The Corrosion of our Character?

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 8, 2009

In his press conference, detailing the reasons behind his decision to release classified memos regarding the interrogation procedures approved for use upon captured terrorists, Obama made the following statement. “Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.”

At first glance, I found no problem with that statement. I understood the inference intended and, while catching the not-so-subtle slam against the previous administration, I understood he was intending to follow through on at least one of his campaign issues. But then I took a closer glance, and in so doing I was reminded of an experience in my past that can relate to this issue. The issue, of course, is that of the use of force in interrogation of captured enemy combatants.

I was in the sixth grade, and a discussion with a classmate became a heated argument which he ended with a solid left jab to my nose and a quick exit from the school playground. Then he stood there just beyond the gate of the fence and laughed at my bleeding nose, while I was left with no defense but to utter empty threats. I was bound by the rules of the school – namely that I was prohibited from crossing the fence during school hours. That particular bully used the rules and conventions of the school against me – rules that he had no fear of and conventions that had no hold over him.

Now, let’s fast forward to my sophomore year, and a day on the bus when a senior bully decided to teach my younger brother a lesson by grabbing him by the neck and suspending him over the back of the seat. I knew there were rules against leaving my seat while the bus was in motion, but I also knew that my failure to act in a quick and forceful way would place my brother in danger of permanent injury. I decided the moral thing to do was to act in a way that would prevent further damage. The bully came away with a blackened eye and a renewed respect for the power of fraternal duty.

Now, back to the issue of forceful interrogation used against the terrorists. As in the case of bullies above, they and the terrorists each make deliberate choices that are composed of cost versus reward analyses. In the case of the terrorist, they decided to couch their actions outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention and to hide within the civilian population while attacking unarmed civilians upon our soil. Our corporate signature upon the articles of the Geneva Convention binds us to certain procedures and policies that apply to other signees, but not to those who choose to battle against us without the prescribed use of uniforms and rules of military combat.

That being said, we must go back to the aforementioned quote of our president. He seems to be implying that we have sacrificed our collective morality by taking the “shortcut” of enhanced interrogation – even if it was used upon unconventional combatants. That brings us to the following questions:

Is it morally correct to not use whatever means are available to us – through Constitutional authority granted via congressional approval and through international standards of warfare – to gather information from someone who knows of an impending attack upon our citizenry? Is it morally correct to ever use force in the prevention of a crime?

If we are to believe the current critics of Bush and the CIA during his tenure, the actions used in Gitmo and other places were arbitrarily ordered by Bush, Cheney, et al, and they were also immoral and ineffective. The argument has been offered up that all these practices did was to serve as a “recruiting tool” for more terrorists to join the ranks, and that the information gathered was useless and tainted. Critics also say that these techniques have served to place us on the same moral level as the terrorists we fight.

I beg to differ.

First of all, the techniques used were brought before the Senate and House committees as well as the lawyers in the Justice Department, so an investigation into these memos will most likely not go any further than the national media’s subjective coverage. Secondly, regarding the morality issue, I refer to the above anecdote. I believe I was morally compelled to act in defense of my younger brother – just as I would be compelled to act in defense of my family today should an attacker threaten their safety. I believe the CIA operatives were morally and legally bound to use non-lethal force to gather information that protected our citizens from harm.

Finally, regarding the efficacy of the methods used, I think there is a valid reason why Obama has been selective in the memos released. It has been reported that more than a few planned attacks upon our nation have been thwarted by the use of these techniques and a full and open disclosure would not serve Obama’s political purposes. Personally, I feel no corrosion in our nation’s character unless, of course, I look at the practices approved by Obama to be used upon the millions of unborn children who are deprived of life without due process.