The debate over torture is getting tiresome. It is a deliberation we should not be having at all. It makes me wince every time it’s mentioned, and naturally the media uses it as a cudgel to pound the Bush administration while ignoring those in the Democrat leadership who knew from the beginning. This subject is so dark and heavy it weighs on our foreign policy and reputation abroad. It’s time to end the debate, reaffirm what should have been the case, and commit in the future to never again delve into this sort of depravity.
The standards that should be applied are plain. Those captured by the United States, whether soldiers, enemy combatants, or terrorists, should all be afforded the full protections offered by the Geneva Conventions. The real standard is much simpler: prisoners of war should be treated as we would want our soldiers treated should they be captured. The standard cannot be to use the same immoral techniques as the enemy in order to defeat them. That is the difference between us. As Bin Laden and others have repeatedly pointed out, the Islamofascists worship death. The terrorists have no qualms about using whatever brutal methods they can dream up for their victims. They do not have any concern about norms of civilized behavior or adhere to international accords. That’s the whole point. We as a democratic republic cannot condone, participate in, or allow those in our custody to be mistreated. It violates the very principles for which we are struggling. That is not to say we should adopt a Jimmy Carter-style foreign policy that focuses on human rights to the exclusion of all else, but it is to say that the abuse, mistreatment, or torture of prisoners of war is makes us little better than those we fight.
Supporters of “harsh techniques” always make an argument that suggests there is no other way to get information or that pressure might have to be applied expediently to avert an imminent attack. Neither of these is logical or acceptable. Tortured prisoners are simply going to divulge whatever is necessary to make their tormentors stop. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds lately in an effort to defend the use of torture on guys like KSM. As much respect as I have for Dick, I don’t agree with him on this one. I appreciate his spirited defense of the former administration, but discussing whether or not timely and reliable information was obtained as a result of torture completely misses the point and makes the situation worse. Some intelligence may have been obtained, but at what price? It’s the same with the recent release of the memoranda and potential release of photos involved. Repeatedly bringing the subject back up for public discussion in any manner does nothing to improve the situation. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but in this case the sunlight is also toxic to us. More than enough damage has been done. Our intelligence work should be advanced enough to avoid situations where information about a pending attack has to be gained at any price. The very same Democrats in Congress that spent the 1990s gutting our national intelligence services like a fish are the very same ones first to criticize and rebuke whenever there’s a problem. Some of those very same folks were briefed on what was happening and turned a blind eye. That is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. They knew and did nothing.
Threats of criminal prosecution against lawyers at DOJ who formulated and approved the policies in question are absurd and counterproductive. Calls for a “truth commission” are equally as ridiculous. The facts are that members of both Congress and the Bush administration were aware of and at least tacitly condoned the techniques that were being used. Any sort of criminal charges would merely be a speeding ticket: many others similarly situated would escape prosecution. More potentially damaging, however, are the hearings now underway in Congress. Why they are being conducted in open committee session is beyond me. Any information related to this subject should be held in the strictest of confidence. Keeping the subject in the public discourse damages our reputation further and allows our enemies to point the finger right back at us for hypocrisy.
There is a catch. While those held by us should be afforded maximum protection, they also must be held until the conflict is resolved. No releases, no trials, and no tribunals. Prisoners of war are traditionally held until either the end of the war or until a prisoner swap can be negotiated. Since there is no one to negotiate with, the solution is to hold them until it’s over. More than one prisoner has been released only to return to combat against American forces. The proposed closing of GITMO should be abandoned. We must have a secure facility in which to house these people, and better it be far from American shores than somewhere inside the continental United States. The idea of indefinite detention is a powerful tool.
Our image abroad does matter, as much as we would like to tell the rest of the planet to get lost. We’re the good guys. We don’t build an empire, we are not conquerors, and we respect basic human dignity. Anything less knocks us off our moral high ground and is used by the enemy to recruit. If we’re going to disparage others for cruelty, surely we cannot afford to engage in it ourselves. I understand that water boarding does not quite equate to an internet beheading, but it is torture. Pointing out human rights violations in China or Cuba or elsewhere rings quite hollow if we are a nation known for torturing prisoners. Torture cannot be broken down into degrees of severity. Either a nation respects the rights of those captured or it does not. That doesn’t mean soft treatment. It means following the basic rights we have already committed to both in principle and by international agreement.
So enough about torture. It goes against all we are as a nation. It gives the enemy a recruiting tool we cannot easily counter. Whether or not it is effective is irrelevant. Allowing it because our enemies are crueler throws us into the same filthy pit. We must make every effort to insure prisoners of war are treated humanely. And they are POWs. Calling them “enemy combatants” somehow allows treatment that would not ordinarily be permitted.
They are prisoners of war and they should be treated accordingly. That includes holding them until the war is over. All of them.
