The left sees in the photos what we are afraid our country has become. The right sees in the photos some “fratboy hazing” (Rush Limbaugh’s basic message) and fairplay against people who want to kill our children. Is torture going to be the final breaking point between the two sides in this country? Is it the issue that will in fact solidify our national sensibilities into two and only two sides: You hate torture or you think it’s great that we’re finally getting tough on the bad guys?

I despair of finding middle ground. Here’s the best I can do:

I am willing to admit that there are circumstances in which torture is permissible, just as I think sometimes we have to kill people. And I’m willing to admit that what we apparently put the Abu Ghraib prisoners through wasn’t nearly as bad as the torture that’s routine in many other countries.

Is the right willing to admit that: Torture should only be used in the direst of circumstances? Torture should never be a cause for the exulting shown in the photos? The people responsible for allowing the wholesale torture at Abu Ghraib need to be punished severely, quickly and publicly not only for the sake of justice but to try to limit some of the damage the practice has done to our war on terror?

Can we get even to that common ground? Can we as a nation say that we abhor torture, except in the rarest of cases? That we do not believe in the institutionalizing of torture? That we will fight it around the world? That we believe in the rule of law and that no one is above the law? That we believe in treating even our enemies with dignity? That we support the established international conventions for treating prisoners? That we are sorry about what went on at Abu Ghraib?

If left and right can’t agree on those points, then I do fear that the division in our country is unbridgeable. If we can’t agree to condemn torture, if we can’t feel shame at what we did at Abu Ghraib, then what can we agree on?

I am predicting that some of you are going to be outraged at the idea that we should treat our enemies with dignity. So, let me preemptively explain what I mean.

In WWII, when we captured Nazi soldiers, we generally (AFAIK) followed the Geneva Conventions. We didn’t kill them. We didn’t beat them. We didn’t strip them and put them on leashes. We fed them and housed them ok. We treated them with basic dignity even though we had been trying to kill them in the field, and even though they were f_cking Nazis. Why?

For a few reasons.

First, people are people. But if you have a problem with the idea of treating enemies with dignity, this will probably strike you as mere liberal mush.

Second, we want reciprocity. Failure to abide by the international rules gives the other side license to do the same with your own soldiers.

Third, the aim of war is to establish peace. Mistreating prisoners makes it harder to come to peace because your enemy hates you more. And it makes it harder to preserve peace because the people you’re now mistreating are going to become civilians when the war is over; making a segment of the population hate your guts does not help the cause of long-term peace.

If you believe, as I do, that the war against terror can’t be won solely on the battlefield, then preventing the war from destroying the possibility of peace is especially trenchant.

Categories: Uncategorized dw