Released CIA Documents Says Who WE Are

Last Tuesday, 12 December 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee released documents containing information about the CIA torture practices conducted under the Bush/Cheney administration just after 9/11.

The debate is on.  Was it torture?  Was it effective?  Was it not justified, given the threat to our nation?  Should these documents have been released?  And so it goes.

Consider the first question: are we talking about real torture here?  Naïve answer: No, we’re just talking about “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  Naïve response: Oh, I see, these techniques have nothing to do with actually torturing anyone; okay, I’m satisfied.  Case closed.

Consider the last question: Why not have just kept these documents sealed tight?  Why expose them?  Well, for one, these documents effectively tell us that the Bush administration misled the public, as the media puts it (why not use the word “lied”).  Do we want our government leaders to lie to us?  How do we keep them accountable?  Or should we let them do whatever they please, however they please, whenever they please—all in the name of national security?

Now, as to the question, was torture necessary; that is, did it produce the desired results—did we get useful intelligence, critical information?!  There’s the catch.  This is a utilitarian question: Did it work?  Does torture get results?  That’s seems to be the focus of the debate.  Yes!  Say those who defend the use of these “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  No, they certainly do NOT!  Cry those against the use of such techniques.

Here’s an insight: When something works, really and truly works, there’s no debate; it’s a given, it’s accepted, it’s embraced by all.  On the other hand, when something is in doubt, uncertain and questionable or seriously flawed, there are disputes, arguments, and divisions, and sides are taken.  And, more significantly, there are always undisclosed reasons as to why anyone would support or promote a questionable thing, act, or program, in the first place.

But are we not missing the point by merely focusing on the utilitarian question in this debate over the use of torture?  Is it not a moral, character, and identity question, with respect to who we are as a people; what kind of people are we?

We all so readily champion the virtues of The American Way: We are a free country with inalienable rights and liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and all that.  We think ourselves superior to so many other countries around the world, seeing ourselves as being more fair and just, more free, more respectful of human rights and liberties.  But much of the world sees right through us and has a great distaste for our hypocrisy.

Over and over again we say one thing while we do another.  We esteem ourselves to be a certain kind of people; yet, when push comes to shove, we act in the same dreadful ways that we accuse so many other two-bit countries as acting, mean, ugly, unjust, oppressive, cruel, self-righteous, and self-justifying.  That is the problem.  We act and behave and respond in ways no differently than those we are fighting.  In short, we have become no better than those we have dubbed The Enemy.