There's No Debate About Torture

Last June, with little fanfare, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a measure solidifying the ban on torture. While torture was already illegal, this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act explicitly prohibited waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

Seventy-eight senators voted for it, and President Barack Obama signed it as part of the annual defense funding bill. It's the law of the land. The broad bipartisan support for this bill signaled that our government was rebuilding the consensus against this illegal and un-American practice.

But you wouldn't know this from watching the presidential race, where the candidates are campaigning like it's 2005. Such remarks threaten the emerging anti-torture consensus and have drawn criticism from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a revered friend and himself a victim of torture, who said, "these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation."

In the debate over torture, it's difficult to overstate the importance of political leadership. In January 2005, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that 82 percent of Americans opposed waterboarding. But as politicians and pundits claimed that torture had helped protect the country, more Americans – a majority, according to some polls – later came to support it.

Then came the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's landmark 2014 report on CIA detention and interrogation, which created momentum for last year's anti-torture law. Based on the CIA's own records, the report showed not only that torture was even more brutal that Americans had been led to believe but that it was counterproductive as an intelligence-gathering technique.

The debate about torture was over – or should have been.

Some who champion torture do so in the name of national security. But to be truly tough on terrorism is to reject torture unconditionally. I say this as someone who dedicated my life to defending this nation, and I'm in good company. Numerous members of the U.S. military – including some of our country's most successful interrogators of terrorists – agree that torture makes Americans less safe.

Torture tends to elicit bogus information that sets back investigations and wastes resources. Beyond the interrogation room, it saps American credibility, alienates allies, angers populations whose cooperation we need in the battle against terrorism and helps our enemies recruit fighters. Our country's embrace of torture exacted a steep price, one the country is still paying.

Perhaps most significantly, the use of torture compromises our nation's character. While far from perfect, the United States has exhibited a baseline commitment to human rights and the rule of law. It's this commitment that binds us to democratic movements around the globe and serves as one our most powerful weapons against terrorist groups. Sometimes defenders of torture point out that enemies of the United States abuse detainees. It's true, they do, but that's a strong argument against torture. This isn't about them; it's about us.

President Ronald Reagan helped negotiate the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which he signed in 1988. The Senate later ratified it, cementing a bipartisan consensus that lasted until the years after 9/11. Thanks to the work of countless advocates and the leadership of politicians like McCain and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., we've come a long way toward rebuilding the consensus.

Along with many other Americans, I'm determined not to let politicized rhetoric drag the country backwards.