Defense of ‘Roughness’ Takes a Beating

Re “Necessary Roughness,” Commentary, Jan. 20: When will Max Boot and other defenders of the Bush administration realize that torture of prisoners, defined as POWs or not, damages the United States as a society? It is not just the risk that relations with the rest of the world are strained or that our soldiers are jeopardized.

When our nation begins to use torture as a means to an end, we chip away at the values we profess to defend. Little by little and step by step, we coarsen our society, we cheapen ourselves until we become no different than those who commit acts of terror. At that point, what shall we make of ourselves?

Joseph Neri

West Covina

*

I agree with Boot when he says “the sickos at Abu Ghraib ... have begun to get the jail time they deserve. Their superiors also deserve to be harshly disciplined.” I hope that means that Boot wants Alberto Gonzales and Donald Rumsfeld to be sent to prison, and George Bush to be impeached and removed from office. They are the superiors who are responsible for the outrages that were committed at Abu Ghraib.

Robert E. Park

Los Angeles

*

One of the problems with Boot’s defense of what he euphemistically calls “aggressive interrogation” techniques is the assumption that they are being used only on known Al Qaeda terrorists with relevant information. In fact, the reports out of Guantanamo are that abusive techniques are being used not simply on known Al Qaeda terrorists but also in an effort to determine whether someone is a terrorist or Al Qaeda member. This is proved by the fact that a number of those abused have been released. Boot can ridicule Human Rights Watch if he wants, but how does he explain the complaints of FBI agents and the International Red Cross that detainees were being abused by Americans in Cuba?

Michael Curry

Austin, Texas

*

Thank you for finally publishing a pro-torture commentary. Oh, my mistake: a nuanced, clear-eyed piece that recognizes the value of keeping terrorists up past their bedtime. Boot bases his argument on wrong facts and wrong morals. The terrorist threat is worse now than it was three years ago, not better (according to the U.S. government), and Al Qaeda and related groups have metastasized to the point where central control is gone and the value of capturing a “famous” leader is low. The moral position that we shouldn’t follow the Geneva Convention if the other side doesn’t -- well, farewell to Jesus and Kant. They don’t apply to the modern world.

Jim Kornell

Santa Barbara

*

Perhaps Boot could cite one shred of actionable intelligence that has emerged from the “necessary roughness” he endorses. Most intelligence professionals will tell you that abuse or torture gives the victim only the incentive to tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

William Fisher

Old Chatham, N.Y.