Whether it works is not the point.

For the past few months, the issue of the torture of detainees and war prisoners by U.S. soldiers and contractors has engulfed the political news cycle. As you probably already know, U.S. soldiers and military contractors (read: mercenaries) waterboarded detainees suspected of being either members of the Taliban or al Qaeda. The debate in the media between the Left and Right has centered on whether or not torture works—the clowns on the Right vehemently claim that waterboarding isn’t torture and that it works very well to get the person being tortur—er, I mean waterboarded—to talk. On the Left, as is usually the case, the response is that waterboarding is torture and doesn’t work; but this claim is made using terms that the Right used to advocate for torture, which is a problem the Left has had for a long time. What seems missing in all of this is not the effectiveness of getting information out of detainees by torturing them but rather whether the practice is even legal, constitutionally or by statute. As is usually the case, the subject of the controversy is obscured by jargon and a lot of bullshit.

The U.S. has a long history of dealing with the issue of torture, waterboarding included. In the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers were photographed using “water torture” on captured members of the Viet Cong. When the issue was exposed, the military hierarchy tried and imprisoned the soldier responsible for the waterboarding. It was clear at that time that torture was illegal and not something the U.S. condoned or practiced, even under the most dire of circumstances. U.S. soldiers didn’t torture then, so why should they now?

After the Second World War, the United States executed and gave life sentences to Japanese and German prisoners of war who waterboarded civilians and military prisoners. If these men could be executed for using the same torture techniques that right-wingers are advocating today, then why can’t the people who authorized the torture that was done in our name be held accountable? I’m not suggesting execution for Bush, Cheney and the federal lawyers who told them it was legal to torture prisoners; I am merely asking for an investigation, which will be made easier since Cheney has been confessing to torture in numerous national interviews.

The United States are signatories of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly outlaw torture—and waterboarding specifically. Something that’s missed in the current debate is that the U.S. Constitution expressly declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land. Article VI of the Constitution reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” What does this mean? That torture is unconstitutional, as is any other act that violates U.S. treaty requirements. That is only part of the issue, however.

Does the United States want to be known as the nation that is willing to sacrifice the rule of law and the ideals of the nation in order to live up to some 24-inspired fantasy about the so-called “ticking time-bomb” scenario? The only countries in the world who use torture (that we know of) are ones like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Liberia, and a whole host of other countries that are usually at the top of the list of pariah states. Does the United States want to keep that kind of company? This might not seem like a realistic question, but it has everything to do with the issue of whether or not the United States should torture prisoners.

This is an issue of international image and respectability. In the first Gulf War, the lion’s share of the Iraqis who surrendered to U.S. and allied forces did so because they knew they would be treated well. This saved the lives of countless American and allied service personnel. Should the U.S. continue to use torture against prisoners of war, it will send the message that because the U.S. tortures, other states should as well. This puts the lives of U.S. military personnel at risk. People used to believe that the U.S. was the shining city on the hill, a beacon of decency and liberty, regardless of the policies we enacted in the international arena. This has always been a point of pride for Americans. Now, because of the unconstitutional policies of a few rogue lawmakers and executives, that image is tarnished by a wicked immorality that will stain the history of the republic for decades to come.