More Torture Talk

In an article covering the recent failure of the House of Representatives to override Bush's veto of a bill to limit the Unites States' use of torture, at least two representatives used the language of morals/values:

"We are on stronger ground ethically and morally . . . when we do not torture," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said in closing the debate. "Our ability to lead the world depends not only on our military might but on our moral authority."

"Torture is no proper tool in the arsenal of democracy," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) "If we abandon our American values, we lose who we are as Americans. . . . And if the administration and all of its apologists . . . continue to force America to abandon our values, we will lose the war." Torture, he said, "is not only un-American, it is ineffective."

In Pelosi's comment, we hear a strong call to uphold our country's moral and ethical authority. Active use of torture as an interrogation method undermines that. In Doggett's comment, he uses the language of "values" in both a general and political sense.

What I find particularly interesting here is the argument about what it means to be "American" or "un-American." Doggett and Pelosi both seem to say that to truly uphold our country's authority as a moral and democratic agent in the global world, we cannot go around torturing people. Undoubtedly, those who remain focused on protecting the U.S., such as Peter Hoekstra, argue that torture is a necessity:

:Noting that waterboarding has not been used for five years, Hoekstra (R-Mich) denounced the delay in "doing what is necessary in giving the tools to the intelligence community to keep us safe."

This got me thinking about the Cavanaugh reading from last week. He argues that the nation-state "has found its solution to the problem of pluralism in devotion to the nation itself." Unlike what Murray had believed would happen, the nation-state has grown to a huge size and all associations of civil society (including churches) have decreased. Additionally, according to MacIntyre, as quoted by Cavanaugh, "the nation-state presents itself as a repository of sacred value that requires its citizens to be ready to kill and die"--and apparently torture--"on its behalf." As Cavanaugh cites, Carolyn Marvin goes so far as to argue that “nationalism is the most powerful religion in the United States."

So what do we make of Pelosi's call for moral authority and Doggett's claim that torture is un-American? Who are the "real Americans" in this scenario? Those who unquestionably uphold the right of a nation-state to torture, in the name of national security? Or those in opposition of torture, in the name of American principles? Has nationalism/patriotism become an unofficial form of religion?