Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - Torture isn't necessary for security

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - Torture isn't necessary for security
Copyright by The Chicago Sun-Times
June 3, 2007


There was a time when most Americans rightfully assumed torture was something only our worst enemies did. Our methods of getting war prisoners to spill information were more sophisticated and, if not entirely spotless, moral. But in this age of terrorist plots and suicide bombings and jihadist beheadings, we're fully aware that the CIA, as authorized by the president, engages in "enhanced interrogation techniques" including "waterboarding" -- simulated drowning. Whether these techniques fit the classic definition of torture is something that can be debated endlessly. But Sen. John McCain, who was on the receiving end of torture from the North Vietnamese during his years in captivity, calls them torture.

Many TV viewers and even some U.S. troops view the popular television program "24" -- on which not only ruthless foreign baddies but also turncoat Americans and suspected traitors are tortured in grisly fashion -- as textbook realism. But we shouldn't forget that "24" is just a television show.

Even as all but one of the Republican presidential candidates support tough interrogation techniques to gain intel -- Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have no trouble with waterboarding, which every administration before the current one rejected as illegal and immoral -- there is hope the new rules for CIA interrogations being formulated, per executive order, will reflect new findings that the old rules are as unproductive as they are excessive. "There's an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply," said one leading psychologist on a panel formed to advise intelligence agencies. That group characterized the administration's harsh interrogation techniques as outmoded, unreliable and amateurish.

In fact, Bush's top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is no fan of them, either. In a letter to the troops, he said they "violated American values" -- a stance putting him on the same admirable page as McCain, the one Republican candidate speaking out against the enhanced interrogation policy. Asked during a debate whether he would torture terrorists captured in a thwarted suicide attack to help prevent another imminent one, he had his strongest moment as a candidate. Said McCain, ''. . . we could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture is the knowledge that, if we had our positions reversed, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. We have procedures for interrogation, adequate in 999,999 [out of a million] cases, and if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world."

No one is suggesting that we treat people committed to destroying us with kid gloves. But as reflected by our more principled treatment of German and Japanese prisoners during World War II, it's possible to get desired results without trashing the values that earned us universal respect.