Interrogation & the GOP Split

by Kean Witzeman

As the War on Terror slowly grinds on and the casualties increase by the thousands, the issue of what degree the United States is willing to incorporate inhumane treatments against the “enemies of freedom” has become a hot topic in Congress.

Interestingly, the argument is not so much between the Republicans and Democrats, but rather from different factions of the Republican Party. Bush’s desire to use any means necessary in obtaining information from terror suspects, as well as his disregard for the Geneva Convention, brought about the ire of certain prominent Republican figures. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a POW for more than five years during Vietnam, led the charge against the Bush Administration’s questionable war tactics along with South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham and Virginia senator John Warren.

The Republican-on-Republican battle came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision that the military commissions devised by President Bush violated U.S. law, ruling ultimately that Congress alone could establish such a system of tribunals and that the President was overstepping his bounds and abusing the power granted him in the United States’ Constitution. McCain, Graham and Warren were pushing for the administration to initiate a system similar to the court-martial procedure used for trying American soldiers believed of misconduct, whereas the Bush administration and other supporters believe that drastic measures must be taken against a brutal, non conventional enemy in order to protect the American people and maintain the American way of life.

Graham illustrated his concern and the concerns of many other Americans worried about the blow-back that will certainly be associated with torturing our enemies, saying, “For me, it’s a simple test. If it’s a trial, would I be OK with our guys being tried in that way? If it’s an interrogation setting, would I be OK with our guys being interrogated?”

Senator Graham brings up an interesting point. Any clear headed American is disgusted by the idea of our brave men and women being tortured by the enemy. To that same end, are we willing to say publicly to the world that the decency of an American is worth more than that of an individual of a different nationality while we attempt to spread out ideals to regions that are not open to them? It seems counterproductive to say the least during a time when we have few allies in our current struggle.

A “compromise” was reached recently on this matter that seems laughable, if it were not disgustingly absurd and embarrassing. In essence, the agreement reached was that President Bush would not violate the Geneva Convention by practicing cruel and inhuman treatment, as long as he was allowed to define what “cruel and inhumane treatment” consisted of.

Once again, powerful Republican leaders, such as House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, used the bill as political fodder against Democrats saying just prior to the vote, “Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the President the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?”

If using cruel treatment is the only way that Mr. Bush can protect our country and citizenry, then perhaps we should seriously examine our strategy as a whole and decide whether it coincides with the ideals of our great country. The United States can not stand for freedom, liberty and democracy while at the same time torturing our enemies and justifying such actions in the name of national security. In order for the United States to continue the fight we must keep the moral high ground which can only be obtained by rising above the tactics used by our brutal enemies.

There is no easy answer to this problem, as America’s sons and daughters continue to give their lives while tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children civilians have also died. The only easy answer is to have not gotten into this mess to begin with, but since dwelling on the past in 20/20 hindsight will not end the conflict any sooner, most of America is willing to shift our focus towards the future and what must be done now that we are up to our ears in catastrophe. We must realize that the interrogation techniques in question have been used on a significant number of people that were later released without any charges and the information we gather through such interrogation is often unreliable. We can not continue to sacrifice America’s principles in an effort to expand them.

Mr. Bush, his administration and other republican leaders should know that spreading freedom and protecting human decency are not mutually exclusive and now that we are in this bloody mess, we must finish it the right way, not the easy way.