Why Defend Torture?

To whom it may concern,

Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing amount of attacks on the Obama administration for its change in policy on interrogation techniques (i.e. water boarding and other internationally understood forms of torture). The chief supporter of the Bush administration's approach, Vice President Dick Cheney, is also probably the one who is chiefly responsible for the initial decision. While he claims he is defending the President, one has to wonder who in their right mind would defend the practice of torture. The results of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are defended by the Republicans without evidence, and usurped by the Democrats through the testimony of former interrogators, lawyers, and other Justice Department officials from the previous administration. Regardless of their effectiveness, which is at best inconclusive, it is bizarre to see a former Vice President in the limelight to defend a decision and a strategy that he no longer has any control over or say in. Until the Bush administration, the United States and its military had been regarded as a beacon for human rights. The Germans marched West in order to be captured by Americans instead of the Russians. The Civil Rights Movement gave the world hope for equality. And virtually every international agreement or treaty for the last century is written with language to bolster human rights protections in foreign countries. With our reputation now tainted by unilateral military action, Abu Ghraib prison, and the torture of suspected terrorists, how will this administration restore our moral standing with the world?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP