Vetoing the Torture Ban

As expected, President Bush vetoed the proposed waterboarding ban recently. There are many stories and angles to this particular development, but most of them are simply re-cycled arguments that we have all seen and heard. However, this post reviews the torture debate in a way that is quite similar to the way I see this issue: The torture debate has two parts that often get conflated – (1) the morality/legality of the act itself, and (2) administrability (i.e., how do we know these powers won’t be abused?). Bush’s supporters tend to ignore the second point altogether, although it’s arguably the strongest – and most Burkean – argument against “coercive interrogation.” In essence, do we trust the government with this kind of power? By way of explanation, the post continues: To support Bush’s veto, you essentially have to reach two conclusions. First, you must think torture is morally and legally acceptable in prescribed circumstances. Assuming you do, though, that's not enough. It's necessary but not sufficient. To support Bush's position, you must also think that the federal government is capable of exercising this awesome power in a responsible way. I’ve heard a lot of arguments justifying Conclusion #1, but virtually nothing to justify Conclusion #2 (other than “trust us”). Indeed, most of the arguments we hear from the pro-torture side – ticking time bombs, evilness – are only relevant to the former. It’s logically similar to my opposition to the death penalty. To be honest, I don’t have that much of a problem with executions in the abstract. If you kill a bunch of people for no good reason, I honestly don’t worry too much about the state taking your life too. My opposition to capital punishment, then, is rooted in doubt – specifically, conservative doubt about the limits of man’s knowledge. There is simply no way to administer capital punishment fairly and objectively without regard to class, race, etc. – abuse and injustice are inevitable. Exactly. The argument of the "rightness" of the event itself will always be divisive, even among well-meaning individuals. The exercising of this power, however, will meet with almost universal agreement: The federal government is not to be trusted with the monumental responsibility of using this granted power responsibly. More specifically, none but the most ardent UET supporters would allow this power to be centralized in one person - namely, the President. Lest we think that this analysis is merely an exercise, we must understand that the old adage 'give them an inch, they take a mile' is almost universally true. This blog has reviewed many situations where narrow allowances to the executive have resulted in massive growth of governmental power and control. Are we willing to allow the current President - and all future Presidents - this tremendous power? If we are, how do we guarantee that it is used properly (assuming such a thing is possible)? Ignoring these questions will not make the problem go away. In fact, it will create an environment where abuse will flourish. Perhaps we can ask John Yoo. If he doesn't have an answer, maybe a good "dunk in the water" will help him figure it out.