Donald Rumsfeld stated on Nightline that “for all the criticism of President Bush . . . for the things he put in place, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay[,] the fact is they are still there. Why are they still there? They’re there because they make sense in the 21st Century. They’re needed and the new Administration has not been able to figure out a better way to do it.” The 18th Century may have some lessons for these lingering “21st Century” dilemmas.

George Washington was morally opposed to torture. He hoped for his new nation to rise above the cruel practices of the past and instead treat his British captives with humanity. That hope soon fizzled.

Washington was appalled by the way the British were treating their American prisoners. He angrily declared that he would likewise mistreat the redcoats in his custody in retaliation. With reports circulating that British employed “torture by searing irons and secret scourges,” Washington’s arguments for treatment “in kind” concerned gruesome practices. Washington expressed his judgment that torture was not only potentially justified but required in order to save American lives. It was a necessary evil.

This week, two activist groups issued an “indictment” of former President Bush, vowing to prosecute the leader for allegedly torturing prisoners. Although General Washington was not waterboarding for information, he nevertheless understood the the potential need to mistreat prisoners for the good of the nation.