With the selection of his national security advisors, President Barack Obama has stated unequivocally “the United States does not torture.” Few issues separate the Obama and Bush administrations as torture.

Although the Bush administration refused to admit that it condoned torture, it spent considerable resources persuading the world that its “enhanced” interrogation methods were either legal or its detainees were not protected by laws forbidding torture.

The most nototrious of those methods was waterboarding. To understand the dangerous path that the Bush administration lead America down, we must first understand waterboarding.

Is waterboarding torture?

What should be a clear-cut answer has been twisted by political doublespeak, the need for expediency and emotional pleas.

First, let’s understand waterboarding. It involves immobilizing a person, with the head tilted back, and pouring water over the head so that drowning is simulated. Water is inhaled into the lungs, triggering the gag reflex. The individual feels that death is imminent. 

Proponents of waterboarding claim that no long-term damage is done, and that it is one of the quickest ways to retrieve information.  Realistically, claiming that there is no long-term bodily harm assumes that the individual will surrender quickly. Few people subjected to waterboarding can endure longer than 20 to 30 seconds. Someone who does endure longer could suffer brain or lung damage. Even a few seconds may have profound psychological impact on an individual.

International humanitarian law defines three categories of mistreatment for prisoners. The most severe is torture, defined as the infliction of severe suffering or pain for a specific purpose. Less severe is cruel or inhuman treatment, defined as significant suffering or pain without a specific purpose. The least severe is outrages upon personal dignity, defined as a significant degree of humiliation or degradation without specific purpose.

Considering these definitions, the abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq were primarily outrages upon personal dignity. Humiliation and degradation were imposed without a specific reason. Waterboarding, however, is clearly torture. It is an attempt to get specific information. Anyone who feels that he is about to die is facing severe suffering. To deny waterboarding as torture is not even an attempt to be disingenuous. It is an outright political lie.

Perhaps the risk of bodily harm can be ignored because waterboarding is only performed on bad people. These are terrorists, after all. They want to hurt innocent people. Why should we care about them?

However, this is not an issue of coddling terrorists. It’s about presumption of innocence and civilized behavior. In the modern, civilized world, we hold to the notion that punishment is meted out after a fair trial. However one wants to justify or deny waterboarding, it is painful, usually severely painful. It is punishment inflicted on people who are suspected of withholding information, but people who have not been convicted of a crime.

If the United States is to engage in waterboarding, we must rescind our commitment to many international agreements. This would be an act unparalleled in out nation’s history. Throughout our history, the United States has expanded civil and political rights, not retracted them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the earliest human rights documents of the United Nations, began the impetus for human rights. After the Holocaust and the horrors of World War I and II, nations set standards to measure the treatment of all peoples. This document, which the United States signed onto, is clear:

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

However, the United States’ commitment to human rights does not end here. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Even further, the American Convention on Human Rights states:

Article 5. Right to Humane Treatment

1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

3. Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal.

These are just a sampling of international commitments made by the United States and ignored by the Bush administration. The United States has repeatedly used the same language in these documents to pressure outlaw nations in their treatment of their citizens. These statements pressured the Soviet Union, China, South Africa, Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam, East Germany, Argentina and others when they repressed the political and religious beliefs or racial and ethnic backgrounds of their citizens.

Time after time, the United States has defended the sanctity of human rights and liberty. Throughout our history, torture has been considered beneath our morals as a people and principles as a free nation.

Our current leaders have forgotten George Washington’s words, spoken at a time when the British were holding American soldiers aboard notorious prison ships outside New York harbor. On board these ships of filth and disease, Americans suffered and many died. However, Washington said,”Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775.

From the beginning of this nation, torture and its derivations have been considered beneath American principles. The Eight Amendment to the Constitution makes this clear:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Torture, whether waterboarding or another form, is prohibited in America. This is one of the reasons the Bush Administration refused to bring combatants from the War on Terror into the United States. International law also guaranteed the proper treatment of prisoners of war anywhere in the world. However, the Bush administration refused to acknowledge that terror suspects are POWs and, thus, conveniently denied international standards of POW treatment.

To argue over the fine line of legal definitions on such monstrous acts is a serious matter. The United States balances on the edge of an ethical precipice. If we are to become a nature that tortures, then what are the principles we are defending? Are we violating the rights of others in order to protect our own rights?

