Mark Shea makes the Wall Street Journal Online!

I am a devoted fan of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" on opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Online. Today's piece included a discussion that has been brewing on Mark Shea's site regarding torture of prisoners. Taranto begins his piece as follows:

Mark Shea is a blogger we had never heard of until yesterday, when Andrew Sullivan
linked us to one of his posts.

Okay, obviously we Catholics need to do a better job of promoting Catholic authors.

James Taranto frequently discusses Sullivan and his blog, and his mention of Mark Shea's blog is incidental to that. However, since Mark is one of the current high-profile apologists for the Church, I suggest that Taranto should check out his blogs on torture of terrorists, particularly Mark's post dated November 24 entitled "Krauthammer Pleads for Hard Cases to Make Law," and the 88 comments that followed, many of which were follow ups by Mark debating his readers.

Specifically, Mark prefers to refer to those of us who do not oppose the current detention and interrogation of terrorists as the "Rubber Hose Right." Mark asserts that those supporting the current policies regarding detainees do so under a false scenario, the "ticking-bomb scenario," and that even in such circumstances, torture cannot be justified. However, by making these arguments, Mark appears to be side-stepping the real issue by assuming that everything which is done to the detainees to obtain information constitutes 'torture.' For example, Mark supports Senator McCain's bill, which would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. However, it is unclear what would constitute such conduct. Does turning down the air-conditioning in the cell consttute degrading or cruel treatment? Does it constitute torture?

Further, Mark quotes an article by David Luban at the Washington Post. Luban argues against the ticking time-bomb scenario by stating that most information is not gathered in a time-pressed situation where we have only one hour to gather information. He specifically mentions how the interrogation of Mohamed Qatani, the 20th Hijacker, gave us information concerning Al-Qaeda, but how the Pentagon never claimed that any of that information helped prevent any terrorist attacks. Of course, it's a fallacy to think that the Pentagon's failure to state such means the opposite is true. However, and more importantly, if Qatani had been picked up two years before 9/11, it is certainly possible that we would have learned valuable information. Would that have fallen under the "ticking-bomb scenario"? Osama Bin-Laden spent years planning 9/11, and although many dots could have and should have been connected during that time, those dots weren't.
Somehow I don't find comfort in the thought that we are expected to rely on the same intelligence-gathering methods in use before 9/11 to protect the country. If any of the current detainees have information on a grand plan that is set to take place 5 years from now, I would prefer to learn about it now and not take the chance that we can learn of it some other way.

So we are back to the question of what is permissible. Forget about the words torture, abuse, cruel treatment. Let's make a list of what we are permitted to do. I would be greatly interested in hearing Mark give his opinion on the following questions:

1. If we encounter a terrorist outside the U.S., do you believe we are allowed to detain him or her? If so, for how long?

2. Are we required to provide each detainee from outside the U.S. with an attorney? Are we allowed to question the detainees without an attorney?

3. Are interrogators permitted to shout at detainees during interrogation?

4. Are interrogators permitted to deprive detainees of sleep in order to secure cooperation?

5. Are interrogators permitted to use drugs on detainees to obtain information?

6. Are interrogators permitted to slap detainees during interrogation?

7. Are interrogators permitted to withhold food in any amount to secure cooperation? If so, how much or for how long before it becomes cruel or abuse?

8. Are interrogators permitted to place detainees in solitary confinement to secure cooperation?

Mark, I do not ask you these questions to provoke you or put you on the spot. I sincerely wish to know what you consider acceptable and non-acceptable treatment.

If that makes me a member of the Rubber Hose Right, so be it.