THE DEBATE ON TORTURE
By U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-New Hartford)
The Administration and Congress are engaged in one of the most contentious debates I have witnessed during my 24 years in the House of Representatives.
Intensified by entrenched, fiercely partisan posturing across the political divide, the search for clarity and preciseness in the treatment of terrorists' suspects held captive in our prisons has raised profoundly important questions of morality, national purpose and future direction. Reconciling positions has been difficult.
It seems to me our responsibility on Capitol Hill debating any issue requires that we seek and heed expert advice.
Most instructive for me has been the passionate eloquence of Senator John McCain of Arizona - a friend and close associate since we came to the House together in the class of l982. The Senator has said, among other things, that torture does not elicit useful information; that a person suffering grievous pain and humiliation will say almost anything he believes interrogators want to hear, just to stop the torture. His is the voice of experience, having suffered at the hands of Vietnamese interrogators for six long years.
So the pragmatic question my colleagues and I pondered at length is whether torture is a productive, effective procedure in our battle against terrorism. The Senator, supported by many others, thinks not. In releasing the new Field Manual on September 6, 2006 governing our treatment of captives, Lt. General Kimmons, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, said this: I am absolutely convinced that no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five, hard years, tells us that.
I am convinced Senator McCain and General Kimmons are right. The answer to advocates of torture is that it is not productive. On a pragmatic basis alone, it doesn't make sense.
But let us consider the broader moral implication of torture.
Colin Powell, our respected former Secretary of State, a man of great depth and reach who knows the military system as few others do in this nation, wrote to Senator McCain regarding the administration's wish to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year. Powell also wrote: The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
Let us stop and consider just those two convictions. First, that torture is not effective. Second, that permitting torture diminishes our moral voice and reputation in the world. Why would we think of squandering our moral authority to carry out practices that are ineffective in fighting terrorism?
Several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to House Leaders last week expressing strong support for the principles outlined in S.3901, the Military Commissions Act, as adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, asking that any legislation considered by the House ensure the United States fully maintains its commitment to the Genera Conventions. We signed that letter in the conviction that adherence to Common Article 3 prohibiting cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners is essential in winning our struggle against terrorism. We made clear our strong support for the president's efforts, expressing our belief that holding firmly to the Geneva Convention will play a critical role.
We pointed out the approach we support upholds the newly issued U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which makes clear abusive interrogation tactics are not necessary to obtain information. Indeed, the manual shows such tactics are counterproductive and produce unreliable information. Further, the manual warns using such tactics endangers U.S. forces.
We concluded our letter with this thought: It is vital we do not equivocate or waiver on our commitment to treating those in U.S. custody in the same manner we would expect our own citizens be treated.
