Taking the easy way out on torture

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., started something when he asked attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey whether he considers waterboarding to be torture. When the nominee declined to give a definitive answer, the matter cascaded into a confirmation-threatening imbroglio.

Within a day, all of the Judiciary Committee Democrats as well as Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had signed a letter demanding clarification. Sens. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., then further complicated Mukasey’s position by denouncing waterboarding and calling upon the would-be attorney general to do the same.

The question of just what does and does not qualify as torture is a vexed one in American law. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment — all of which forbid torture.

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. But that hardly settles the matter. Defining torture requires teasing it out of court decisions and legal memoranda (like the so-called “torture memo” issued by the Justice Department in 2002 and later withdrawn), as well as statutory language. As Andrew McCarthy explained in National Review, torture has been variously described as “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” or “intense, lasting and heinous agony.”

Waterboarding apparently involves placing a person on his back on a seesaw board, tilting him backward, covering his face with a cloth, and then pouring water into his mouth and nose so that he feels as if he is going to drown. It sounds pretty bad — but is it torture? The military has required our pilots to undergo it to prepare them for interrogation upon capture. That says something. On the other hand, a pilot knows what an enemy combatant presumably does not: that he will live to tell the tale.

What does the law say about waterboarding? As McCarthy points out, Congress had the opportunity in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and again in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to specifically forbid the practice but chose not to do so. McCarthy writes: “It is ironic … that the same elected officials now demanding a definitive answer from Judge Mukasey have failed to give us one themselves … “

By showboating their opposition to this technique, the senators are placing Mukasey in an impossible position. If he declares that the practice is torture then he may be putting the interrogators who used it (on advice from the Justice Department) in legal jeopardy. And in light of the confused and vague nature of the law, Mukasey would need access to classified information about exactly what was done in order to reach a judgment on its legality. It would be irresponsible of him to opine on the matter based only on rumors in the newspapers of what may have been done to specific detainees.

This is a deadly serious issue that demands thoughtful consideration from every American and particularly from elected officials. In a war not against massed armies or nations but against small cells of terrorists, interrogation is a key weapon. It’s so easy to, in John McCain’s words, “take the moral high ground” and denounce any sort of torture under all circumstances. But is it really the moral high ground?

We can all agree that under normal circumstances, harsh techniques are neither desirable nor necessary. But what about the ticking time bomb scenario? If we were to capture a key al-Qaida operative who we had strong reason to believe had knowledge of a dirty bomb buried under an American city, and we had only hours to get information out of him, would it be morally correct to waterboard and possibly save hundreds or thousands of lives, or to refrain? Anyone who claims that the answer is obvious hasn’t really thought it through. And for those who object that a person under duress will say anything, the question is, won’t that “anything” include the truth?

Nor is the argument that permitting waterboarding will “free up” our enemies to do the same to our people convincing. They tend to string up or behead the Americans they capture. Waterboarding would be an unqualified improvement.

Congress could have debated these matters but declined. Now senatorial moral preening may derail an excellent nominee. The country will be ill served if that happens.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. Her e-mail address is charenmail@cox.net.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

The City of Everett is set to purchase two single sidewalk restrooms from Romtec, a company based in Roseburg, Ore., for $315,000. (Romtec)
Editorial: Utilitarian but sturdy restrooms should be a relief

Everett is placing four stalls downtown that should be accessible but less prone to problems.

toons
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, June 13

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Stephens: Only way that Biden can win is not to run

The president can only commit to managing threats; his best chance for victory is to leave the ticket.

Krugman: The wealthy’s support of Trump isn’t just about money

They’re also not crazy about those who — like Biden — don’t pay sufficient deference to them.

Bouie: Should wealthy and powerful again put trust in Trump

They stepped away after Jan. 6, but — ignoring their own need for democratic norms — are drawn to autocracy.

Everett principal Betty Cobbs served kids, community for 51 years

Education and community. Those words are the best America has to offer;… Continue reading

Artist Natalie Niblack works amongst her project entitled “33 Birds / Three Degrees” during the setup for Exploring The Edge at Schack Art Center on Sunday, March 19, 2023, in Everett, Washington. The paintings feature motion-activated speakers that play each bird’s unique call. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: For 50 years Schack Art Center there for creation

The art center is more art studio than museum, supporting artists and fostering creativity in kids.

Snohomish School District’s Clayton Lovell plugs in the district’s electric bus after morning routes on Thursday, March 6, 2024, at the district bus depot in Snohomish, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Money well spent on switch to electric school buses

With grants awarded to local school districts, a study puts a dollar figure on health, climate savings.

Mangrove trees roots, Rhizophora mangle, above and below the water in the Caribbean sea, Panama, Central America
Editorial: Support local newspapers work to hometowns’ benefit

A writer compares them to mangrove trees, filtering toxins and providing support to their neighbors.

FILE - A worker cleans a jet bridge at Paine Field in Everett, Wash., before passengers board an Alaska Airlines flight, March 4, 2019. Seattle-based Alaska Airlines owns Horizon Air. Three passengers sued Alaska Airlines on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023, saying they suffered emotional distress from an incident last month in which an off-duty pilot, was accused of trying to shut down the engines of a flight from Washington state to San Francisco. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
Editorial: FAA bill set to improve flight safety, experience

With FAA reauthorization, Congress proves it’s capable of legislating and not just throwing shade.

Tufekci: Covid a lesson for officials on fragility of trust

In seeking to manage the message, scientists and officials took risks that have cost the public’s trust.

Collins: Republicans’ zeal against Biden’s son a double-standard

While they’re attacking Hunter Biden’s gun possession, they’re working to relax similar gun measures.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.