On Torture and Morality
[Column for May 20, 2009]
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) is neck deep in an argument with the CIA over what she knew, and when, concerning the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” – a euphemism for torture – on a handful of terrorists in our keep. Pelosi claims she was never made aware of these methods, and has called them unlawful and immoral. Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, responded that Pelosi was fully briefed in 2002 on all CIA interrogation protocols, including the now-infamous method of “waterboarding.”
Pelosi’s response was: “My staff person told me that there had been a briefing – informed me that there had been a briefing – and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.” She has since halted her assault on the CIA, and now blames George W. Bush for the entire misunderstanding.
Ladies and gentlemen, all together now – hold your nose a blow a raspberry. What a tremendous waste of time. Whether or not Pelosi was privy to how information was extracted from incarcerated terrorists is irrelevant. She is not the mainstream, nor is she objectively presenting the arguments for and against condoning torture. She is thrusting her face in front of the camera to get a leg up on her reelection campaign, and nothing more.
Focus your vision on the issue and ignore the dancing politician, because this is important. The question we must answer: Is retrieving information from hostile prisoners crucial enough to require the use of torture?
For those unfamiliar with waterboarding, allow me to explain: The detainee is restrained horizontally, a wet cloth is placed over the face, and water is poured through the cloth into the nose and mouth. This produces an acute sensation of drowning or suffocating. It is extremely unpleasant, and it is coercive, meaning it meets any reasonable definition of torture.
That most Americans find torture morally repugnant is no surprise. Ours is a nation founded on the idea that all people posses inalienable rights – rights that are not endowed by any state or religion; rights that transcend all human authority. Our love of liberty awakens our sense of moral indignation at thoughts of torture, because we recognize torture as the brutal and deliberate violation of the rights we cherish so dearly.
And yet, we must remember that we are embattled by an ideology whose stated purpose is to destroy the notion of human rights. Islamofascism seeks religious despotism, absolute Sharia law, and the crushing of individuality.
By using torture, are we not merely providing our enemy with a taste of the state they hope to create? Their decision is made, and they claim that human rights do not exist. Should we not oblige them? Are we wrong to hold someone to the standard they have chosen for themselves?
What if it means saving a hundred people, or a thousand? Are we so arrogant as to impose our version of morality on a people who have purposefully rejected it, even if it means sacrificing a thousand innocent lives?
There is nothing groundbreaking in claiming that torture is evil. But what is the greater evil? If you would lie to save a life, if you would steal to feed your family, then you would torture to stop a terrorist. If you claim you would not, then yours is not the moral position.
Whether you agree or disagree, this conversation is long overdue. Do not get sucked into Pelosi’s reelection campaign, it is unimportant. We, as a nation, must decide if revoking the rights of a few individuals who have declared war on everything we love is more unpleasant than a ticking suitcase in downtown New York.