You can’t turn around these days without running into somebody’s opinion about torture. Not that this is not a very serious subject or to deny anybody’s right to an opinion, but I’d like to register my own belief that it’s time to blow the whistle on the discussion. Both the attackers and the defenders are wearing me down. Yes, some serious missteps and indefensible practices took place and, yes, it’s fruitful at times to acknowledge one’s sins. But several questions are in order: for one, what is the statute of limitations on public confessions of sin? Is it useful to continue to deplore and engage in hand-wringing for American atrocities committed in WWII, lynchings in the South, water -boarding by US troops in the Spanish-American War, public hangings in the Wild West, and other shameful episodes in the nation’s past? One has to weigh the good that can come from public disclosures against the harm that can be done. What is the good that could come from the Senate torture report? Not much. From public shame, Senator Feinstein and others have argued, there is the potential that future behavior might be influenced for the better. The CIA actions after 9/11, however, have already been thoroughly aired, investigated, and commented upon, and whatever deterrent effect there is likely to be has already been recorded.
On the other side what is the harm that can come from reopening the old wounds and prolonging the discussion? There is very considerable evidence that serious harm will result. Relationships with foreign governments and their security services are bound to be affected, and for the worse. Americans have no discipline and political changes can result in new Administrations disclosing damaging information about past Administrations in order to show themselves in a momentarily favorable light and/or to discredit their political opponents. Moreover, if you are not going to prosecute officials, and the Justice Department and the Obama Administration, had already decided that CIA officers were not going to be prosecuted, is it fair to continue to pillory them in the media? There had been a tradition that had survived even the nasty politics of the recent past of a nonpartisan or bipartisan tradition in national security matters and particularly in the most sensitive aspects of intelligence work. Putting out a report done by one side of the political spectrum to deplore the mistakes of a previous Administration of the opposite party goes a long way toward undermining that tradition. The Obama Administration’s mild protests on the timing of the report’s release, while endorsing the release, and the report’s substance and tone, make it clear that fulfilling campaign talking points have trumped the tradition of bipartisanship in national security and intelligence matters.
Consider a homely analogy. Most Americans can relate to a situation where something unfortunate has happened to the family in the past. It sounds good to say that the family must acknowledge its mistakes and promise not to repeat them. But if the family matter is not so clear, and there were extenuating circumstances that help to explain what some family member did, it would not help smooth out matters if one side in the family dispute declared that it was going to call out the other family member(s) on TV or in the newspaper as the best way forward. Would this be likely to ease or to exacerbate the family crisis? It does not take great wisdom to see that sometimes the best way to solve a problem or to resolve a family dispute is to drop it. Time, if given half a chance, will heal all wounds, wound all heels, and generally restore “the mystic chords of memory that unite every hearth and hearthstone across this great land.” (By Abe Lincoln in his 1st Inaugural Speech)
***
Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a PhD from Harvard University.
