disputes over enhanced interrogation of terrorists

my thoughts on an article in the WSJ - my form of humanitarian appeal, or propaganda, as it were:

Recently, the CIA has been struggling to justify the sadistic interrogation methods they would use when questioning suspected terrorists. "Enhanced interrogation", as it is called, has proved ineffective overall in respect to countering Middle Eastern terrorist plots, and with President Obama now in office, this brutal type of questioning has been put to rest. However, Attorney General Eric Holder hired an investigator to probe into whether the CIA committed crimes in its processes of interrogation. Upon (hopefully) affirming this information, Holder intends to prosecute any suspected offenders. While Langley will still be permitted to conduct survival and training techniques of the same nature, the agency is now forbidden (unless under dire circumstances) to interrogate by means of violence. Now, interrogators must employ only psychological methods with their detainees, which seem highly ineffective in comparison to enhanced interrogation. Even Holder, who seems vehemently opposed to the torture methods, admits that they yield unprecedented results and vital information concerning members of al Qaeda. However, the debate over which method should prevail also concerns the United States' international relations; Europeans cling to the United States to be a security buffer for them. To top this all off, the CIA is currently struggling to extract competent interrogators; the position calls for adept foreign linguistics and persuasive prowess, but does not come with the incentive of a pay-raise.

The issue of rendition has also been brought up; by using foreign countries as proxy sites for torture that is otherwise illegal, the image of the United States becomes progressively tainted. The controversy of eliminating the successful enhanced interrogation has warded off all eligible case officers, so now Langley is in desperate search of even less-than-qualified officers. All in all, this entire debate comes down to a matter of success versus a matter of morality.

Since the War on Terror began, and during the Bush administration, enhanced interrogation has been the subject of much controversy. The Bush administration had advocated this form of torture, yet the Supreme Court even affirmed that mistreatment of detainees violated both U.S. and international law. The United States is faced with an issue that divides the nation as well as gives off a negative image to the rest of the world. If enhanced interrogation is indefinitely outlawed, terrorists will take advantage of the non-threatening policies of interrogation and plot further attacks. Americans will lose their sense of security and develop political unrest. In regards to rendition, if the United States implements this, the clandestine nature of the process will lead Americans to distrust the government. In addition, the other countries depending on the United States for security will cut loose, and the United States will lose many ties and advantages necessary for upholding the nation. I believe the issue with most people is fear of the U.S.' vulnerability for terror attacks.

I was naturally drawn to this article because it dealt with the operation of the CIA and international intelligence. However, I'm more familiar with the Hollywood version of this, as it were, so this article gave me a chance to see the real side of things and how they are currently affecting the nation. Being a person of humanitarian conviction, it was also in my interest to read this and see the reasoning behind sustaining enhanced interrogation. Before reading the entire article I could tell that it conveyed subtle, yet definitely present, bias, so I was intrigued to read further. After reading this, I found information elsewhere that I was unpleasantly surprised to know about the Bush administration, so this article was a real eye-opener for me.