A clear moral issue

In this Christmas season of peace, love and goodwill, we find ourselves debating, in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail, whether torture is ever justified. And whether waterboarding, an ancient interrogation method favored by the Nazis and prosecuted as a crime by the United States for a century, constitutes torture. Of course waterboarding is torture, even if our attorney general can’t bring himself to say so, and it is illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. However, that didn’t stop the Bush administration from using it in its interrogations of “high value” al Qaeda leaders captured after the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison where American soldiers abused detainees, there are no sickening photographs of what went on in secret CIA detention centers abroad. That’s because the spy agency, against the advice of White House and Justice Department lawyers, destroyed videotapes showing the interrogation of two major al Qaeda operatives, one of whom was waterboarded. Now Congress is outraged over the destruction of the tapes, as well as it should be.

However, we don’t need to see the CIA tapes to know that our government has engaged in torture, or what is known in intelligence circles as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The CIA is known to have waterboarded three al Qaeda prisoners after 9/11, but the spy agency has told Congress that this harsh method, which simulates drowning, has not been used since 2003.

Any discussion of torture these days inevitably leads to the “ticking bomb” scenario: Would a president be justified in authorizing the illegal torture of a captured terrorist to gain information that could prevent a catastrophic attack that would kill thousands of Americans? That chilling question makes us uncomfortable because many Americans, in their own minds, are not certain what choice they would make. My guess is most would go with torture.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates have ruled out the use of torture. On the Republican side, only John McCain and Mike Huckabee have taken that position, with most of the other candidates indicating that they would allow it in extreme cases or refusing to respond to the question. McCain speaks with authority on the issue, having been horribly tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. If McCain says torture is wrong and largely ineffective, that’s good enough for me.

Remember, torture was not a subject we talked about before the 9/11 attacks. It was not what America was about in those days. But that horrifying September morning changed us, in some ways for the worse.

I doubt that we would have heard an outcry if the Bush administration had announced after the 9/11 horror that it would use any means necessary, including torture, to track down terrorists and prevent another attack on American soil. Of course, we now know the administration secretly decided to do just that, and for the longest time Congress looked the other way.

In the fall of 2002, four members of Congress met for a secret briefing on a new CIA interrogation program designed to pry critical information from terrorist suspects. Among the techniques described was waterboarding, and not one of the lawmakers, including Nancy Pelosi, then a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and now speaker of the House, objected, according to The Washington Post. In fact, some of the lawmakers at the briefing, all sworn to secrecy, wondered if the CIA should consider even tougher measures.

John Kiriakou, a former CIA interrogator based in Pakistan, got Washington’s attention last week when he went public with the story of his participation in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the first high-ranking al Qaeda leader captured after 9/11. After weeks of defiance and resistance, Kiriakou said the prisoner broke after 35 seconds of waterboarding and began talking.

In interviews with ABC News and The Washington Post, Kiriakou said the captured terrorist provided information that may have prevented new attacks and saved American lives. Even so, Kiriakou said he now believes waterboarding is torture, and “Americans are better than that.”

He added, “It was an ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time, but we’ve moved beyond that.”

Congress is not so sure. CIA director Michael Hayden banned the use of waterboarding in 2006, but Democrats don’t trust the Bush administration. Last week, the House passed a bill that not only would specifically prohibit waterboarding but also outlaw other coercive interrogation methods, including forcing detainees to go naked or pose in a sexual manner, placing hoods over prisoners’ heads, taping their eyes, threatening them with military dogs, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food and water, or exposing them to extreme cold and heat.

Republicans say the bill goes too far, banning some practices that are now legal. President Bush has threatened to veto the measure if it clears the Senate. May I make a suggestion: Why can’t everyone agree that we should never use an interrogation technique that we would not want our own captured soldiers and intelligence agents subjected to by an enemy?

You know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

(Philip Gailey is editor of editorials for the St. Petersburg Times. E-mail gailey(at)sptimes.com.)

4 Responses to "A clear moral issue"

  1. Steve Horn  December 18, 2007 at 9:46 am

    This is not a “moral” issue – this is a humanitarian and legal issue and should be framed as such. Our administrations insistence on torture serves only to lessen our standing in the world and endanger our own citizens (civilian or military) should they be swept up by the police or military in a foreign country.

    The legal standing of these means of extracting information is clear and has been since the second world war, the humanitarian standing has been clear for centuries.

    Peace

    Steve

  2. Sandra Price  December 18, 2007 at 11:55 am

    Steve, you have to understand that the general GOP membership will forgive whatever the GOP does regardless if it against the law and considered torture.

    Our government is no longer a humanitarian organization but an organization that is working for a one world order under a Christian nation. It is part of the grand plan to deliver America to Jesus Christ as a whole nation. I think everyone knows this except those of us who still have faith in the Constitution.

    We have no Democrats who will stand up for our individual freedoms and will instead continue to accept the Bush Administration in their desire for world power.

    This will be the first election that I will not vote. I had hoped that Ron Paul would stand up for freedoms but is not going to follow through. America is doomed to self destruct. I would rather not be part of the destruction.

    We accepted the torture and abuse in Gitmo and this is not to be accepted. I will not add to this and will stay home in the primary and the final election. I no longer give a damn…

  3. Paolo  December 19, 2007 at 12:42 am

    Regarding the “ticking time bomb.”

    Let us say you actually find yourself in the following incredibly unlikely scenario: 1) You have a terrorist in detention. 2) Somehow, you know that there is a ticking time bomb. 3) Somehow, you also know that the terrorist knows where it is (like I said, this is all incredibly speculative). 4) Somehow, you know that the torture will yield absolutely reliable information.

    Should you torture the terrorist in order to force the information out of him?

    The answer, clearly, is no, on several accounts. Let us focus on just one, practical reason.

    There is no difference between the unlikely “ticking time bomb” scenario, and, let us say, an “imminent bombing campaign” scenario, carried out by a US bomber pilot. (The main difference is that the ticking time bomb idea is highly contrived and unlikely, whereas the pilot having knowledge of proposed or possible future bombing campaigns is quite plausible).

    To make the scenario more lifelike, we can give the pilot a name. Say, John McCain.

    If we torture so-called “terrorists” to get information that “might save lives,” then the other side also has an equal right to use torture that “might save lives.” After all, a pilot may know something about a proposed bombing of City X, or a proposed ground assault with air support on City Y. If they can torture our pilot and get that information out of him–and we have done exactly that to their soldiers–what is to prevent them?

    All this rests, of course, on the false notion that information gathered via torture is reliable. Intelligence professionals say it isn’t: the tortured captive will just say anything plausible to stop the torture.

    If it’s moral for our side to torture, then it is moral for all sides to torture.

  4. barak  December 20, 2007 at 4:03 am

    All sides do torture. It’s a given. I am for waterboarding as long as a couple of limits are set. First, the President and Vice-President and all members of Congress must be subjected to waterboarding. Second, the torture of prisoners must not last any longer than the President could tolerate.
    If we meet these criteria, waterboard the hell out of the S O B s.
    Just tell me when you decide who are the REAL SOB’s…

Comments are closed.