The debate around enhanced interrogation techniques in this country had already shifted from a moral one to a pragmatic one long before the latest Senate report ("Rise and fall of CIA's 'secret' overseas prisons traced in Senate report on interrogations," Dec. 12). Lawmakers, journalists and the public have been discussing torture's merits based on whether it has been effective in preventing terrorism. Instead of asking whether we should ever do something which we can all agree is reprehensible, we have been debating whether our reprehensible acts have made us safer.
We have become completely distracted from the real question which is this: Aren't there some things so terrible we should agree never to do them even if that decision could have consequences for us? The idea that there should be limits to what we are willing to do to make America safer is not an un-American idea. Are we really willing to allow our fear of radical fundamentalists to cause us to alter our own values?
I would have no problem looking my children in the eye and telling them that, while the chance they will be directly affected by terrorism is small, it may be just a little bit greater because we, in this country, have decided to do what's right even though it may put us at risk. Instead, the lesson we're currently giving them is to always do the right thing, no matter what — unless it's a little safer to do the wrong thing.
Mike Jacobson, Baltimore