To Torture or not to Torture, that is the Question.

Torture has now become one of the divisionary topics of our day, taking a prominent place besides abortion, amnesty, and gay marriage. What is intriguing about the torture issue is that it is one of the few issues that crosses political boundaries; at least to a degree. Most Democrats oppose torture and manageable number of Republican's do as well, most notable John McCain and Ron Paul. The most stark difference between pro-torture and anti-torture supporters is that when one looks at the position of current and previous military personnel it appears that most of them fall into the later category. Why would this be? Certainly if torture was a productive tool the military would be for it, wouldn't they? Well apparently, and with good reason, they are not.

The rational behind the military's anti-torture stance makes sense.

First, most experts will attest to the fact that torture provides unreliable information; especially as compared to more sophisticated, "modern" techniques.

Second, in all conflicts since WWII (including the initial stages of the current Iraq War), enemy soldiers were inclined to surrender to American (Allied/Coalition) forces because they knew that they would be treated humanely. Remember the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers that surrendered without a shot in the first Gulf War?

Third, military personnel understand that if the U.S. (and thereby the World) starts to condone torture as a routine procedure, that soldiers are more likely to be subject to it themselves if captured during combat.

Fourth, the U.S. military is based on honorable service to protect our country and the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that any treaties enacted are also to be considered the law of the land and this most certainly includes the Geneva Conventions which prohibits torture.

Now, there are those that provide rational for torturing, such as the following.

First, it can work to provide valuable and accurate information.

Second, in the event of a major emergency one might need to torture a suspect to get information that could save millions of lives.

Third, much of what is branded as torture is not really torture (such as waterboarding).

Fourth, the enemy (Islamic radicals) will torture regardless of what we do.

Let me address the anti-torture rational first. As far as my research indicates every single anti-torture point appears to be accurate and backed up by numerous sources. Most notability the first point that torture does not appear to produced nearly as high quality information as modern interrogation techniques. This is very clear from recently revealed FBI documents that detail how after to harsh interrogation methods were implemented at GITMO, the amount of quality intelligence was significantly diminished. The remaining points are not really all that debatable.

With regards to the pro-torture rational, most position appear less defensible. First, there is a problem with the general proposition that torture "works." There is no openly documented case that shows this to be true, although there are numerous cases that show that torture can be used to extract false confessions. Even if torture does "work", does it work better than more sophisticated techniques such as those used by the FBI? The evidence would say no.

I believe that the second pro-torture point may be the only one that is plausibly defensible; but only under strict and open conditions that clearly are documented and approved by the president (publicly). In cases of national emergency where time is of the essence and where information exists that a suspect has specific information that could lead to the aborting an imminent terror attack, I believe that torture may be necessary. While this may be repugnant, so is war in general. The Allies would never has relied on carpet bombing German cities if the war had been going well; that is because we have at least a minimal set of morals. Because torture is considered by most moral people as repugnant, if it were ever to be implemented it would need to be done so only in the most open and justifiable fashion. To the contrary, performing torture in secrecy undermines our moral standing at every level.

Third, what is torture? This certainly is beyond my expertise to comment on. However, it appears obvious that when it comes to waterboarding the current and historical postion has been, and should continue to be, that it is torture.

Fourth, people that hold the position that "our enemies do it therefore we should afford them the same treatment" position appear to forget that there is a fundamental difference between "good" and "evil". Should we start to employ attacking innocent civilian populations because they do it? Should we kill woman because they way the dress because they do it? Isn't this what makes them our enemies and evil? So why how can this be any possible justification for using torture. It is simply a straw-man argument put forth by immoral people in order to sway the shallow thinking public to create an opinion based on a wholly emotional (and perhaps testosterone-based) response.

Torture is not what America is about, and if used, should be done so only in the most extreme of situations when there literally is no other alternative. This apparently has not been what has happened with regards to the Bush Administration's policy with torture. Despite its stance that the "U.S. does not torture", it is clear that waterboarding, which is torture from all historical and current definitions, has been used as a routine interrogation technique. This is unlawful and immoral and un-American.