Senate condemns torture; so should administration

La Crosse Tribune
Oct. 19, 2005

Should U.S. interrogators be able to torture suspected terrorists to get information?

That we have to ask such a question speaks volumes about the state of international morality.

Supporters of using any means to gain information in the “war on terror” sometimes argue that because the terrorists will stop at nothing (even to the point where so-called “Islamic” fundamentalists bomb a mosque on the eve of the holy month of Ramadan), we should not feel constrained in how we treat such prisoners.

The Bush administration claims to follow the Geneva Convention in its treatment of detainees. But it refuses to consider an outright ban on torture. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, in a previous government position, used legal language to justify interrogation techniques that come close, if not over, the line on torture.

The other side on the torture issue is led by Sen. John McCain, who knows firsthand about the issue. McCain, an Arizona Republican who supports the war in Iraq, was tortured by the North Vietnamese during his 51/2-year captivity during the Vietnam war.

Thanks in large part to McCain’s efforts, the U.S. Senate on Oct. 5 included a torture ban in the latest Defense Appropriations Bill. The ban was approved by 46 Republicans, 43 Democrats and one independent senator. There is no such ban in the House version of the bill, so a conference committee will decide Congress’ position on the issue later.

During the debate on the Senate floor, McCain said: “Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us — every single one of us — knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies.”

But if we allow torture to prevail, how are we different from al-Qaida and the other groups that we are fighting?

A young U.S. Army Captain, Ian Fishback, who served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he has personally witnessed torture of detainees. He worked through channels, all the way up to the Pentagon, to call attention to the torture.

The only person to whom he wrote who was sympathetic to his arguments was McCain.

In a letter to McCain, Fishback wrote: “Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never in our possession.”

The Bush administration has consistently disagreed with McCain and others about the need for a ban on torture. But which point of view represents the best of American ideals? It’s sad that we even have to pose this question.