Proponents of torture like to create an extreme scenario to justify its use. They ask, “What if a self-confessed terrorist planted a nuclear bomb in New York City, and we only had a short time to locate it and save millions?”

Torture the terrorist, of course. How clear cut can it be? By why stop at waterboarding? Pull out his nails, saw off his legs, castrate him, use the rack or boiling oil-leave only his mind clear and his tongue undamaged.

Yet this extreme scenario ridicules the apologists of waterboarding. If there is overwhelming evidence to torture someone, why be concerned to use only techniques that won’t cause lasting damage? Is there nobleness in humane torture? Those who claim waterboarding and other forms of torture are acceptable because they don’t cause lasting damaging claim an absurdity. Torture does not become acceptable because it is not too bad.

I oppose the death penalty. However, if I encounter Adolph Hitler before he commits his atrocities, I willingly become his executioner. It doesn’t matter if he experiences pain or anguish. It doesn’t matter if he is tortured. To kill one evil man to save millions renders no hesitation on my part.

If a morally reprehensible act is justified, it is justified on its own merit. However, this is just another extreme example. A fantasy that bears little comparison with real-life situations. The captured terrorist with the nuclear bomb is a similar circumstance. It is a rare, out-of-the-ordinary event that serves little comparison to the mundane, daily use of torture throughout the world. It cannot be used as an example to justify the regular use of torture.

Of course, if time is of the essence, the tortured prisoner is not likely to tell the truth anyway. Such a person is a true believer in his cause. Yes, he will admit anything to stop the pain, but will gladly send the authorities on wild goose chases as time clicks away. It is never possible to ascertain the truth until his confession is completely checked out. Then he can give another false confession to torture and more precious time is lost.

The truth is that torture is not universally effective. It is notoriously ineffective when there is limited time to achieve the truth. Torture is more effective when someone fears that he may endure it for weeks, months or years.

Perhaps, we can all agree to torture the self-confessed terrorist. Where do we go next? Torture his accomplice? How about a sympathizer? Perhaps a family member of the terrorist? How about the clan or community that supports him? After all, we are after information to save millions. Who knows when an acquaintance, however innocent, may give a critical clue to save millions? Is it justifiable to sacrifice a few innocent lives to save millions?

Why stop at the extreme example of a nuclear terrorist? If torture is such an effective device for neutralizing terror, think what it can do for crime. If police are allowed to torture, then organized crime, prison gangs and odious criminals will cease their rage upon American society. How about the drug dealer who won’t reveal his sources? Or the embezzler who won’t reveal where the money is hidden? If torture can make society safer, why hesitate to limit its use?

If America can ignore international standards of human rights outside the United States, why not ignore the parts of the Constitution that upholds those same rights?

Of course, I exaggerate. This is a misleading, deceptive argument. No one accepts subverting the Constitution to save it.

However, one question remains unanswered. At what point is it acceptable to torture and at what point do we not? Without clearly defined rules, a dangerous journey begins. As it stands now, it is apparently okay to torture outside the United States, but not inside it. A bit of an unusual argument since the Constitution is considered to operate over all territories occupied by the United States, not just the states themselves. Lawyers and judges have a way of twisting the obvious into the disingenuous.

Ultimately, the biggest argument against torture is the struggle itself. The battle we are waging now will endure for years. It is a struggle of modernity against ethnocentricity. The only way this war will be won is by persuasion, not force.

The rest of the world must accept the ideals of a free society. The principles of democracy, liberty and free enterprise are the ultimate weapons in this struggle. These principles changed Europe, much of the Americas, northern Asia and other countries. Lasting peace after World War II came when Germany and Japan adopted the principles of a free society. The Cold War ended when communism could not compete against free societies. Ultimately, this is how the narrow-mindedness of terrorists around the world will fail. Their base of support will ebb away.

The use of torture is the antithesis of a free society. Torture does not deserve to stand next to liberty. By using torture, we blur the line between terrorists and ourselves. We confuse the minds that we seek to convert. The terrorist is a lost cause, but hearts of their sympathizers, the undecided and the young are the real battleground. To win this war, we must use our ideals, not theirs. Torture is just another tool of terror, the scourge we seek to eradicate.