I understand and respect the views of those who argue that torture — more specifically, waterboarding — is immoral and should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be employed. Yes, torture is a form of immorality. But it is not the only form of immorality, and there are instances in which the forms conflict with each other.

Before dealing with the current issue — which has been brought into sharp focus by John Kiriakou’s interview on ABC News, let us look back some seventy years. As the war clouds gathered over Europe, pacifists were as devoted to avoiding war — or perhaps better said, to peace at any price — as are those who today affirm that torture should never be employed. While never representing the majority opinion in either the United States or England, pacifism was a force to be reckoned with in both countries.

Among the most prominent pacifists on this side of the Atlantic was Oswald Garrison Villard, who for many years wrote a weekly column for The Nation. Among the numerous columns in which he set forth his pacifist sentiments is the one (dated November 6, 1937) from which the following excerpt is drawn:

I have not lost faith in the power of moral indignation to limit and control international wrongdoing if it is properly directed and adequately expressed . . . The world’s situation can be put in a few words: We know that force heals and corrects nothing; that war leaves only worse evils in its train than those it sought to eradicate. We know that the victors in a war pay as high a price as the vanquished . . . Those cynics who believe only in force or who think that international disaster is inevitable are for placing all their faith in more weapons and more wars . . . Lose faith in the the weapons of the spirit? Not I. Having seen the utter failure of mass murder to right wrong or advance the human race one iota, I am more than ever a believer in passive resistance, in spiritual revolt, in the castigation of offenders by the most immoderate language and by non-intercourse . . . On what side do you wish to fight, friends? With those who worship might and barbarism or those who stand with the angels and have an abiding faith in human nature and a better world?

From the other side of the pond, Kingsley Martin, in the April 1938 issue of The Political Quarterly, described, in “The Pacifists Dilemma To-Day,” the mindset of “Liberals” and “Social Democrats”:

For the mass of Liberals and Social Democrats the real menace of Hitler was that he confronted them with a choice of extermination or of behaving as he did himself. That is the real root of his success and of the confusion of his enemies. Social Democrats are not necessarily cowards because they compromise and do not fight when Fascism attacks; they fail to meet the challenge because civil and international war, which seem to be the alternatives to surrender, are themselves a betrayal of the democratic creed and, quite possibly, merely another and even bloodier route to the Fascism they are called upon to defeat.

This quote from Martin’s article, to a greater extent than Villard’s column, resonates today. It is often said that Americans are not “that kind” of people and that any use of torture, regardless of the circumstances, reduces the moral distance between us and our terrorist enemies. By adopting the methods of our foes in our effort to defeat them, we become more like them. They are immoral; so are we.

Nobody now believes that Hitler could have been defeated without the use of force — an immoral act, in the pacifists’ view. It takes no great effort to imagine what would have become of the world had the resort to military action against Nazi Germany not been taken. Democracy survived because we did not follow the pacifists’ advice. By abandoning one precept of morality — thou shalt not kill, we sustained another — freedom. It was worth it.

In my post on John Kiriakou’s interview, I highlighted these words from the former CIA operative:

The threat information [Zubaydah] provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

Any condemnation of the waterboarding of Zubaydah as an immoral act must also consider whether, given his lofty position in al-Qaeda, it would have been a greater immorality to have not done everything possible to prevent the loss of additional American lives, which could have numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands. Where is the morality in that? Could the families of the victims been told that it could not be helped, that we had in our possession a senior terrorist leader who, because of his position, would have knowledge of planned future attacks, but that our unwillingness to descend to his level and our morality forbade us to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Would the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of the victims have understood?

My view, then, in light of the circumstances that prevailed at the time, a lesser morality was violated to preserve a greater morality. More succinctly, in this instance, the end justified the means, as did the willingness at an earlier time to confront Nazi Germany.

I expect to be soundly criticized for setting forth this view. So be it.