The Implications of Justifying Torture

Thomas Sowell, the political advisor and columnist, writes that it is acceptable to torture non-Americans, specifically terrorist suspects, who, he maintains, should not have rights extended to them.

C. Rice, goes on a European tour, claiming the US does not commit acts of torture, if only within the narrow definition that the Administration goes by.

The first, destroys principles by nationalistic subjective annihilation. The second destroys thought by concept annihilation.

Principle one: Let no human being be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, as exemplified by the spirit of Article VIII of the US Bill of Rights.

Principle two: All humans possess inalienable rights, as exemplified by The Declaration of Independence.

Principle three: A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, as forms the basis of all civilized law known, at least, since the ancient Greeks and Romans.

That a debate even exists on the use of torture is proof of the vitiation of America. Beware of the implications of the tortuous reasoning that is behind justifying torture. Disarmed of concepts with which to think, disarmed of principles by which to act, we sow the seeds of tyranny upon our own homeland with the same contempt for humanity that we wreak on others.

On Justifying Torture: The Vitiation of America

Counter-point to Thomas Sowell essay on torture laws


Honor. Integrity. Principles. These qualities of a great nation have fallen by the wayside as the moral degeneration continues to lower America's standing in the world. The latest argument of shameful self-abasement comes from academics, columnists, and leaders that justify the inhumane treatment of other human beings, specifically rationalizing the use of torture against suspected terrorists or captured insurgents.

Those scholars that influence policy decisions by advising government officials must maintain the highest ethical standards, providing a much-needed moral compass to politicians that all-too-often are found lacking in character and driven by expediency.

One recent voice, cavalierly and smugly apologizing for the use of torture, comes from the Hoover Institution's senior fellow Thomas Sowell in his syndicated newspaper column. In his essay, he basically attacks those that would argue that torture is wrong in principle and should not be used under any circumstances. He introduces a moral grayness, where torture is acceptable under certain situations, using the hypothetical example of a captured terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is planted and argues that we should not be "too squeamish" to get that information by "whatever means are necessary". He also puts up the weak argument that the terrorists would tie up our judicial system with spurious litigation.

These two arguments form the basis of his essay, "Torture laws are not an all-or-nothing deal". The first counts on fear as the justification, the second the wrong-minded idea that people who are not American citizens should not have rights extended to them, to paraphrase Sowell's own words.

In the nuclear bomb scenario, it is more than a bit naive to believe that an act of torture would save the day, given the fanatical and suicidal disposition of the terrorist. Are we really to believe that someone who would strap explosives to themselves to kill a small crowd of people would suddenly cave-in to torture when they stand to take out an entire city? This foolish underestimation of the enemy's mindset explains why the US is still fighting a determined insurgency in Iraq. Did the same brilliant thinkers and advisors to the Administration fail to predict the rebellious outcome of the invasion?

So, this extreme hypothetical example, playing on our worst fears, is not even workable in practice. What it does do, however, is open the doors to apply torture to any other cases. Once you destroy a moral principle, in this case that torture is cruel and inhumane treatment and should be forbidden, then there is no stopping its application. On what grounds, then, could anyone say when torture should not be used? What moral basis would anyone use?

Taken to its logical conclusion: What prevents the government from turning this method against its own people? The nationalistic dehumanization of excluding non-Americans from human rights is only the first step against all humans, including Americans. In my own family history, my grandmother and her brother were tortured by their fellow countrymen, for the non-crimes of being a schoolteacher and a mayor. What happened in a fascist tyranny then and there, can and will happen here unless this type of moral relativism is stopped dead in its tracks.

Consider the result of vitiating America's high-minded ideals. Instead of "All men are created equal", rights pertain only to Americans. Instead of a principled stand for humanity, torture is advocated. Instead of peace, a war of aggression is initiated. Instead of eliminating human rights abuses in Iraq, the US abuses prisoners in Hussein's same prisons, and the new Iraqi government follows suit. Instead of acting with dignity, the US shamefully corrupts the Iraqi media. When will this disgrace end?

The destruction of the American ethos is the bane of our society with consequences more dire than any one hypothetical scenario. We are witnessing the fall of the great American empire from grace. The false ideology of power with its motto, "The end justifies the means", has corrupted the spirit of this great nation. More than fear the attack of individuals who have grown to hate America, we should fear this insidious rot from within, of an America without principles, without a conscience, where the indefensible is defended, and leading thinkers try to convince that what is wrong, is somehow right.