ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

The ends justified the means. That is the rationale being advanced by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others for the use of what was in essence torture in those first years of the War on Terror. The nation was vulnerable. Little was known about the identity, intentions, and capabilities of the enemy. Speed in closing the knowledge gap was imperative, so imperative that extraordinary, unpleasant means were necessary. The ends justified the means.

Ironically, it was not so long ago that the United States was on the other side of an ends justified the means rationale. That previous time also involved a war with an odd name. War on Terror, meet the Cold War.

For more than four decades in the Twentieth Century, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were the leading antagonists in a struggle for the future of mankind. The United States was the champion of individual freedoms and private sector capitalism. The USSR was the champion of Communism, an ideology based on the supremacy of the group—the state—in social, cultural, and economic arenas.

In the early decades of this struggle, the advantage seemed to many observes to lie with the USSR. In the economic field, the field that provides the populace with food, clothing, and shelter, the idea of a centrally planned economy impressed those observers as much more efficient than messy, unorganized capitalism. Early Soviet successes in the space race—the first satellite, Sputnik, in orbit in 1957 and the first man in orbit in 1961—were cited as evidence of the superiority of the economic component of the Communist system.

But even many who thought central planning superior to free market capitalism did not jump onboard the Communist bandwagon. A major reason was embodied in a common belief in the anti-Communist world: the ends did not justify the means. If a more efficient economic system required that the freedoms of the individual be curtailed, then a more efficient economic system was not worth the price.

Of course, in the later years of the Cold War, most notably during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the efficiency of Communism’s economic component was exposed as a chimera. Central economic planning as attempted in the USSR turned out to be downright inefficient, indeed a failure.

Nevertheless, the belief that the ends do not justify the means was a major rallying concept for those opposed to Communism, particularly in the early years of the Cold War. For some, the belief was probably rooted in religion. For others, the concept was likely an expression of a moral code that ranked individual freedoms high and resisted their curtailment. For still others, the origin might have been no more than a gut reaction, a product of genetic heritage in a nation founded in rebellion against tyranny.

Perhaps the depth of the ends-do-not-justify-means belief in the nation’s soul explains the anguish many citizens feel about an explanation for torture that the ends did indeed justify the means. Or maybe it is the ease, and indeed alacrity, with which the justification was apparently embraced by the Bush Administration. The legal opinions and memoranda released in the last few days give little evidence of a struggle over broad issues of morality, of right and wrong. Instead, the papers are dominated by dry discussions of details, procedures, and alleged safeguards. One reads the material and wonders, did the authors not have any doubts about the end justifying the means?

Put another way, the released material does little more than assume that the end justified the means. Making the subjects of interrogations physically and mentally uncomfortable, even fearful, was the accepted intermediate objective on the path to the next objective, which was meaningful intelligence. The challenge was interpreting treaties, statutes, and precedents in such a way as to reach that intermediate objective of a terrorist willing to talk.

Former Vice President Cheney and his supporters cite yet-to-be released documents describing plots foiled as proof that the ends justified the means. It’s a safe bet that if these documents are released, not everyone will find such clarity. And the troublesome question will remain: did anyone at any point attempt a meaningful examination of whether the ends justified the means, or was that just assumed from the start by all involved, from the Decider on down?