I'm a single-issue voter: I won't vote for any presidential candidate who won't condemn torture, completely and without condition. I've heard Democratic politicians deplore it, but not one has focused on the total elimination of torture as an American tactic. None have declared themselves to be "the anti-torture candidate."
I'm still waiting for anyone to state something along the lines of:
"If elected, I will not tolerate torture under any circumstances. I will direct every agency and department of this government to halt all actions which could be construed as torture and all interrogations which use coercive techniques. From the moment I am sworn in, the United States will abide by every international agreement we have signed regarding the treatment of those in our custody, no matter where they may be. Torture is, vile, despicable and un-American. We won't do it, at all, ever, while I am president."
We haven't heard this yet from any candidate, to my recollection. Why not? (More after the jump.)
I checked the candidates' websites, and as far as I can tell (from an hour's rummaging), Obama makes no mention of Guantanamo, torture, or habeas corpus. Same for Clinton. Of her 65 listed press release, not one appears to discuss the topic. Richardson? Nada. Biden, nothing, not even among his voluminous list of speeches. Gravel? A supporter mentions it in the blog area, but it's missing from his Issues section.
Edwards does better: a search of his website (he's one of two Democratic candidates whose site even has a search function) shows that both he and his wife both mention torture in fund-raising letters, he's quoted in a NY Sun mentioning torture on the stump, and he refers to it in calling for Gonzales to resign. It's not top and center, but it's on his radar.
The big winner, by far, is Dennis Kucinich. He has brought it up at least 80 times, as a search of his site quickly shows. And while it doesn't make his Issues list, he does list "Repeal of the Patriot Act" (alas, the link is dead).
Among Republicans? Not a mention by Giuliani. McCain allows searching, but all references to torture are to his own, or that inflicted by depraved regimes in other countries. Romney's search engine offered zero matches. His issue "Affirming America's Culture and Values" looked promising, but (no surprise) he refers to other topics.
Are candidates afraid of being soft on torture? If so, they are unfit for office. We must reestablish that America does not torture, that we follow the rule of law, and that we are a humane culture, even in the treatment of our enemies. We cannot be afraid of predictable right-wing charges that we are too concerned about the rights of our enemies. Instead, we must prepare to meet those charges head-on. A savvy candidate can turn the soft-on-torture charge on its head, by making it an issue of defending true American values. It will take courage, but that's what we need in our politicians.
Candidates who do not denounce torture are not pragmatic enough to govern. Torture has repeatedly been proven not to work. It puts our citizens, agents, diplomats and military personnel at risk. It strips us of any standing to oppose regimes who employ torture. On practical grounds alone, torture must be be rejected.
I'm convinced that we can successfully get all the Democratic candidates to pledge their opposition. Once one candidate has, we can pressure the rest. For some, it will come easily, and for others, it will be a measure of their mettle. When they all have, Democrats will be the anti-torture party. That's a powerful distinction to attract voters. It forces Republican candidates to squirm in their attempts to capture the hard right at the expense of most Americans.
Imagine a candidate who proposes a Truth Commission before which those who have been tortured may tell their stories, and to which those who have tortured may confess their behavior. My own belief is that amnesty should be given to those who confess, but that those who do not confess must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We need to purge ourselves of this poison. The sadists in the military and the CIA who have tortured cannot remain in our employ.
Denouncing torture would logically be accompanied by a disavowal of secret renditions, a closing and exposing of Guantanamo, the end of military tribunals, the reinstitution of habeas corpus, the end of spying without warrant, and a host of other rights enshrined in the Constitution. But I'll accept a rejection of torture to start.
How about you? And if you feel as strongly as I do, is it more for pragmatic or moral reasons?