It Doesn't Matter Even if Cheney is Right about Torture

In recent days, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds arguing that the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” torture in the vernacular, have extracted information that has prevented attacks on the USA. His intent is clear; he wants to condemn the Obama administration in advance for any terrorist attack on America that may occur between now and January 20, 2013, or 2017. He argues that only his (Bush's?) tough policies protected America, and any weakening thereof puts American lives at risk. Even if he's right, it doesn't matter. One would rather lose American lives than become a nation the safety of which relies on torture.

The ideal of America, a rather ephemeral thing at the best of times, is a product of the Enlightenment. It is not a place, nor a race, but rather a collection of rational arguments in favor of human freedom to which all can aspire and in which all can participate if they so choose. The United States of America rarely lives up to this ideal, but what makes the USA worthwhile is the never ending effort to do so. One of the cornerstones of ideal America is the right of each human being to be free from force or the threat of force by the state and its agents.

Mr. Cheney and his apologists are of a different opinion. They argue that the first duty of any government is to protect its citizenry by any means necessary. This is reasonable at first glance, but in the end, it allows any abomination to occur under the umbrella of national security. During the Bush years, habeas corpus vanished in a puff of propaganda. Americans phone and e-mails were intercepted by the government without a warrant. More than 4,000 American patriots died in the deserts of Mesopotamia in an effort to destroy non-existent weapons of mass destruction. All for the sake of national security.

While American prisoners of war rotted in prison ships during the American Revolution, treated as traitors to George III (which technically they were), George Washington gave other orders. After the Battle of Trenton, he wrote, “Treat them [the British prisoners] with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands.” The practice won hearts and minds – most of the surviving POWs from that battle became American citizens after the war.

The two approaches couldn't be more different. The Cheney view of the world demands that America bully and torture its way to safety. Washington's view relies on the belief that freedom and human decency are intoxicating enough to make enemies into friends. One is, in the words of its practitioner, the “dark side,” while the other puts the “light” in Enlightenment. Given a choice, few would side with Cheney against Washington.

What if the Washingtonian view fails, though? What if there is an attack on America again that torturing one person could have stopped? What if hundreds, even thousands die as a result? Mr. Cheney and his supporters would argue that this would be an unpardonable catastrophe, and a horrific failure of the government.

Not so. Those who stood on their front door steps and watched the World Trade Center burn for 12 days have nothing to learn from a man who cowered in an undisclosed location for 7 years. From Lexington and Concord to Normandy and beyond, true American patriots have been prepared to die in defense not of their country so much as in defense of freedom – theirs and that of others. If the price of keeping torture out of America is a mushroom cloud, so be it. A country that must torture people in order to protect itself isn't worth fighting for at all.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home