Torture: Safe, Legal, and Rare?

Posted by Freddie on September 25, 2006 under Uncategorized |

I’m going to clearly state two simple ideas, which turn out not to be mutually exclusive:

1. I’m against terror.

2. I’m against torture.

I am concerned that despite our national sense of clarity on the first point, we are not having an appropriate debate about the second. In order to do so, I think we must be able to have a discussion geared toward discovering answers to the following questions: Do we, as an American people, feel that torture is ever justifiable as an interrogation technique? What, in fact, constitutes torture? Should we expect of our president that he is able to state clearly his definition of torture?

I am also concerned that President Bush is creating an unfortunate analogue in his approach to torture to the approach Bill Clinton took to abortion when he was president: seeking to make it safe, legal, and rare. Mr. Bush seems to be indicating that this is his common sense common ground, but Americans should not see his position in a noble light.

Much of the policy wrangling that occurs in the abortion debate occurs at the scenario level: the battles are fought over restricting the scenarios in which we deem it acceptable to condone abortion. And now we’re seeing the same sorts of battles being fought over restricting the scenarios in which we deem it acceptable to condone torture. In neither debate, though, does it strike me that the heart of the matter is wrapped up in the details of scenarios.

Should we not begin a process of waterboarding and induced hypothermia for captured members of organized crime syndicates, gangs, drug rings, and child pornography traffickers, all of whose actions do plenty of damage to our country in smaller, less explosive ways than terrorist attacks? Each of these examples is one of a larger network, and if we are confident in our methods, it would seem that we would want to use them vigilantly to disrupt these networks. Or does our moral high ground so easily give way when framed as an issue of national security?

Why is it not enough for Bush to be as unequivocal in his actions as commander-in-chief as he is in his words when he says, “We do not torture.”? Why must he seek exceptions for the C.I.A. via Executive Order, the Justice Department, and the tacit approval of Congress? Why can he not bring himself to define for Americans what he considers torture to be, regardless of what techniques he might be seeking to authorize?

Torture, like capital punishment, becomes morally embarrassing when it is misapplied, as in the recent case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen detained by the U.S. government and handed over to Syria for imprisonment and interrogation. After his release, it was revealed by a Canadian commission of inquiry that he was not a security threat and had been imprisoned for a year and tortured with no access to counsel of any kind. And this is the moral leadership we demonstrate to the civilized world?

I have a friend currently living in Cairo. She is fluent in Arabic. Do I need to fear what might happen to her upon her return to the country if one of her instant messages should be intercepted and misinterpreted by the NSA or CIA? Do I need to fear my own next trip to JFK if I receive such an IM or email from her? I do not fear being questioned by my government, but I do not want to have to fear being tortured by it. Neither should any other American. Isn’t preventing such scenarios one of the afterthought justifications contributing to explanations of our invasion of Iraq?

Considering how the abortion debate stirs such emotion every 2 years at the polls, I’m surprised how little the torture debate has pricked our national conscience. Is it that we are willing to concede the moral high ground in the interest of national security? Or is it because the debate itself is being improperly conducted, with our own president attempting to bully Congress into allowing his “program” to move “forward” by employing “alternative” techniques, which he is not allowed to name lest terrorists everywhere suddenly learn exactly how unlike being held in a C.I.A. prison is to a trip to Disney World. Unfortunately, I can only conclude that it is a significant portion of both.

I pity men like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who are helping goad our president into looking strong in the face of another election season. To spell it out plainly, we have a president attempting to secure and defend the ability and the right of the U.S. to torture prisoners. Their craven defense of the use of torture to combat terror sadly reduces the elevation of America’s moral high ground. I can only hope that Americans of all stripes will work together to see it elevated anew by clearly stating their opposition to the use of torture, whether institutional or incidental.

We can demonstrate to other nations and to terrorists both a fierce resolve to combat terrorism, and we can do it without walking out onto moral thin ice. Such resolve sometimes requires a strong military response, but it always requires a demonstration of true moral leadership by fully enacting the principles of a civil society.

“We do not torture,” Mr. Bush? I hope that you are right and that we do not and, by your implication, that we have not. And, please, let’s keep it that way.