The complex, difficult debate over torture

Re “America’s anti-torture tradition,” Opinion, Dec. 17

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fails to discuss the distinction between torture for the sake of inflicting pain and the use of coercive measures to obtain information for the sake of saving innocent lives. The first instance is obviously perverse and immoral, and no civilized society would condone it. However, the use of coercive measures to gain information for the sake of saving innocent lives should at least be open to discussion. It raises many issues that need to be considered.

Is sleep deprivation or even “waterboarding” the same as fingernail pulling? Is the information garnered more or less reliable than any other type of questioning?

Most important, are coercive measures justifiable to save innocent lives? At what point does holding on to the ideal of not using coercive means to obtain information become the real perversion of morality rather than the saving of it? These and other important questions should be asked rather than stifled by articles like Kennedy’s that automatically preclude open discussion.

P.J. GENDELL

Beverly Hills

*

Kennedy recounts in some detail our anti-torture tradition up to the Korean War. Then, in one sentence, he dismisses the subsequent sordid history of torture that successive administrations allowed, either directly or through our proxies around the world, and which was largely hidden from the public eye. These historical blinders crippled policy debates that might have stopped the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld torture scandal.

A.C. SHEN

Berkeley