If Said-Emin Ibragimov is telling the truth, he was tortured with knives and cigarrettes for two days by Putin's operatives for making statements opposing the regime. If a Russian citizen opposes the use of torture by the KGB, yet stays silent, I would not judge them. But as a US citizen, if my government tells soldiers to torture detainees, what is my excuse for silence?
Democracy not only allows us to control our own destiny, it makes us responsible for our leaders' actions.
The report details are important for another reason. Without concrete evidence and detailed facts, the argument about torture is too theoretical. What if torture saves American lives? What if instead the CIA is lying about it saving American lives and is paying contractors $1800/day to perform torture and then misrepresenting the results? This isn't a theoretical discussion.
The argument against releasing the details is that they will be used as fodder to recruit new terrorists. This argument is fundamentally flawed, as is the argument that torture itself will cause more terrorism against the United States. Terrorists are not seekers of justice or defenders of human rights. Terrorists will use whatever is handy - truth, lies, religious fervor, or promises of virgins - to recruit followers and gain leverage. We should not base our decisions of how to proceed as a nation on the likely reactions of terrorists.
The original impetus for this article was this one of John Quigley's: Will CIA report increase risks? I am glad that Quigley came out on the side of transparency and against torture. But his concern to "convince those who would harm us that we have changed our ways" is misguided. We are running this country and we should be concerned to do the right thing because of our values, and because its the right thing to do in the world. How we are viewed in the world should be a natural consequence of our actions, not the basis for them.