As for tea and cakes, I have yet to see anyone suggest that as an interrogation method, although I fear it may be quite effective if used properly on homesick Brits.

The other side believes that anything that doesn’t do any lasting physical or psychological harm is fair game.

YMMV.

One should work on the culture first (God knows how you do that), and only then will democratic institutions be able to function as they are meant to. If one establishes a version of a western consitution, parliament, executive offices, etc., in a country where democratic practices and norms are not deeply rooted in the culture, or not enforced for a very long time (as in Germany after WW2), the new governmental institutions will quickly become farces or will be reshaped to conform to traditional local practices. Look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

And look at Iraq. Although many people in Iraq like the idea of representative government, it’s not going to be easy. A country that is divided among ethnic and religious groups (Sunni, Shia, Kurds and Turkmen) that have nothing in common, a country that is so artificial it almost requires a tyrant to keep it together, and that has known nothing but Baathist or traditional authoritarianisn…will not take to democracy so easily.

Democracy without democratic traditions and a well-developed civil society, independent judiciary, free press, and respect for the law? Good luck.

As for torture,I agree with Paul, but there is also a practical reason not to use it. I’ve heard that torture often yields false or misleading information since the prisoner will say anything to stop the pain. How will torturers know the difference?

Regarding the moral aspect: The question of torture is another example of how terrorists create difficult morality-vs-security choices that now bedevil democratic societies. Here are two common dilemmas:

* Conventional armies occupying a hostile territory (British in N. Ireland, Israel in the West Bank, US in Iraq) are forced to choose between being sitting ducks for terrorist attacks or going after terrorists hiding among civilian populations, thereby generating civilian casualties.

* Democratic countries must often choose between improving internal security at the expense of some civil rights or maintaining a strong stand on civil rights at the expense of security. For example, choices must be made regarding surveillance and profiling.

I guess the question of torture falls in the second category. Arguments for the use of torture often rely on one extreme scenario: when someone has information about where a bomb is set to explode in the next hour or day or so, and lots of lives are at stake. Perhaps the answer is not to torture, but to improve one’s intelligence capabilities to the extent that resort to torture becomes unnecessary.

Terrorists challenge democracies but they don’t discredit them or show them to be false. Democratic systems rely on sort of an honor system–or social contract if you want to use that term–between the citizenry and the ruling class. Each side has responsibilities that require self-restraint. And self-restraint is sustained presumably because both parties know they will gain a government that’s accountable to the people and a people who can be trusted to obey the laws and respect the rights of their fellow citizens.

Such a system offers gains to everyone, but it can easily be undermined by those who chose to abuse the rules. Terrorists don’t succeed in showing that democracy is a sham. (What do they have to offer that’s better?) They just show that they don’t understand the democracy’s strengths. Democratic societies grow better, innovate better, are more just (on the whole), and allow each citizen more opportunities for self-fulfillment. Democracy builds better societies, even if those societies are vulnerable.