It Isn't HOW we Torture...It's THAT We Torture That Matters

Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey may have simply answered the question as many legal professionals are apt to do…by stating that a careful legal analysis is required for him to assess the legality of more severe forms of interrogation used by the CIA. Under most legal conditions, this is an appropriate answer. However, in terms of morality and ethics, Mukasey has failed. He clearly lacks political acumen as well, given the current political environment. The fact is that any form of torture is wrong regardless of its legality within USC Title 18. It is also useless. Expert interrogators, like retired army Major Ken Roberts, who commanded groups of interrogators in both Afghanistan and Iraq will tell you that torture simply does not work. Of course, there is no telling what the CIA really does…we only know what they want us to know, but they have yet to provide any reliable data indicating that whatever they are doing is successful. In its strictest definition, anything that we do to weaken a prisoner’s resolve is torture. The US should adopt this definition and outlaw torture.

As a Special Forces soldier operating in Latin America in the 1980’s and early 90’s I was taught that war is an outcome, not usually a cause for the actual conflict. I was taught that by eliminating or reducing the root causes of a conflict the war could be ended or prevented. This is especially the case in an insurgency where the combatants come from the populace, often bearing very legitimate grievances. It was our job to promote Human Rights, the Rights of the Accused, and enforce (through reporting) justice in general in the countries we operated. Of course we trained them to efficiently find and kill enemy insurgents and terrorists, but the emphasis was on avoiding any form of collateral damage. It increased the risk to the military forces we were supporting, of course, but it worked. It is upon the very same local political grievances that Islamic extremists now play to rally support for their otherwise relatively unpopular causes. Instead of trying to prevent the Human Rights abuses, the United States has actually begun promoting their use—justifying this due to the nature of the threat—exactly as those countries in Latin America once did.

For the United States to declare that Human Rights are now relative; that torture, unrestricted search and seizure, etc., are now standard operating procedures for our nation is to behave exactly like the enemies we claim to have some sort of moral superiority over. It plays into the hands of our enemies who use our own policies as focal points for their publicity efforts. They can truthfully point out that the difference between the US and Saddam Hussein is that we already have the most powerful army in the world and lot’s of weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush’s selection of this nominee indicates that he still does not understand how our nation’s morality and behavior impact how the insurgents generate sympathy for their cause and continue resisting. This is on top of the very real local grievances they have. The Bush Administration obviously does not understand—or perhaps, does not care about the political climate or opinions of the majority of Americans, either.