COLUMNL: Torture debate a moral gray area

This is a complex issue. Those of us who remember the Cold War era also recall that one of the great black marks on the Soviet Union and its satellites was that the communists used torture while Americans didn’t stoop to that level. Our society was supposed to be morally superior to the communists. (Although the reality was probably different than what we were told at the time.)

Now, however, some U.S. leaders argue that torture is not so bad after all — when Americans choose to use it on their enemies.

This confusing moral quandary crosses many traditional political lines. For example, John McCain, a former POW and last year’s Republican presidential nominee, strongly opposed the use of waterboarding, a stand that was in opposition to many in his own party.

Still, for all our desire to walk on a moral high road in the torture debate, I suspect many people don’t have strong black-and-white views on the subject. We are, after all, a nation where one of the most popular television shows is “24,” a spy/terrorist thriller where the lead characters often uses force and torture to get information from the bad guys.

There are a couple of threads that run through this debate. First, people define “torture” in a variety of different ways. Some say that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” — sleep deprivation, cold rooms and other physical and mental “discomforts” — aren’t really torture. And defenders of these practices say they are done under very controlled conditions.

But critics of those techniques argue that the level of discomfort is sufficient to label them as “torture” and furthermore, the information gotten from forced interrogations is often useless anyway.

The second idea in this debate is one of context. A captured enemy on the battlefield who is thought to have information about imminent attacks might be fair game for the use of physical or psychological force. But an enemy sitting in a cell away from battle who may not have immediate information changes the context and perhaps should not be subject to the same kind of physical or psychological abuses.

Perhaps the biggest issue in this debate is the moral and ethical standing of America. If the U.S. is to be a leader of freedom in the world, it cannot compromise that position with the unrestrained use of torture on its enemies. To do so undermines the very foundation on which our nation is built, eroding not just our diplomatic standing, but also our own political moral compass.

There are no easy answers to this issue, no matter what the chattering class may claim on television.

Is the use of forced interrogations always wrong? No.

Is the use of force sometimes wrong? Yes.

Sometimes necessary? Yes.

Confusing and morally gray? Definitely.

Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.