The right wing noise machine is working overtime to distort the debate on America's use of torture (yes--it is torture). One of the key methods of doing this is to focus on something called "terrorism" as a way of dehumanizing the victims of torture. However, even if we accept the dehumanization of suspected terrorists (which we shouldn't), there is another set of victims: our own men and women in uniform.
Why has America traditionally avoided abusing its captives? Sure, we'd like to think that it is tied to our shared American values of human dignity, respect for the rule of law and due process. As far as I'm concerned, that should be enough of a reason right there. However, there's also a pragmatic side to this. Torturing captives puts our soldiers at risk in two main ways:
- It increases the likelihood that US soldiers will be tortured if captured
- It decreases the likelihood that enemy forces will surrender to US soldiers.
Probably the best way to think of the distinction between interrogation and torture is to ask a simple question: how would I feel if a US service member was subjected to this? Would I want my relative/friend/coworker who is serving his or her country to be slapped, locked in a box with bugs or nearly drowned? Asking these questions can be uncomfortable since it will immediately reveal the gap between our sentiments for different groups and the degree to which our ethics are situational. But this isn't just about the golden rule.
Believe it or not, Americans are not the only people who tend to reciprocate the actions of others. Many on the right seek to argue that terrorists are completely amoral and would like nothing more than to torture and kill all westerners. This is, of course, a gross oversimplification. Just as some in America (cough-cough Cheney and Rumsfeld cough-cough) are apparently prone to losing their moral compass, even more so with terrorists (it's actually kinda a tautology). It would be silly to argue that not torturing guarantees better treatment for US captives. However, it is even more simplistic to think that it has no effect.
In fact, the terrorism that the Bush administration sought to fight is the product of a moral system. We may disagree with this system and find it distorted and repugnant, but there's a reason why someone like bin Laden felt the need to explain the 9-11 attacks as a response to the actions of the US government. Torture strengthens his arguments. Every well-treated captive is a powerful blow against the image of America that terrorists and their supporters are trying to paint. It upsets their portrayal of unchecked and unapologetic power being wielded against the weak. By respecting the human dignity of terrorists, we demolish their self-justifications. I may not be a Christian, but I can still appreciate the wisdom of Christian Charity. If only the torture apologists could understand this as well.
As for the second point, I would argue that the ease of the 2003 invasion and the minimal loss of life involved was directly related to the proper treatment of detainees in 1991.
From The BBC (2003):
In the last Gulf War, surrendering Iraqi troops were often surprised at the humane treatment they received, says Chris Lincoln-Jones, a British commander at the time.
"At the moment of surrender they were often extremely scared because they'd heard from their officers that they would be shot by the enemy."
The emotion was such that British combatants were sometimes embarrassed by witnessing men collapse to their feet and start crying in front of them and "begging to be spared".
From Fox News (2003):
SOUTHERN IRAQ — U.S. and British forces streamed in a long line of tanks and armored vehicles toward Basra, Iraq's second largest city, on Saturday, a day after they collected underfed and overwhelmed Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in droves.
An entire Iraqi division, the 51st Infantry, gave up to U.S. troops Friday, military officials said. A key unit for Basra's defense with 8,000 men and up to 200 tanks, it was the largest defection in a day when Saddam Hussein's forces showed signs of crumbling.
Coincidence? I think not. In spite of what armchair warriors on TV and in government may say, I cannot see how torture makes the Army's job any easier. As we all know, it is common for officers to try to convince their soldiers that those who surrender will be mistreated by the enemy. There's a good reason for this and, while some may surrender even in the face of mistreatment, it stands to reason that the more confident enemy soldiers are in their safety, the more willing they will be to give up. Do we really think soldiers in future conflicts will surrender so readily? We should all be outraged that US officials have undermined a reputation that we have spent decades (if not centuries) cultivating. Torture prosecutions are necessary, if not for the sake of the captives then for the sake of our soldiers.