Is torture the American way?

Is torture the American way?

We don’t torture, and you’ll just have to take my word for it, is the message of President Bush to Congress, the American people and the world.

Unfortunately, the record of the administration on the subject of torture has been so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies that only the most trusting of souls could assume that the president is being candid.

The administration is prohibited from torturing detainees or prisoners of war by U.S. law, by international law and by treaties that the United States has signed.

Obviously, it is a contradiction for a nation that holds itself out as a beacon of enlightened democracy and a protector of human rights to ignore or circumvent international law and historic treaties prohibiting torture. But more than hypocrisy is a stake. As U.S. Sen John McCain — who learned something about torture as a North Vietnamese prisoner of war for more than five years — has pointed out, our greatest strength is “that we are different and better than our enemies.”

McCain used that argument in marshaling an anti-torture amendment through the U.S. Senate almost exactly two years ago. That amendment passed by a 90-9 margin, with 46 Republicans, 43 Democrats and one independent voting for it.

That vote was designed to end any ambiguity about the United States’ position on the acceptability of torture.

Remember some of the history. In 2002, the administration announced that al-Qaida prisoners were not subject to international law against the torture of captives. Later that year, the administration produced a secret legal opinion authorizing the CIA to use interrogation techniques that stopped short of the sort of pain caused by serious physical injury, organ failure or death.

There was enormous public outcry when the opinion became public in 2004, and it was quickly rescinded. The Justice Department stated: “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.” It is dismaying that the government felt it had to say what most us believe is self-evident.

But The New York Times reported last week that within months of that public declaration, Justice Department staffers with close ties to the White House drafted another secret opinion explicitly authorizing the CIA to use such brutal interrogation techniques as simulated drowning, stress positions, head slaps, sleep deprivation and sustained loud noise.

The first reaction of the White House was to condemn the Times’ reporting. Later, President Bush defended the CIA’s harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, saying its methods do not constitute torture. But the tactics described in the 2005 memo are recognized as torture under U.S. and international law. The president’s additional response was, “You bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them -- because the American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.” while such a protective declaration certainly sounds good, the president is not a law unto himself and does not have the power to unilaterally ignore the law in the name of making Americans feel safe.

If the most powerful nation in the world essentially declares that it cannot feel safe unless it defies international norms on torture, should that make anyone feel safer? If the secretary of State declares to our allies that the United States does not condone or practice torture, and it turns out that she was lying, does that make the United States safer, or does it further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world?

In the past, the administration has not felt compelled to answer such questions. But in the past, the administration was not facing an imminent confirmation hearing for an attorney general. Michael Mukasey, Bush’s nominee to succeed Alberto Gonzales, will face some rough questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Justice Department’s definition of torture.