When I heard over break that a Cornell student had been charged with beating a dog and blinding it with bleach, I had the same twofold reaction that I’m guessing most did: I felt sorry for the poor dog, and I wondered how the student in question was ever admitted to Cornell, and not the local mental hospital. Like most, I don’t understand those who pleasure in others’ pain, whether it’s 10-year-old kids frying an unfortunate ant with a magnifying glass or 40-year-old hunters shooting deer for “sport.” Normal people don’t enjoy causing other pain, much less extreme pain. Empathy is hardwired into our system. It’s why the mere mention of torture makes people’s skin crawl, even when we’re talking about inflicting it on our enemies.

Given the scope of Al Qaeda’s designs on this country, however, it seems to me that the torture debate has been settled prematurely, if only because one side has refused to entertain certain frightening scenarios and because the other side has engaged in self-censorship, not wanting to go on the record supporting a practice as seemingly inhumane as torture — even in extreme cases. But there is a debate to be had, one that hinges on an age-old ethical quandary: Do the ends ever justify the means? I believe that they rarely do. But rarely is not never. There have always been, and will always be, times when terrible things must be done — a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki — to prevent even more terrible things from coming to pass.

Since 9/11, this country has apprehended dozens of high-ranking Al Qaeda operatives who know things that could save lives. The question is what we should do to make them talk. Torture opponents say that we should do nothing — other than, I suppose, to ask really really nicely. Torture, they insist, is never justified.

I assume these moral absolutists mean it when they say “never,” even in a so-called ticking time-bomb scenario — where we have on our hands a man who knows the location of a nuclear bomb set to explode in an American city within hours. In other words, there are those who would rather lose New York to a nuclear bomb than send a few volts of electricity through the scumbag who planted it. If you, like me, believe that torture would be justified in such a case, you ipso facto agree that torture is sometimes justified — the only question is when.

To those who believe we will never face a ticking time-bomb scenario — and that I just watch too much 24 — I argue that we have faced them and will continue to face them until Jihadists stop seeking to kill us. Every terror plot that Al Qaeda and company have yet to execute, after all, is essentially a ticking time bomb.

Take an example from this summer. American and British authorities uncovered an Al Qaeda plot, in its final stages, to set off liquid explosives on 10 transatlantic flights from Heathrow Airport. Much of the information, it was reported, had been revealed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind who was captured four years ago in Pakistan and sent to America. While the details are scarce, all indications are that Mohammed didn’t spill the beans over a cup of Turkish coffee.

That’s right — he was tortured. Among the techniques reportedly used: “Waterboarding.” What’s waterboarding? I’m not sure, but it sounds like fun — kind of like a cross between waterskiing and snowboarding — at least that’s what I imagined when I first heard the term. In actuality, the procedure involves attaching a person to a wooden board and pouring water over his head to stimulate drowning and activate the gag reflex.

Oftentimes, the torture debate becomes one of semantics more than of morals. The Bush Administration claims it doesn’t use torture. That’s because they don’t consider waterboarding torture. I do. I just fail to see why someone who has callously sought to harm others should be spared such treatment when the information he harbors could prevent that harm from coming to pass.

I do believe, however, that we can and should use less extreme measures before taking any detainee waterboarding — measures that most would agree fall short of any meaningful definition of “torture.” If we can get people to disclose information using lighter interrogation methods, all the better.

There are those, though, who believe that any pressure to make someone talk constitutes torture. It’s shocking to hear what some so-called human rights groups include in the category: Sleep deprivation? Exposure to cold temperatures?? Loud rap music??? That’s not torture — that’s a Saturday night at Cornell! Apparently, Amnesty International believes that if you’re caught in an Afghan cave consorting with Al Qaeda, it is your human right while in American custody to get eight hours of sleep, a balanced diet, plenty of exercise, oh, and five times a day to pray to the god who ordered you to slaughter the infidels.

Fortunately, Amnesty International doesn’t set American interrogation policy. Unfortunately, Congress does. Late in 2005, the Senate passed an amendment to a defense spending bill prohibiting torture. The man responsible for the measure, Senator John McCain, knows more about torture than almost anybody, having been tortured himself by the North Vietnamese during his five and a half years in captivity.

“Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects — in part — the willingness of other nations to do the same,” the Arizona Republican argued in a Newsweek feature. “Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive.” With all due respect to Mr. McCain, the only thing that more “humane” treatment of enemy combatants will accomplish is to make us feel better about ourselves. Nothing will stop the barbarians from Al Qaeda—or nations that we’re likely to fight over the next century—from doing what they please to those unlucky Americans who fall into their hands. And whatever torture methods they use, I guarantee you, make waterboarding look as fun as it sounds.

Before you conclude that your humble columnist has no soul, let me lay out some caveats. For one, we must not engage in any sort of action that threatens the life of — or causes permanent bodily injury to — any detainee. That would cross even my line and, frankly, it’d be unwise to incapacitate an information source. A moral distinction must also be drawn between torture for an ends and torture for its own sake. Any sick bastard caught having “fun” with rank-and-file prisoners on his lunch break so that he can upload the pictures to MySpace should be court-martialed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Because we are a nation of laws, the best system would be to institute a court to approve special warrants for torture (retroactively, in some cases) and to hold accountable those who ignore protocol.

I realize that my position on this issue puts me in a minority on this campus. It’s easy, in an ivory tower on a hill, to demand that America forswear torture —to set a moral example, as it were, for the world. Unfortunately, that supposed morality comes at a cost — a cost in American blood and, potentially, cities. The choice before us is to dirty ourselves a bit by torturing or to refrain from doing so and thereby forgo information that will save lives. Which is more immoral?

Ben Birnbaum is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at bhb9@cornell.edu. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays.