Torture doesn't work, but that's not why it should be outlawed

One of the things I find most troubling about the conversation sparked by the release of the Senate’s report on CIA interrogation excesses is whether torture worked or not. Contrary to the evidence, the director of the CIA, Cheney, Bush and Congressional Republicans continue to argue that it worked and saved lives. They’re wrong, but is that point even relevant?

Let’s step back for a moment. When we go to our history books and look at the horrendous torture devices and techniques used during the Inquisition or by Nazis during WWII or even in less developed countries today, do we ever ask, “Did it work?” What abhors us about torture is the cruelty of it, and that was the basis for numerous international treaties after WWII banning the practice. From the United States’ perspective, the simple argument was that if we as a country allow torture, we have no moral authority to criticize other countries that use it, and it could be (and was) used against our soldiers.

That all got thrown out the window after 9/11. Fear trumped rationale thinking, and the Bush Administration was quick to condone anything that it thought might protect us from another terrorist attack, even torture, without thinking through the ramifications. Worse yet, the practice continued for years, even though the results were consistently unhelpful and experts in the field told the Administration it was a futile tactic.

Torture doesn’t work, and we knew that before the attacks on the Twin Towers, but that should not be the core argument against it. It is an inhuman, morally repugnant practice that debases everyone involved in it. Why fundamentalist Christians in this country seem to support it and validate its use is a topic for another posting. We as a country must strongly denounce it in word and deed if we are ever to be looked at with respect in the world community again.

We tortured some folks

“We tortured some folks.” This was Obama’s glib, tone-deaf response at a news conference held this past summer related to the Senate’s report on the CIA treatment of detainees. He did follow that up by saying, “We did some things contrary to our values,” but the general tone of his remarks was to excuse some overzealous behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 because we weren’t in their shoes.

As we await the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the Bush-era interrogation tactics, which could come today, it’s time to reflect on just how “contrary to our values” torture is. It’s one of the benchmarks we have historically used when characterizing the worst regimes on the planet. It’s universally condemned in the developed world. The United States signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture treaty in 1988. And finally, experts in the area of interrogation methods have been telling us for years that torture simply doesn’t work. Victims will tell interrogators anything to make it stop.

So with the release of the Senate’s report, our hypocrisy and lawlessness will be laid bare for the world to see. The question is, will those responsible for acts violating international law be held accountable? Will Bush and Cheney and others who authorized the use of torture pay any price for their actions? Unfortunately, I highly doubt it. As much as I would like to see Dick Cheney led out of a courtroom in shackles, all indications are that they will be spared any punishment. “Mistakes were made,” Obama will say, “but let’s not dwell on the past."

We used to hold ourselves up as an example of a country that lived by the rule of law, but since 9/11, we have descended into a rogue state that feels it can write its own rules as it goes, both here at home and abroad.