Andrew Sullivan argues these severe interrogations amount to torture. His conclusion:
There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don't have war criminals like AEI's John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques - hypothermia, long-time standing, beating - and even the very same term "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "verschaerfte Vernehmung" in the original German - were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.Mark Shea basically agrees with Sullivan, but sees the underlying problem as an acceptance in both political parties of a consequentialist ethic, which is the ethical position that doing evil can be justified if the consequences are good.
We have war criminals in the White House. What are we going to do about it?
The problem with consequentialism and all ethics that reason for the doing of evil for a good end is that while good may indeed result from the evil act, the evil act damages the soul and diminishes the identity of those who participate in the evil. Shakespeare knew this, and displayed the results of such an ethical philosophy in his plays Macbeth and Richard III.
While the use of torture may save millions of lives, it corrupts the heart and soul of those who practice or promote the torturing. The good man who tortures or authorizes torture for a good end sooner or later becomes an evil man whose defence of evil increases in breadth and depth.
I really hope the Times, Sullivan, and Shea are wrong. I really hope we don't torture as a matter of policy (either transparent or secret). I fear, though, that this hope of mine is wishful thinking.