Historian Victor Davis Hanson explains why he thinks the McCain Amendment strengthening prohibitions against "torture" is, in fact, a good idea.
Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results -- either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives.The question, then, for a liberal democracy is not whether torture in certain cases is effective but whether its value is worth the negative publicity and demoralizing effect on a consensual society that believes its cause and methods must enjoy a moral high ground far above the enemy's.
[W]e might as well admit that by forswearing the use of torture, we will probably be put at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" if there is another terrorist attack on a U.S. city.)
Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the U.S. appreciate our forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably disdain our magnanimity, as if we were weak rather than good.
But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the McCain amendment -- because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Alan at December 4, 2005 12:41 PM