How We See It: Reaction To Torture Report Shows U.S. Conflicted

If the federal government had a man in custody who knew, but would not reveal, the precise time, location and methods Adam Lanza planned to kill as many children as possible, would an interrogator be justified to pour water over his face to simulate drowning in an effort to make him talk?

Yes, some people consider it torture. There's no question anyone who has experienced so-called waterboarding considers it so. But if, in the hours before the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School, someone had the capacity to have shielded 20 young students from violent death, would you have been comfortable saying "No, it doesn't represent our values" and putting a stop to such interrogation methods?

What’s The Point?

Americans showed no outrage in the wake of Senate Democrats’ report on U.S. torture years ago, likely because Americans are conflicted about the ends, the means and justification.

An unfair question? Perhaps, but in our nation's war against its enemies, the question lingers: How far is too far? For people calling a talk-radio host or emerging from the Green Room for an in-studio turn in front of the cameras, chatter is easy. To be the decision-maker in such a scenario? Well, many would fail such a "values" test.

In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that left nearly 3,000 people dead in the name of religious and political differences, the mood of the nation left little room for sympathy or compassion. Our president wasn't alone in his drive for retaliation. The American public wanted to ensure the United States had not become impotent in its capacity to bring killers to justice.

Now, more than a decade later, Senate Democrats tell Americans they should be ashamed of the brutality invoked in the name of the war on terror; they should not believe the assertions that Osama bin Laden's capture and other efforts to protect the nation's interest were well-served by inflicting pain and psychological exhaustion on those believed to have information.

Arkansas newest U.S. Sen.-elect, Tom Cotton, who was appointed Monday to the Select Committee on Intelligence, called the $40 million, Democrat-compiled report on torture a "pack of lies." Senior U.S. Sen. John Boozman said the country walks a fine line in protecting its interests.

"Whether we crossed that line is a fair discussion we should have, but it needs to be done in an honest way," Boozman said. "To do this in a very political and public manner is a disservice to our intelligence community and puts the safety of Americans overseas at great risk."

There was one Republican voice chastising the U.S.: Sen. John McCain said the interrogation tactics "stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good." We view him as an expert on torture: From 1967 to 1973, he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam who was tortured mercilessly. Perhaps more than anyone else in politics, his voice on this issue matters.

The report on torture accomplished little more than providing a political football for a news cycle or two. Americans to a great extent shrugged at the findings. Whatever outrage the Democrats expected was muted, at best.

Perhaps some Americans were wondering: Is killing people with drones from hundreds of miles away a better outcome for the dead than waterboarding?

Those who make these kinds of decisions sound easy are misleading you. If we sound a bit conflicted over whether there's a right decision -- always, every time -- it's because we, and many Americans, are.

Commentary on 12/16/2014

Upcoming Events