Prometheus 6

Both explanations demonstrate the corrosive effects of the decision to adopt cruelty and -- as with waterboarding -- even torture as weapons of war. 

Self-Inflicted Wounds
By Alberto Mora and John Shattuck
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; A19

The question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture is a no-brainer. Our nation and many others have recognized for decades that it does. One doesn't have to have been "read into" the details of a classified program, as President Bush has suggested, to reach a judgment about this interrogation technique. Common sense is the only tool needed to understand that inducing the sensation of drowning -- i.e., of dying -- is torture.

Remarkably, in his recent confirmation hearing to be attorney general, Judge Michael Mukasey declined to say whether waterboarding is torture. There are two explanations for this. Mukasey himself stated that he was without enough information to make the call. But some believe his unwillingness to do so may also be based on a concern that it could increase the potential liability for those who have engaged in this practice or authorized it.

Both explanations demonstrate the corrosive effects of the decision to adopt cruelty and -- as with waterboarding -- even torture as weapons of war. The first shows the tendency, pioneered by the Justice Department that Mukasey hopes to lead, to redefine torture to make "legal" what was, and is, illegal. The second shows how concern about accountability for the abuse of detainees is now acting as a stimulus for ratification of cruel interrogation policies and practices. In this confluence, we risk permanent damage to our legal system and to the principle of accountability.

But there are also greater risks. There is no more fundamental right, whether under U.S. law or under human rights principles, than a person's right to be free not only from torture but also from cruel treatment, the lower level of abuse under law. If we were to legitimize cruelty -- as those who espouse waterboarding would wish us to do -- we would do violence to the concept of inalienable and inviolable personal rights. The protection afforded by law to core human dignity would be shattered, with incalculable damage to our nation's deepest values, founding principles and constitutional order.

And we risk much more yet.