The Politics of Torture

For members of Congress, a public stand against torture confers little political advantage unless it's clear that no one is going soft on terrorism. So when CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted that his agency had destroyed videos showing the interrogation and possible torture of a member of al-Qaeda, representatives of both parties expressed dismay--not so much over what may have been done to the prisoners as over the apparent obliteration of evidence. Even before Hayden offered his explanation in closed testimony on Capitol Hill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid denounced a potential CIA cover-up, saying the loss of the tapes had damaged U.S. "moral authority."

But lawmakers' interest in probing the torture issue remains unclear. Politically, the topic became even trickier when a former CIA interrogator came forward this month to say it took about 35 sec. of waterboarding to break 9/11 conspirator Abu Zubaydah, who supposedly then revealed additional al-Qaeda plots as well as details leading to the capture of other terrorists. "It was like flipping a switch," the retired agent said, describing the effectiveness of waterboarding in an account that may help explain the revelation that four members of Congress--including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--received detailed briefings on interrogation techniques in the CIA's secret prisons and offered no objection.

If Congress really wanted to find out more, it could ask the agency for the transcripts and medical files it keeps on its interrogations--or for the audiotape and two videos the CIA says it still has of the questioning of unidentified prisoners requested in a federal court case. The procurement and public airing of such evidence would be one way to test the CIA's oft-repeated assertions that it never tortures and that all its secret interrogations have been conducted in full compliance with the law.