The right outcome on torture ban

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Thank goodness President Bush reversed course this week and agreed to Sen. John McCain's sensible proposal to ban torture against detainees. The decision came as both houses of Congress remained steadfast in supporting the measure despite the president's threatened veto. The war against terror will not suffer, and America can proudly hold its head high.”

It's not like this news is a surprise. Defending torture is a guaranteed loser. There was no way that America was going to continue to be, in the words of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment." This was a losing proposition, even without someone like Vietnam prisoner of war John McCain arguing to ban torture. Not even President Bush, whose own military service consisted of not showing up for national guard duty in Alabama, could be proud of his position. He found himself politically isolated, facing the cameras alone and telling the world, "America does not torture." It was all reminiscent of President Nixon telling us "I am not a crook" in a way that practically screamed, "Yes, I am."

So, the surprise here is not that the President flip-flopped and caved in to Senator McCain's demand for a ban. The surprise here has to be that he tried to assert a right to torture in the first place. This Administration is usually very attuned to wedge issues and how to exploit them for political advantage. But only the most loyal red-state fanatics will stand behind the President waving a right-to-torture banner. So, why champion torture?

The only plausible explanation is that this President has put one aim above all others: preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. As reported elsewhere in the DMN ("Domestic spying adds to debate over Bush power"), Bradford Berenson, associate counsel to President Bush from 2001 to 2003, says, "After 9-11, the president felt it was incumbent on him to use every ounce of authority available to him to protect the American people". Everything else is subservient to that aim. International norms regarding humane treatment of captured enemy combatants, civil liberties for ourselves at home, all must be sacrificed for security. It's a simplistic notion. It's a notion that plays well with his simplistic-minded base, who ridiculed his 2004 election opponent Senator John Kerry (D-MA) for his nuanced positions on the issues facing America. But it's a notion that threatens to destroy the prize it's trying to preserve. The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin is still as true today as it was over 200 years ago: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."