On April 21, an extremely rare event occurred: Dick Cheney emerged from the shadows.

However, it was not to offer his advice to our new president or congratulate him on any of his early successes. Cheney came forward to appear on Fox News and defend the Bush administration’s policy of torturing detainees.

Since Cheney’s performance on Fox, the debate over torture has arisen in several of my classes. In lectures and quiz sections throughout campus, students have considered the question: Is torture ever justified?

I hope your answer to this question is a resounding “no.”

One principle we should accept as we conduct our foreign policy is that having more friends and fewer enemies in the world is a good thing. Getting people to admire and believe in the United States is preferable to being hated and despised.

A tarnished image abroad is dangerous for our national security. The resulting widespread anti-Americanism helps lead to the conditions in which terrorism and militant extremists thrive. Recruiting efforts for these groups are naturally more successful in countries hostile to the United States.

On the other hand, when the United States is viewed as a benevolent global leader — as opposed to a hypocritical bully — the country is made safer. Other nations are more likely to support our policy objectives and cooperate in intelligence-sharing to fight common threats. Also, it’s much more difficult for terrorists to find recruits among pro-American populations.

Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding torture scandals have undermined U.S. moral leadership in the world, tarnished our image abroad and made us all less safe.

Not only does torture hurt our national security, but it simply doesn’t work. Many U.S. interrogators from different generations and conflicts have come forward to say that the information gathered from torture is often inaccurate and that there are better, more effective ways to get even the toughest opponents to talk.

Supporters of torture often resort to the “ticking-time-bomb scenario” to make their justification. Suppose a terrorist is in custody, and he has crucial information about the location of a nuclear bomb that is about to explode in a major U.S. city. They argue that torture would be justified in order to save American lives. They point out that as early as 2002, waterboarding and other techniques have foiled numerous terrorist plots.

Former CIA al-Qaida interrogator Jack Cloonan told U.S. foreign policy that the ticking-time-bomb situation is “a red herring. In the real world, it doesn’t happen.” In a 2008 interview with Vanity Fair, when asked if these techniques had in fact foiled any terrorist plots, FBI Director Robert Mueller’s response was, “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

The bottom line is that arguments in support of torture techniques such as waterboarding are highly suspect. Torture is morally wrong — and illegal under international law. It tarnishes the image of the United States in the world. It creates more enemies and hatred toward us. It fuels the recruitment efforts of terrorists, and it is ineffective at extracting accurate information.

And if there is any question as to the legality of techniques such as waterboarding, it is washed away by the fact that the United States convicted several Japanese soldiers of war crimes after World War II — precisely for the use of that torture technique against our own soldiers.

We don’t have to become like terrorists in order to defeat them.

Reach columnist Chris Jordan at opinion@dailyuw.com.