Commentary: Torture: Immoral or necessary?

Torture is complicated. I am perplexed by the current debate and wish there were a simple, morally justifiable solution. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Those on the Right argued that when terrorists deliberately crashed airliners into the World Trade Center on 9/11, it changed the rule of law in our civilized nation. In a bereaved country, some felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice and to engage in any activity to prevent future attacks on our nation. The anger of the moment, national retribution, appeared to sustain these beliefs.

We then drove the Taliban (they didn't actually attack us but supported al-Qaida who did) out of Afghanistan and captured "enemy combatants" in the process. This is where the "torture" problem began.

These enemy combatants were not defined as traditional prisoners of war and therefore were determined not to come under the Geneva Conventions. They were believed to have information that would take us to the leaders of al-Qaida and perhaps even prevent future attacks on our country. We engaged in enhanced interrogation in the eyes of the world, "torture," and we attempted to justify it.

Does the end justify the means regardless of how horrible and morally reprehensible? In a civilized, democratic nation, the answer is always "no."

The Left was alarmed about a new war (why did we invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?). They were also concerned about the Bush administration and their treatment of the "enemy combatants."

President Bush authorized separate, secret military tribunals to try enemy combatants. Despicable torture pictures emerged from Abu Ghraib and were explained as being the work of a few "bad apples." Apparently, not so.

The Left was outraged. They claimed that the Bush administration violated human rights and the rule of law. The Right justified its policy positions with legal interpretations and declarations that 9/11 required extreme measures. There were many unanswered questions.

President Obama understands the moral ambiguity and the situational ethics involved, but doesn't want to focus on the mistakes of the past administration. He released legal memos that authorized enhanced interrogation and then turned the matter over to the attorney general. Some officials broke the law and may be prosecuted.

The Left will be unhappy, dissatisfied that they can't punish the Bush administration. The Right will be incensed that they can't attempt to prove their policy of enhanced interrogation saved the nation.

Our country lost its moral compass. We drifted into ethical darkness. As a result, we were all diminished. Let us hope our new president will help us find our path back to moral and ethical clarity, a keystone to our true national character.

- Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, former Nevada superintendent of schools, is a board member for Silver State Charter High School in Carson City.