It’s hard to turn on your TV these days without hearing something about torture.In the past month, the media obsession with torture has increased rapidly with the controversial comments from figures like Nancy Pelosi, Sean Hannity, Jessie Ventura and Mancow.The result of this controversy has been the transformation of a serious moral debate on human suffering into a wild circus of propaganda and cheap entertainment.Unfortunately, many Americans have allowed themselves to get sucked into the mindless battle over “what defines torture” rather than logically considering the objective immorality of violent coercion.Aside from the present collapse of the American mercantilist system and the colossal debt the U.S. government has tossed atop its imperial grave, one of the most telling signs that the “terrorists” are winning is the fact that a nation that prides itself on law and ethics has fallen into the destructive realm of subjective morality.Once we’ve set aside the media’s distorted presentation, however, the issue of torture should be viewed as a debate over moral principle, not subjective definition.But even if some dismiss the argument for morality, under our constitutional republic, it’s not a matter of what individuals define as torture. It’s a matter of what the law defines as illegal.In 2002, the Bush administration authorized the CIA to use the now infamous “10 techniques” of enhanced interrogation. In 2005, however, the administration withdrew the authorization, recognizing it to be either counterproductive or, perhaps, downright illegal.Yet, in June 2007, the administration reauthorized the “10 techniques,” despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that stated the terms of the Geneva Convention applied to all foreign detainees.As evidenced by these events, “enhanced interrogation” might escape the definitional debate, but it cannot escape constitutional law.The founding fathers made it clear that America is a nation of laws, not man.As logic would suggest, any nation built on law that doesn’t uphold the integrity of that law has absolutely no moral authority. That is precisely why, from a legal perspective, it isn’t an issue of “what defines torture.” It’s an issue of principle.So not only is torture immoral — it’s illegal. No matter how you slice it, “enhanced interrogation” doesn’t pass the test of objectivity.Despite the overwhelming legal evidence condemning such enhanced interrogation techniques, there are still those who defend torture on the grounds that America represents “good” and terrorism “evil.”Of course, hardly anyone hesitates in saying terrorism is despicable, just like any other group that uses violent intimidation to achieve its ends.But if illegitimate forms of violent coercion are evil, we must then recognize that a legitimized form of violent coercion would pose a far greater threat to our individual liberties.And since governments — the U.S., for example — admittedly claim the right to initiate force as their highest moral authority by way of the social contract, we’d most certainly have to regard our own government as, itself, being an “evil” entity.So making the whimsical argument of “good vs. evil” doesn’t hold water either, it would seem. Nor would the argument from self-defense, as Islamic terrorists would have the greatest incentive to protect themselves from monopolized forms of legitimized violence.Especially the ones with hundreds of military bases plotted across their “holy land.”The inevitable result of the argument from self-defense is that we wind up torturing the very people who use self-defense while simultaneously condoning torture as a legitimate form of self-defense.Only in an upside-down world would this sort of irrationality make sense.The only certainty of violence is that it will usher in a never-ending vicious circle of violence.Using torture to prevent violence is like pouring gasoline on your roof to prevent future house fires, or hiring a prostitute to help screw your way back to virginity.The only rational solution, then, is to recognize that violence never ultimately solves anything.Besides, forfeiting our principles for safety only distracts us from the underlying root of the problem: Imperialism.The sad truth is that, though many Americans see torture as    being wrong, we’re all subjected to the consequences of our nation’s corrupted policy.That’s precisely why we should hold those responsible for reinstating torture accountable.President Obama has already said he does not intend to compromise our values for our security. Now is the time to put those words into action.But the problem doesn’t end there. Americans, as a society, must recognize the real lesson: voluntarily paying money to violent organizations for protection is no different than submitting yourself to the mafia.And when dealing with mafia, expecting anything but violence is absurd.The problem with government isn’t just its right to take power, but also its unrestrained power to take rights.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old political science and business major from Baton Rouge.
 
 
—–Contact Scott Burns at [email protected]