Torture Pt. 2 - Bush's Veto

Torture's been on my mind a bit ever since President Bush vetoed a bill to prevent the CIA from using certain interrogation techniques including waterboarding. I haven't read the bill (or any bill in it's entirety since I went to Model Congress as a kid), but I feel confident to discuss the issue involved.


At this time, there are two distinct aspects as to whether or not the United States should use coercive interrogation techniques, aka torture. 1. Does it work? 2. Is it moral?

Many say it doesn't work, but personally, I'm convinced that I'd talk hours earlier if someone hurt me than if they did anything but. I'd like to think I'm stronger than that, but torture techniques have been improved upon for millennia and I'm confident I can deal with psychological pain far longer than physical pain. But that's not the issue at hand. If it doesn't work, we won't do it, and if it does, that doesn't make it morally correct. For the sake of getting to the core of the moral argument, let's assume torture works.

This is not a simple issue. Obviously there are levels of coercion, from sleep deprivation and imprisonment to the iron maiden and beyond. Some have permanent physical and/or psychological effects, other do not. In addition, there are many reasons given for the motivation to torture, from those who would use it as a punishment, a deterrent, an incentive, an interrogation technique, or a number of other reasons. I have intentionally left out entertainment and many of the other macabre reasons people have used torture in the past as I'm trying to focus on one particular aspect of torture. That aspect is torture as an interrogation technique. That's what this bill was about.

The question is, if torture for interrogation can be proven to save lives, should we prevent our CIA or military from doing it anyway? It's a difficult question, especially given the usual hypothetical: What if torture was used to glean information on the location of a nuke in a major American city and the information ended up preventing the catastrophe? Most people agree, and I suspect most Democrats as well, that torture would be justified in those circumstances. I certainly believe this.

If we make torture illegal under all circumstances, and design our laws to follow what we see as moral, can we be convinced that a government bureaucrat will risk breaking those laws to his own personal detriment? Or will he be more likely to do as our soldiers did when they had Osama bin Laden in their sights many years ago? Apparently we didn't fire because we required confirmation. When that confirmation arrived, the opportunity was gone and so was Bin Laden.

Of all the people we want to steadfastly follow our laws, none are more important than those with the guns in our government. Our military MUST be held responsible for its actions and must follow the laws and orders set by civilian authority. There must be NO misunderstanding as to what is allowed by our troops. We cannot have a loophole that is understood that under certain circumstances "It is okay to break those laws, all will be forgiven."

If we all agree that there are certain circumstances where torture is acceptable (think nuke in New York City), let's spell them out. This is too important an issue to insist on making it illegal, while simultaneously saying that in extenuating circumstances it is both acceptable and expected. Anyone who votes for the bill making torture practices illegal should answer the direct question of "Is torture EVER acceptable?" with a resounding "NO!" I sincerely doubt the many lawmakers who voted for this bill feel that way. The answer should not be "let's make it illegal, but expect extremely good and patriotic men will risk the consequences by breaking this law when it seems in the nation's best interest." Our military and foreign policy need clarity. I don't want to hear that we could have prevented losing a city if we'd gotten the information a few hours earlier, but the subject was still resisting talking in his comfortable cell and our men were proudly following our laws.

We are a nation of laws and not of men. At least, we strive to be a nation of laws. We build statues of lady justice, whose eyes are blind to those who stand before, and we wish all to be equal before the law. We should not place laws on the books that are intended to be broken by our own government, with the punishment to be withheld by the whim of the State after the fact. That's a slippery slope I'd rather not slide down.