Chris Satullo: No time to surrender our American values

Sudan. Zimbabwe. Russia. Iran. Syria. France.

Those are some of the nations to which a few of my fellow Americans recently urged me to move.

They were spurred by recent columns in which I argued that the torturing of unarmed prisoners vaguely suspected of terrorism was not our finest hour.

I wasn't going to go here again. I really wasn't. Then, a few nights ago, I pored over the thousand-plus e-mails I had received. The mail ran about 3-1 against my position. (Not so bad, considering how radio talkers such as Rush Limbaugh whipped up the other side.)

Some of the messages haunted me. Not the nasty rants; they're easy to shrug off. It was the notes from thoughtful, nice people who regard torture as a non-issue because either (a) they're misinformed about the scope of what happened or (b) they feel we face a threat so dire that all moral qualms are beside the point.

Allow me to walk this painful terrain one more time, responding to some common arguments.

"Only five minutes."

It's a staple talk-show claim that the sum total of American torture consists of a few photo-snapping reservists at Abu Ghraib and the brief admitted waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Muhammad (and two others).

That misses the mark. Torture became the policy, not the aberration.

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, told Congress last month that government records show that at least 108 prisoners have died in our custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least a quarter of those deaths triggered probes into whether U.S. personnel committed homicide.

"Only America-haters object to what's been done."

Not really. A flock of military lawyers and other officers protested the new detention and interrogation policies as a violation of military law, discipline and honor. Retired Gen. Antonio Taguba, who was assigned to investigate the Abu Ghraib abuses, wrote recently that war crimes were committed.

Last month, a phalanx of dignitaries signed a statement that said, in part, "We agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise and un-American. In our effort to secure ourselves, we have resorted to tactics which do not work . . . and which do not enhance our security.

". . . We must be better than our enemies, and our treatment of prisoners captured in the battle against terrorism must reflect our character and values as Americans."

Among the signatories were 9/11 commission chair Thomas Kean, six former secretaries of state or defense, and two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Would you tell these public servants that they are traitors who should move to Iran?

"They're terrorists; they deserve to suffer."

Opposition to torture does not imply any perverse sympathy for Islamist murderers. This isn't about who

they

are; it's about who

we

are. Do we really want to grade ourselves on this curve:

If X chops off someone's head, that gives us permission to torture Y

?

Here's a key point often missed: A high percentage of detainees weren't terrorists or insurgents. This is well-documented, most recently in a McClatchy Newspapers series (

» READ MORE: www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees

). More than 500 of the supposed "worst of the worst" sent to Guantanamo have been released, a tacit admission that most shouldn't have been put there in the first place.

Talk-show types hype evidence that some who were released later took up arms against the United States. This raises the question of whether their detention experience was what turned them into enemies.

"You just don't get it. We're in a life-and-death struggle with evil."

Is this undeclared war really so epochal, so unprecedented, that it renders moot all moral principles? How can a war be so dire that it waives the Geneva Conventions and the ancient right of habeas corpus, yet not the case for tax cuts?

A final question for anyone who's Christian (as I try to be):

Consider this thought exercise a riposte to that clichéd

24

hypothetical: What if your family is at risk and torturing a suspect is the only way to save them?

Imagine that Jesus is sitting in your living room. (Jesus, as you may recall, was the victim of torture.) Look him in the eye and explain why it's OK for a Christian nation to torture unarmed prisoners.

Let me know how that goes.