“Torture.”
It’s one of those ironically vexing words, like “accountability” or “motherhood,” that should be immutable in its meaning — but can disappoint upon parsing.
In the abstract, we are all against “torture,” all in favor of accountability and motherhood.
If you think “waterboarding” is torture — and most folks do — but if its use against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved countless lives, you may be inviting nuance. You at least invite the prospect of others dying for the principle you steadfastly uphold.
If you sign on to accountability, do you also sign on to all that’s done in its hallowed name? Recall that the FCAT is Jeb Bush’s paragon of educational “accountability” for Florida.
Who would equivocate over motherhood, unless the name of Nadya Suleman is invoked.
Which brings us back to “torture.” We all felt more honorable and, well, sanitized when President Obama said with conviction and finality that the U.S. will not torture. The Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions will be the standard.
And yet.
The Geneva Conventions are all about sovereign states and their armed forces and agreed-upon rules of combat and conduct. They’re not about the non-uniformed who target civilians and then hide in their midst. The GC are about armies, not unconventional, ad hoc zealots who behead “infidels” in the name of a cherry-picked holy book.
No, the Geneva Conventions doesn’t cover them. And, depending on context, a blanket “we don’t torture” decree could still undergo tortuous parsing.