I don't care about torture. There is a statistically infinitesimal chance that I, or anyone that I know OR EVER MET, was tortured.
To equate this to other terrible situations, the holocaust, Cambodia, Tibet, et cetera et cetera does not work. There is just a difference in scale. Awful for the people involved? Yes? Looks bad? Absolutely. One thousand bigger issues to deal with that effect me directly? You betcha.
Previously, common knowledge that we are torturing has effected me, in the most meta sense. Globally, our friends have less respect for us, and our enemies use the fact to recruit more enemies.
Stopping the torture now is clearly the most important step in solving these issues. Beyond that, things get much more hazy.
Diplomatically, new administrations bring new tones to discussion, and things change, on their own. Ultimately countries behave, like individuals, with (albeit sometimes imperfect) self-interest.
The bigger question is how would a trial, or many trials, effect the debate within the moderate and extremist Muslim world? I don't believe anyone can definitively answer that question.
It seems as though there often a debate about principle in politics. Republicans have been undergoing a somewhat tortured debate of their own regarding their principles. Should they be more moderate? More Conservative? Less judgmental socially?
The Democratic party seemingly has their own debate about principles. Not about torture per se, but about judicial revenge on those that authorized torture.
I'd question to what end. In the U.S., trials are transparent. Public record. All the dirty secrets would have to be revealed, but you don't get to control public knowledge.
Rather than the current mitigation of the issue around the world, there would be new damning information. Information that would be used as a weapon in the debate between moderate and extreme Islam.
Charlie Wilson's War is a reality-based morality tale of the unexpected terrible side effects of the best of intentions.
In a nutshell, a U.S. Congressman decided to get involved in Afghanistan, on the side of the Afghans and against the Soviet occupiers. Debatable, but morally justifiable: a principle.
How did it go? Great. The Soviets lose enough that they go home. Human fallibility ensues: we don't have the foresight to put the same money spent on war on health and education infrastructure, because the principle does not extend there, only to getting the Soviets kicked out.
How did it really go? Terribly. The soviet withdrawal lead to, in short fashion, Taliban control in Afghanistan which was fundamental in 9-11 as we understand it.
A lawyer shouldn't ask a question he doesn't know the answer to. We, as a society shouldn't risk the unintended consequences of this principle, because the end result doesn't have clear benefit.
Even the understood benefit. Some people in suits doing some time in prison, is underwhelming to me. They already lost the argument about torture, lost control of government, and beyond that...
I do not care.