If You Are Willing to Go to War, You Are Willing to Torture

I'm trying to make sense of some of the rules regarding torture, etc., of prisoners of war. For example, apparently the Geneva Convention says do not torture captured soldiers. Torture causes pain, disfigurement, psychological damage, and other personal devastation. But so does war, usually to a much greater extent.

So, if we capture someone whom we have great reason to believe holds information that may prevent the slaughter of hundreds (or, with nuclear weapons in play, millions) we apparently cannot use torture to obtain the information. Yet, we claim that we should be able to engage in acts of war (such as invading Iraq) to prevent dictators, governments, or others from using weapons of mass destruction. In committing these acts of war, we would probably kill thousands of people, maim many more, and cause long-lasting psychological damage to the survivors.

Thus, to prevent a (remotely?) possible attack on our country, we can do great damage to a wide range of people. But we are not allowed to do great damage to one person whom we are certain has information that could prevent a devastating attack. This makes no sense to me. I guess that's what happens when you try to set rules for something as ruleless as war.

One of the chief arguments against Bush's plan to perhaps redefine the terms of the Geneva Convention and surrounding treaties is that to do so would endanger American soldiers. However, one blogger (it may have been Captain's Quarters) has issued a challenge to the public to identify any American soldier who has benefitted from the Geneva Convention and treaties when held by renegade regimes (such as North Vietnam), al Qaeda, and middle East terrorists. It seems to me that if those parties don't honor the treaties, we should carefully consider whether we will do so. Treaties should be a two way street.