Politics - Torture

It is surprising to me that the topic of torture is receiving so much attention. It is generally something that the public would prefer not to know about, hear about, or talk about. Perhaps the fuel behind it is not to investigate and have an open discussion concerning our torture techniques, but a burning desire by many to seek revenge on the Bush administration. Either way, though I also do not enjoy the subject, I will take a few minutes to lay out the critical points.

The issue of torture comes down to a pretty basic dividing line with only one criteria to make our decision whether to torture or not. We need to do what is in the best long term interest of our country. All other positions of higher morals and nobility are foolish. In war, a country must act in its own best interest. Either it will do so or it will sustain heavy losses. In modern day civilized warfare, if there is such a thing, the two opposing sides generally come to an agreement not to torture prisoners. This is quite reasonable and in the best interests of both countries. It would be frightening for soldiers to know they will face torture if captured and demoralizing for a nation to know that they themselves openly torture enemy prisoners. If both sides agree to restrain from torture there is no advantage to either side and many potential negative repercussions are avoided. Thus, in this scenario it is in the nation's best interest to avoid torture.

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are a completely different kind of game. The enemy refuses to play by any rules. The first and most troubling rule of warfare they refuse to abide by is to identify themselves. It is hard to combat an opponent when he camouflages himself in the midst of innocents. It is a war that can never be completely won as long as the opponent is willing to fight. The crop of terrorists is always being harvested and the enemy cannot be completely destroyed. After the first rule is broken, these terrorists and guerrillas find no reason to follow any other rules of civilized warfare. They torture and/or kill prisoners. They often video their acts although their faces are concealed so that they can rejoin the innocent civilians without detection. Our treatment of their fellow fighters when we capture them has little to no influence on their treatment of their American prisoners.

So, the question is in this type of scenario is it morally acceptable to torture. The answer depends on which way is in the best interest of our country. There are certainly negative effects to a country when its people, who consider themselves to be a humane and kind generation, discover its leaders have tortured prisoners. There are also very negative impacts on a country when a terrorist plan like 9/11 is allowed to be operated. Neither option, to torture or not to torture is a good option. We are picking the least of two evils. I don't believe that there can be a blanket rule. I think the decision must be left to those who are in control of the situation. If there is believed to be a threat to our national security and a terrorist or guerrilla prisoner is believed to have information that would allow us to prevent the attack, then I would not rule out any tactics.

As to the argument that information obtained from torture is not always reliable, I concede the point. It is easy to see how a person would say anything to stop torture and that the information may not be true, particularly if the prisoner does not have the information being requested. However I am quite sure that receiving no information will not be helpful. If there is decent chance that information can be gathered from a terrorist to prevent a large scale attack on the United States, it is hard not to take that chance. It may be hard to live with ourselves after we have tortured a terrorist, someone who has committed his life to killing American civilians. However, how would it feel to see that terrorist, well fed and clothed without one sign of trauma, smile when he hears that the plan he was a part of, the plan to kill thousands of Americans, was successful? Fair or not, those thousands would be on our conscience because we did not do everything we could to protect them. We protected the rights of a terrorist instead.

The issue of torture is not pleasant. It should be avoided if at all possible. Still to rule it out no matter what the scenario seems drastic. When the enemy does not play by rules, does not uphold higher moral standards, there are tough decisions to be made. While we would not want to stoop to level of terrorist, what good will our higher morals do if we lose the war? What will it have proven if Americans are dying and those who remain are living in fear?