Allegations that CIA agents used waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" against suspected members of al-Qaida have made headlines recently. The debate over whether such techniques — which some call torture — are ever necessary has reverberated in the halls of Congress, at the White House and across the nation.
Many Americans find such harsh interrogation techniques abhorrent and believe they should be banned. They undermine American values, they say, and rarely produce worthwhile intelligence.
Others argue that harsh interrogation is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with a brutal and implacable enemy. They say that the techniques can yield valuable information about planned terrorist attacks, and that innocent lives might be saved.
Six experts on interrogation techniques recently took on the issue in an Oxford-style debate, part of the series Intelligence Squared U.S. The debates are modeled on a program begun in London in 2002: Three experts argue in favor of a proposition and three argue against.
In the latest debate, held on March 11, the formal proposition was "Tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary."
Minds were changed during the debate. Before the debate, 46 percent of the audience voted in favor of the motion — that tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary — while 35 percent opposed it (with 19 percent undecided). By the end of the session, 53 percent opposed the motion and only 40 percent favored it, with 7 percent still undecided.
The event was held at Asia Society and Museum in New York City and moderated by veteran journalist Brooke Gladstone, managing editor and co-host of the public radio program On the Media.
Highlights from the debate:
Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org. 9(MDAzMjM2NDYzMDEyMzc1Njk5NjAxNzY3OQ001))
