When Torture Is the only Option...

Senator John McCain is working hard to get the Geneva Convention ban on mistreating prisoners made into U.S. law. The bill, which bans cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, passed the Senate 90 to 9, and is gaining momentum. But President Bush says he will veto the bill unless the CIA is exempt. Cheney is leading the campaign for the exemption, but it is hard to find pro-torture politicians around Washington D.C.

Most people naively go along with the bill, believing that a position against torture seems to be obviously the better position. Most human beings recoil from lowering themselves by torturing a person, criminal or not, and Americans believing that it degrades the American name. A criminal may deserve to be tortured; but, we refuse to torture him, nonetheless, because Americans don't stoop to revenge, even if it is labeled as justice.

But what if torturing a criminal (or using some other form of rough interrogation) is the only way to save innocent lives, and not merely for vengeance? Let's say, for example, that a nuclear bomb is ready to detonate somewhere in a largely populated city, and the CIA has captured a terrorist involved in the mission and who knows the location of the bomb. But he won't talk. If the law was passed, the government would not be able to interrogate him with the force necessary to get the information. And it would lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and the endless suffering of the families of the victims. All of which, could have been prevented had the government been allowed to do its ugly duty.

Those who oppose the McCain amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to torture people for any little reason, but rather that they should be allowed the option if absolutely necessary. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option.