Against the torture ban

The price of freedom

By Amaris White
From the February 2006 Print Edition

The moral issue of torture has become a focus of recent controversy with the advent of Senator John McCain’s bill and the events of the war in Iraq. Undoubtedly it is a significant matter with serious ramifications. Opponents of any form of torture believe that it is wrong and defies all principles that our great country stands for. They argue that it is ineffective and that it will only show our enemies that we are indeed the great evil they believe us to be.

But first, let us clearly define what is actually meant by torture in America. We do not mean the practices of the Spanish Inquisition, Hitler, or al Qaeda. In fact, there have been no documented cases of this type of treatment by Americans. When American interrogative techniques are described as torture, we are actually referring to coercive tactics.

In some sense, opponents are correct. It is never something America should be proud of, nor is it something we should implement in everyday affairs. It is not something we should perform on any average citizen of a hostile country, nor is it something we should use on enemy soldiers merely because they were born in another land. America did not endorse the games played in Abu Ghraib, and the soldiers participating in those actions were punished severely. These are areas in which we can all agree.

Nonetheless, sometimes coercive treatment is a necessity when we face a much grimmer reality.

Those of us who support coercive tactics do so because we believe it is morally right. We believe it is the best thing for our country, and the safest for our citizens. When we believe a captive holds information crucial to our national security, or to the survival of one of our citizens, it is our obligation to do whatever is necessary to retrieve that knowledge. We may not always succeed, but if there is any chance at all that a man will break if he is pushed hard enough, it is worth doing whatever we can. In fact, it would be wrong to do otherwise.

If we were faced with the complete destruction of the Bay Area through the use of a nuclear bomb, and we had in captivity a man who we thought had information that could prevent this, then how could we not do everything in our power? How could we justify leaving this captive in his cell, untested, knowing that thousands of Americans would die unless something changed? Even with the chance that we could be wrong, or that the man might not break, it would be irresponsible not to pursue every measure for the chance to defend ourselves. One could even say patriotism and loyalty would compel such action, and neglect a malignancy worthy of treason.

Advocates do not support such means for the sake of revenge. I want to stress how undesirable such an action is. In an ideal world, it would never have to be undertaken. And for those who have to perform such acts, guilt may overcome them for it is not an easy task, nor a pleasant one. But ease and pleasure are not measures of moral necessity — they are the luxuries of peace.

If there is nothing to be gained for America through an instance of coercion, then it is not our business to perform punishment behind closed doors. There is no need to sink to their level.

Although opponents frequently claim such actions do indeed constitute sinking to the level of our enemies, it is not so — we are doing this in the interest of gaining and maintaining something much greater. Namely, American lives and the principles of freedom. America believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but unfortunately there are those who seek to destroy this way of life through vicious acts of murder and violence — sometimes we don’t see it coming, and there’s nothing we can do, but when we do have the possibility of saving Americans then it is nothing less than our moral obligation to act.

And we have. Coercion has proved useful — even as recently as November 18, ABC News reported that CIA officers have successfully used water boarding, when a captive is led to believe he is being drowned, to leave Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “begging to confess,” as he detailed information on an imminent al Qaeda attack. And since he is one of the “toughest prisoners,” and al Qaeda leaders, I’d put my money on him having more information than just that one attack.

The next time you hear the raging anger against torture that may be performed by our country, perhaps you’ll feel a little something else. Hopefully you’ll feel the same gratitude I do. I’m thankful knowing there’s somebody out there doing whatever it takes to preserve my life. I’m thankful knowing the anti-American men with vital information can be forced to give it up. And I’m thankful there are still those willing to do the right thing by using coercive tactics for a greater good.

Click here to read the counterpoint.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot