So what if the CIA tortured a few bad guys?

A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. 
Daniel Webster (U.S. Senator, lived 1782 to 1852).

 This past Tuesday the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the CIA and “advanced interrogation techniques” used between 2002 and 2006.

The basic conclusion is that the CIA used techniques that amounted to torture and that no useful intelligence was gathered as a result of these techniques. Further, the CIA mislead the government of the day regarding the specifics of the program.

Context matters.

These techniques were employed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack. America was shaken. How sophisticated was the enemy? Were more attacks imminent? There was tremendous pressure on America – and her agencies – to fight and win the “war on terror.” There was tremendous pressure to do whatever was required to protect American citizens. This explains – not excuses – the excesses of the CIA.

This theme – doing something wrong in the pursuit of right – has been recurring since… um… forever? 

In the aftermath of WWII, Russian soldier appear to have systematically raped up to 2,000,000 German women. When confronted by complaints Stalin is alleged to have replied, "[I] understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle." In other words, the honourable task of liberating Russia from the oppression of the Nazis makes the subsequent rapes OK, after all, Germans brought this upon themselves. Besides, our boys deserve a little fun. British, American, and French forces were not without guilt, either.

Police? In virtually every case of wrongful conviction what we see is the rush to convict. What we see is police intent on getting the right outcome. They earnestly believe they are doing the right thing. Police may come to believe that a particular person is guilty and they pursue that outcome to the exclusion of others. The David Milgaard case from my home of Saskatoon is just one example.

Milgaard spent 23 years in jail for the murder of Gail Miller, a crime he did not commit. It seems that police decided he was the perpetrator and then worked aggressively to build a case against him, ignoring evidence contrary to their constructed narrative. The police in the Milgaard case no doubt thought they were doing the right thing. They, no doubt, felt that convicting a guilty 16 year old was more important than following the rules. Except, the investigation resulted in an innocent young person being imprisoned for 23 years. 

Torturing 119 detainees is a small transgression when measured against one innocent American life.

The end justifies the means. 

Except, it doesn’t.

What we see in the CIA report is what we already know. It’s a reminder. The people that we place our trust in – the police, intelligence agencies, judges, etc – need oversight. We know that some people, driven by the desire to achieve the right results, will do things the wrong way. Good, well-meaning people will make poor decisions in certain circumstances. The more dire the circumstances, the greater the pressure, and the greater the likelihood of poor decision making.

With great power comes great responsibility (I know, I can’t believe I just quoted Spiderman). We repose a great trust in police and intelligence agencies. We ask them to defend us from crime and terrorism but we ask them to do it with great respect to our rights and to the rule of law. We give them great power. In exchange we ask them to exercise that power with exemplary responsibility. We ask for transparency. And, the best form of transparency is ongoing oversight, not merely accountability after the fact.

Police and intelligence agencies should not look at oversight as some terrible burden. They should recognize their fallibility and embrace oversight as one tool that will help them do their jobs as well as they can -- with honour, integrity, and transparency. The human animal is imperfect. Sometimes, in pursuit of an honourable goal, we make bad decisions. Asking for help -- for oversight -- is not a weakness. It's prudent.