Rational Grounds

General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad."

Any such crimes, he said, could be prosecuted in other nations' courts, international courts or the International Criminal Court, a body the United States does not formally participate in or recognize.

Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war.

Indeed, even in early 2002 people were pushing back against the Administration's effort to rationalize torture. Colin Powell wrote a memo stating that this course would, "reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general."

William H. Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, wrote to Alberto Gonzalez in February 2002, "The President should know that a decision that the Conventions do apply is consisten with the plain language of the Conventions and the unvaried practice of the United States in introducing its forces into conflict over fifty years. It is consistent with the advice of DOS [Department of State -ed.] lawyers and, as far as is known, the position of every other party to the Conventions."

When I've asked Bush supporters how they reconcile what has happened, they frequently appeal to the authority of those in government. They're professionals, they know what they're doing, they're making the hard choices, and there are some things we just don't need to know or question.

What these memos demonstrate is that this wasn't just the decision of people who know more than us, know better than us about national security, and saw this was - regrettably - the only way to win. This isn't a battle between the hard-nosed realists in government and the hand-wringing pacifists in the media.

There were voices raised in opposition, people just as schooled in national security matters as those "taking the gloves off." These voices were shouted down and marginalized. This was a fight between advocates of torture and warriors of conscience, and the torturers won. And now we all pay the price.