I have been asked to more completely define America’s policy on torture.  The title of this post is the policy of the United States according to President Bush.  So…how does this fit with waterboarding and destroyed tapes?  How does our relatively torture-free past fit with the Guantanamo Bays and Abu Ghraibs of today?  After 9/11, the Bush administration has approved various techniques that are described as “coercive interrogation.”  These are supposed to somehow differ from torture. Here is a very good video that talks about this as well as showing an actual waterboarding.

The Bush Administration’s argument breaks down like this:

  1. We don’t torture.
  2. If we did torture, it wouldn’t matter, because the people we are holding are not American citizens, and therefore do not have rights.
  3. At the same time, they are not soldiers for any particular country, so the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

So…we are left with people who do not fall into any specific category so we can do whatever we want with them.  I guess in order to be a good political philosopher I need to talk about what I think about it.  This warrants a new paragraph.

The classic example used by whatever conservative is closest at the time in torture debates is “What if someone had the location of a nuclear bomb and you needed to get information out of him quickly and you were the President of the United States?”  There is no right answer, seemingly.  Do you want to sacrifice your ideals or millions of lives.  Unfortunately for those who are trigger-happy on the hypotheticals, this situation degrades pretty easily when the facts are examined.  Well, one fact really.  Torture doesn’t work.  It doesn’t make people give true information.  It makes people say anything to make it stop, which may be the truth, but may be just the first thing that pops into their heads.  So would I torture someone in order to stop a terrorist attack of nuclear proportions?  No, because it would waste valuable time and resources on a probable wild goose chase.  This of course dodges the more general question: would you trample the Constitution if you thought it would save lives?  And while I don’t think this is a question anyone can truly answer unless they are in the situation, my judgment right now is that I would not.  Feel free to tell me I am a heartless human being, this is by no means a one-sided issue.  But if you are to put yourself in the shoes of the President of the United States, you have to think foremost about the safety of the nation and its Constitution.  Horrible as this sounds, this nation can withstand the deaths of a million people much more easily than it can stand a precedent of disregarding human rights.

As for how the government has covered this up, there is no excuse.  Obviously there are times when national security is more important than keeping the American people fully informed, but these times do not extend to when the Executive Branch is doing something that many would consider illegal.  The problem is, there is no way to create a set of rules to determine what can be revealed and what can’t.  A lot of the time, we have to rely on our president and our Executive Branch to be responsible.  When we elect a president that is not responsible, we are more or less screwed.  This is why in addition to views on issues, we should be looking at how our candidates view presidential power.  The election process is the only input by the electorate that is sure to have an effect.  Be educated and vote for someone who you trust to protect our country and its Constitution.