A good portion of our country is outraged as more and more comes out about the use of secret detention camps in Eastern Europe and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques used by the CIA for information extraction, including "belly slapping" and "waterboarding." It's time to see torture for what it is: a legitimate tool of government for the preservation of national security.
Allow me to treat the moral aspects of this subject and move on, since I'm aware that it's pointless to focus on the moral case for torture when there are people on this campus who believe that thousands of lives in peril can never justify degrading, hurtful treatment of individuals. Suffice it to say, most of our detainees deserve a lot more than an open-handed slap to the stomach; I'd suggest the insertion of needles beneath their fingernails, for starters. But it's not about what detainees deserve or don't deserve. It's about how and when we can use them for information.
As Charles Krauthammer has aptly pointed out, there are uniformed prisoners of war and then there are terrorists. He notes that according to the Geneva Conventions - which were designed to prevent the abuse of civilians by combatants - individuals "would be denied the protections of that code if they broke the laws of war and abused civilians themselves." This means that torture (and I'll include things like the belly slap, even though I've been subjected to far worse by my younger sisters) is a legitimate practice of our government and federal agencies for the purpose of information extraction.
I'll admit, torture is not often the most effective method of obtaining vital information, and neither are its results always accurate. But this only means that we should be discriminating in its use. To take an option off the table simply because it does not always achieve the desired result would be to eliminate a tool that sometimes does the job when nothing else can. The Israelis could tell you that.
It is for these reasons that the wide-sweeping amendment banning all torture that was pushed through by John McCain is dangerous and foolhardy. The vital operations of our military and government, which have already demonstrated inefficiency and miscalculation in the area of intelligence, should not be further hampered by the indignant opposition of Congress or the public.
The military, FBI and CIA know best what information they need, and they know best how to get it. Where there are incompetent interrogators, Congress should be making it easier for the government to implement programs that will produce interrogators who are well-trained and well-versed in the art of torture and the laws surrounding it. This will allow our men and women on the ground to receive timely, accurate intelligence that will save American lives at home and overseas.
Many Americans fail to understand that not everyone has the same rights, and that those rights change based on circumstance. It is a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence that those who act in violation of the law forfeit certain rights. Has a convicted prisoner ever gotten out of jail for complaining that he wasn't allowed the pursuit of happiness? Due process of law is another necessary component of our legal system. That is why the cases of some of our detainees should never reach the legal system to begin with.
The beautiful thing about American democracy is the ability of each individual to vote; anyone who abhors torture in all its forms and uses can vote to elect legislators and a president who share those views. The beautiful thing about the CIA is that it doesn't care what the public thinks. Secrecy is a vital aspect of the Agency's work; affording every detainee the gamut of our legal services is costly and counter-productive. The public doesn't need to know whether an architect of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is having his belly slapped pink, and neither does Congress.
As long as the treatment of high-level terrorists is left to the CIA, national security won't be compromised by the tedium of the judiciary. This is why secret detention camps in Europe are an excellent solution. Because they are located on soil outside American jurisdiction, recent rulings of the Supreme Court that ensure habeas corpus petitions for prisoners held in places like Guantanamo Bay do not apply. As long as the law of the host countries doesn't create obstacles, we can hold terrorists indefinitely, interrogating them for the rest of their lives if need be.
Some of you reading this will be horrified at the moral callousness, disregard for international norms, and disdain for governmental transparency that must characterize anyone who defends torture. If you take nothing else away from the article remember this: Our government is going to use torture whether you like it or not. It gives me a warm sense of satisfaction to know that regardless of the public outcry, regardless of the inhibitions of senators, our country will continue to torture. As long as there are people who hold these views, America will preserve its security by whatever means necessary.
Patrick Randall is a sophomore majoring in political science and Latin.
