To Torture or Not to Torture: Why is that the question?

Where are the limits of government power? Does "self defense" include torture? How effective a "tool" is torture anyway? How important is the world’s perception of the United States?

Republican leaders are arguing over these questions and more, creating a rift between the White House and the Senate just weeks before the midterm elections.

What’s the argument?

In June 2006, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration created an illegal military tribunal system to judge suspected terrorists. The ruling required a new tribunal system, one in line with national and international law.

The White House proposed legislation that would reinterpret international laws that prohibit the use of torture. The White House says that terrorists are enemy combatants, not soldiers in a war. Therefore, they reason, the international laws on warfare, called the Geneva Conventions, do not apply. The administration argues that in order to make America safer, it must have the power to detain and interrogate terror suspects as it sees fit.

But Democrats and many Republicans disagree. For over a year, John McCain (R-Arizona) has been speaking out against torture under any circumstances. McCain was himself a victim of torture for five years in Vietnam, and last session he helped to pass a law that would require military interrogators to follow the Geneva Conventions when questioning suspected terrorists.

Other Senate Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) are strongly opposed to President Bush on the matter. And former Secretary of State Colin Powell has questioned the administration’s point of view, pointing out that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," suggesting that permitting torture would cast further doubt on America’s morality.

Dueling bills

The Senate Armed Services Committee passed an opposing piece of legislation spearheaded by Senator Warner that would uphold the Geneva Conventions and prohibit any "cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th amendments to the Constitution."

Unlike the Bush administration bill, Warner’s legislation would require a judge to determine if evidence obtained by coercive methods short of torture could be used in trial.

These opposing pieces of legislation beg the question, what is torture and who gets to define it?

What is torture?

The Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 says that prisoners should not suffer "cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity", in particular "humiliating and degrading treatment."

The Bush administration says that the US Interpretation of Common Article 3 is vague and doesn’t enumerate which interrogation techniques are allowed.

McCain’s provision on torture bans "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment of detainees, throwing those adjectives into question.

Also at issue is the effectiveness of torture. Experts agree that torture doesn’t arouse reliable information --- the victim will say almost anything to stop the torture.

So why is our president and Congress consumed with the question: "to torture or not to torture?" when it doesn’t work that great anyway?

Presidential power

We could view the argument as one over presidential power - that the Bush administration is less interested in torture and more interested in having the power to conduct the so-called “war on terror" as it sees fit. And Bush’s opponents are less interested in what happens to detainees in Guantanamo Bay and more interested in limiting the president’s power with agreements made by democratic consensus, like the Geneva Conventions.

If this is so, what does the constitution say about the president’s power as Commander-in-Chief?

The framers of the Constitution intended for the legislative branch to be the most powerful actor in the federal government with the president empowered to execute the laws, not create or deviate from them. Because the founders were clearly concerned about the idea of a king with elite powers, they did not grant them to the president. However, over time, the role of the president has become larger and more powerful. A forceful executive branch certainly did not start with the W. Bush administration.

The application of the Constitution evolves over time, and most Americans alive today understand and are accustomed to the power of the executive branch.

For more on this, listen to WomenMatter’s interview with Geoffrey Stone, Constitutional scholar from the University of Chicago.

What’s at stake?

If Congress were to permit torture, what would be at stake? Many analysts worry that the U.S. reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions would encourage other nations to do the same. A shift away from the Conventions could endanger U.S. soldiers who are held captive.

Also at stake is the world’s perception of the United States at a time when politics and the economy are global affairs. Powell advised that the U.S. consider the world’s view of morality, and stay on the acceptable side of that line.

Broad versus specific

Also at issue in the Bush/Warner debate are the deliberately broad outlines of torture in the Geneva Conventions versus the specific list of prohibited interrogation techniques that the Bush administration is suggesting.

The Bush proposal limits torture to nine specific acts including rape and involuntary medical experiments. Warner’s proposal maintains the general definition found in the Geneva Conventions. Warner, McCain, and Graham argue that naming prohibited acts of torture limits the scope of the Geneva Conventions -- any torture act left off the list is legal.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Bush’s or Warner’s proposal? Where do you draw the boundaries of presidential power? Is the world’s perception important in this matter? Should the executive branch be given unlimited power in the pursuit of terrorists?

Your input matters

Your representatives in Congress DO care what you think. Especially now -- 2006 is an election year and many representatives will be looking to reconnect with their constituents. Let your congressmen and women know what you think! Give your senators a piece of your mind! To get to your reps, click here.

To explore our archive of past Security Issue updates, click here.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 9/21/2006