America agrees with these two assertions:

1) Torture is unacceptable.
2) Mass murder is unacceptable.

The question is: what happens when faced with the choice between preventing mass murder by torturing a terrorist suspect or allowing mass murder by not applying enough pressure? The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9-11, toed and crossed the line on torture in order to get valuable information from captured terrorist suspects. At the time, America was more worried about security than the legal and moral implications of using excessive force during the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The country was in a “do whatever is necessary” frame of mind… but after Al Qaeda was stomped in Afghanistan, their top leadership in hiding, captured, or killed, and with no further terrorist attacks on the United States, the general public started to question if the ends justified the means in this war on terror.

A lot of “good” people around the world can make the argument that the comfort of one person is not more valuable than the lives of countless of innocents. Of course, in practice that “one person” becomes “some persons” only to eventually mean “any person.” So where do we draw the line? Personally I believe, as did the Founding Fathers, that the United States should never engage in torture, but I have no tears for the terrorists who were waterboarded. As a matter of conscience, I believe that waterboarding is wrong because it is a form of torture that causes physical harm (damage to respiratory system by introduction of liquid) to the “torturee.”

The current issue is whether or not we should prosecute anyone involved in the facilitation or practice of torture. Obama has giving conflicting indications of what he would be willing to do, first he wanted to look into possible crimes committed, then he told the CIA that he would not seek the prosecution of operatives engaged in “enhanced interrogation,” only to later say that he was leaving the door open to prosecution of Bush administration officials who were involved, only to later back away from this idea saying he wants to look forward not backward. A bit confusing. In a way I feel bad for Obama, because he has to figure out a way to serve justice without damaging America’s security.

Right now, members of both parties are scrambling to find out who knew what and when because the reality is that Congress did not raise significant objections to this policy during the years that it was employed. It is known that these methods were described in detail to members of both parties as reported here. The truth is that the government erred on the side of security and to go back and prosecute those who were acting in the best interest of this country may not be the most productive action for us to take. The timing of the release of these memos was particularly bad. At this time of war, releasing these memos will only serve as a powerful recruitment tool for terrorist organizations and give the moderate elements in Islamic society a reason to side with them.

While I believe that the truth should come out, Americans should first take into account what it will do to the men and women serving overseas when the non-radical elements of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are privy to memos detailing how the United States engaged in torturing their brethren. America must not stray from its founding principles though and I do agree that some sort of investigation should be conducted because truth is necessary for a healthy democracy, we should just be sure that the timing is right.

To be sure though, the prosecution of Bush administration officials for a policy that is deemed illegal will create a nightmare scenario for our system of government. What would have happened if Lincoln’s administration was prosecuted for the times that it suspended habeas corpus and the first amendment in the name of national security? Or when Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in order to fight the Ku Klux Klan? Or when Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans during WWII? There are countless decisions made by different administrations that can be deemed illegal after the fact and if the president, when faced with a crisis, could not react due to fear of prosecution of himself/herself or his/her administration then this nation would cease to exist. While in many cases, the excesses were unwarranted or unnecessary, to limit an administration through fear would severely undermine national security. The current administration cannot seriously prosecute the previous administration over policy differences, only in clear instances where the law was violated or where people went outside the scope of what was deemed legal at the time. I say let there be a truth commission but not a witch-hunt and absolutely not a partisan political circus where Democrats parade Republicans in front of Congressional hearings. The last thing we need is to surrender government to the whims of people who would rather witness this:

than witness this:

-AG