Technology, and Life.

Face It

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen [two CIA contractors on site] concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced. "Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team's back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, 'You've lost your spine.' " ...

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said. After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

The nice way of looking at this episode is that the officials from Langley immediately recognized Zubaida's water-boarding as useless torture. The not-so-nice way is that they authorized it 83 times, and demanded 30 more days of it, before they took the trouble to see it firsthand. Apparently, one look was enough to change their minds. Too bad they didn't try that a bit earlier.

According to Warrick and Finn, an Obama administration task force is about to submit protocol recommendations for future interrogations. Here's Human Nature's proposal: No technique shall be applied until the authorizing official has witnessed it, at least on video.

I'm not ruling out water-boarding. But before you tell your pals around the water cooler that it's a vital interrogation tool or that the bastards deserve it, check out one of the demonstrations posted on the Internet, such as the waterboarding of Slate and Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens. You can also read David J. Morris' firsthand account of a water-boarding, published here six months ago.

The same goes for any other violent or lethal practice you countenance from the comfort of your desk. Capital punishment? Watch an execution. Eating meat? Check out a slaughterhouse. Abortion? Peruse the video library or, if the pregnancy is yours, look at an ultrasound. And don't think that opposing these practices insulates you from the same responsibility. If you think capital punishment is never warranted, acquaint yourself with the handiwork of a few murderers. Before you defund international family-planning agencies, meet some malnourished children.

You're entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to your ignorance. Go educate yourself. It's worth leaving the comfort of your desk, even if you work at Langley.

Exposing Executioners

If we expose the people who tortured terrorism detainees, whom will we go after next? The people who execute death-row prisoners?

The scenario makes sense. Executioners, like water-boarders, act under government orders. Executioners, unlike water-boarders, aim to kill. They do kill, by the dozens. And public support for the death penalty has been declining. It's not hard to envision a world in which we look back on capital punishment the way we now look back on torture.

Facing the prospect of exposure, if you were an executioner today, what would you do?

Washington state's executioners have made their decision: They're quitting. Here's the April 2 report from the Seattle Times:

Four people who have volunteered to administer lethal injections to death-row inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla quit their positions this week, apparently worried that their identities could become public as a result of an ongoing court case to decide whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The four resigned Tuesday, which was the deadline Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham had set for the team's records—detailing the members' credentials, qualifications and experience in administering lethal drugs—to be submitted for his review. The state is now without a lethal-injection team. ... "Walla Walla is a small town, so it's not hard to figure out (someone's identity) based on their qualifications," [a state official] said. "They don't want picketers showing up on their front lawns, and they don't want offenders knowing who they are."

In a follow-up story on April 15, the Times reported that a state senator has "introduced a bill that would forbid the release of names and other identifying information of execution team members." But the president of the Washington Coalition To Abolish the Death Penalty isn't backing down. He says, "[T]he public has a right to know whether members of an execution team are qualified to do [their] job."

Is execution as bad as water-boarding? Are executioners as culpable as torturers? Even if they aren't, should their identities be known?

And here's the harder question: Would you give the same answer about people who perform abortions? Do you think it's unfair that threats of exposure and picketing have led many doctors to quit doing abortions?

In the fury of a moral backlash, naming names and holding people accountable feels like the right thing to do. But before you go down that road, remember that the choice of targets won't always be yours.