-
Website
http://washingtonindependent.com/ -
Original page
http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/1624/torture-and-the-law -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
3 times waterboarding was approved and used. If it saved the life of the Obama family, would you support it, or allow the Obamas to be killed by al Qaeda?
You have to first buy into the argument that Osama or anyone else is the root of 'our' problems before any 'praise' can be directed anywhere...That or you have to consider the irony of the ying & yang of money allocation under Georgie...Oil industries, defense industries and corporate America are curiously showing great bottom lines while the rest of America is suffering in every way imaginable not to mention the wonderful court of world opinion (Outside our puppet governments, i.e. UK) that sees us as the most dangerous country on the planet...But, sure, debt of gratitude...for setting America back a millenium.
And the next time we see Americans who are captured by foreign governments and organizations being paraded around in blindfolds or tortured by 'enhanced and persuasive' techniques, I'm sure we'll simply have to all again seek out Georgie for our gratitude.
The use of torture has nothing to do with the person being tortured and how evil you think they are - it is all about who we are as Americans.
George Washington in the Revolutionary War secured better conditions for American POWs by letting the British know that if they didn't treat US captives better, things would get worse for British POWs. Besides, intelligence professionals will tell you that torture does not work to secure reliable intelligence - the tortured will say anything to make the pain stop.
Anyone who went through boot camp in any branch of the US military had at least a day of training on the Geneva Convention, and should understand that the treatment of US prisoners of war may depend on how we treat our captives. There is a long tradition in the USA for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, and the few times that the US departed from this tradition (i.e. Andersonville in the civil war) were truly dark times for our country. Nothing good came of it.
The current regime in Washington never had training on the Geneva convention or its importance, or they weren't paying attention. For me, being as my dad was in the Phillipines in 1942 and subsequently a Japanese POW who suffered WITHOUT the benefit of the Geneva convention (the Japanese followed the doctrine of Shinto in WW II), this debate has specifal importance to me. For the first ten years of my life, I was awakened to the screams of my fathers nightmares resulting from his POW treatment.
If you try to tell me that these new terrorists are a special kind of evil that don't deserve humane treatment, I would suggest that you read a bit of history about what you are talking about. It is not about being worked up into a lather over your personal "hot-button issue of the day" - it is about our standards as a nation and how the world will view and judge our actions. Believe it or not, America USED to have the respect and admiration of the world, prior to the actions of the last 7 years, that is.
Everybody was saddened, angered and even furious at the carnage of 9/11, but if we lose the moral high ground that the USA has worked for over a century to build, we as a nation are worse off, regardless of how many ignorant posters write miles of nonsense on the blogs because it makes them feel good.
1 - torture DOES NOT WORK. I think this has been pointed out before but it's worth repeating, since most of the defenses of torture I've come across rest on the idea that info gained through torture can save lives or some such BS. This is completely false as any competent interrogator - or even psychologist or historian - could tell you. (Also, the usual ticking-bomb scenario usually cited as rationale is extremely unrealistic outside of Hollywood.) The victim will say anything to make the pain stop, a fact which makes any 'information' gained by such methods highly unreliable. This is one of many reasons 'evidence' gained by torture is usually inadmissible in civilized courts. Arguing that torture is ok if it's for 'good purposes' also BTW is an argument for the end justifying the means, which history has shown to be a dangerous and usually vile notion.
2 - torture is so widely condemned because it denies the humanity of the victim and their inalienable rights not to be subjected to excruciating, dehumanizing treatment. Take a look at the work of a respected scholar on the subject of pain, say Elaine Scarry, and tell me torture is not dehumanizing. There are also arguments to be made that it dehumanizes the torturer, and things like the Winter Soldier testimony (though not specifically about just torture) I think gives credence to this. Torture is immoral and nauseating. Period.
3 - arguing for torture is also arguing in favor of violating both US and international law. And claiming "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't torture is exactly the kind of BS this administration is using to shield itself from the very real threat of legal consequences. It is EUPHEMISM, nothing more. Waterboarding - one of the techniques is question - is certainly to be considered torture just on the basis of past cases in US law. The US has executed people for using it - it is certainly illegal under the terms of normal US law. Experts have also made clear that many of the techniques in question do constitute torture, whether physical or psychological. Ask Jose Padilla if being locked in a bare cell and subjected to sensory deprivation isn't torture - except he can't really answer you. He's been driven insane by said techniques. (And no, I'm making no claims as to his guilt/innocence or justifying any possible crimes; I'm using him as an example of the REAL EFFECTS of these methods only.) Ask Vietnam POWs what constitutes torture. Does rape count? How about threats of rape and death in a situation where clearly they could happen? Threats of violence to one's family? Being chained and hit until you lose consciousness? Hung by the wrists for hours? Not torture? Even if you die? Being doused in freezing water and left in below-0 temperatures so that your legs have to be amputated? (It's been done.) How about having your children tortured in front of you? That's something the Yoo-Bybee memos specifically mention. I could go on but you get the idea. Also consider the fact that the techniques in question with "enhanced interrogation" are not permitted under the US Army Field Manual - THE guide to operating procedure for the treatment of prisoners. Consider why Bush had to create a separate "enemy combatant" status for "detainees" specifically exempting them from legal protections like the Geneva Conventions - if such techniques weren't torture they would be admissible under the GC and hence no special status would be necessary. Don't play with words: we are talking about TORTURE.
4 - while I'm sure the pain of those who lost friends and relatives in 9/11 is very real and I do not in any way attack them for being angry - I wish I could do more to help them with their grief - arguing in favor of torture merely out of revenge desires, while understandable, does not advance us as a nation or as individuals with moral consciousness. Revenge is the justification of terrorist acts like 9/11. No, I'm not calling anyone a terrorist or denying their RIGHT to be angry and WANT revenge; I have such feelings myself. I'm only saying that ACTING solely out of such feelings rather than from a place of rationality and desire for JUSTICE places us on the same level as those who murdered 3,000+ people on 9/11. Is this what we want? Aren't we called upon as human beings to master ourselves and treat our enemies better than they treat us?
Look, if my mother or father or friend died in 9/11, I'd want to roast every damn possible accomplice on a slow spit and law be damned. I'd WANT it. If I were an interrogator or were given access to possible accomplices, I'm not certain I would be able to resist giving them some 'payback.' Especially if I were told I wouldn't face consequences. But even in that situation, even if it was me myself, I would STILL from the standpoint of justice consider my acts immoral and worthy of punishment. I might try to justify it to myself at the time, but I've thought about it and I still believe I'd be guilty. Let that make it clear I'm not attacking people angry about 9/11 or anything; I'm attacking the pernicious beliefs and attitudes that make it seem like torture is in any way "all right." That is exactly the kind of thinking that we are supposedly fighting against in our struggle against terrorism.
1 - torture DOES NOT WORK. I think this has been pointed out before but it's worth repeating, since most of the defenses of torture I've come across rest on the idea that info gained through torture can save lives or some such BS. This is completely false as any competent interrogator - or even psychologist or historian - could tell you. (Also, the usual ticking-bomb scenario usually cited as rationale is extremely unrealistic outside of Hollywood.) The victim will say anything to make the pain stop, a fact which makes any 'information' gained by such methods highly unreliable. This is one of many reasons 'evidence' gained by torture is usually inadmissible in civilized courts. Arguing that torture is ok if it's for 'good purposes' also BTW is an argument for the end justifying the means, which history has shown to be a dangerous and usually vile notion.
2 - torture is so widely condemned because it denies the humanity of the victim and their inalienable rights not to be subjected to excruciating, dehumanizing treatment. Take a look at the work of a respected scholar on the subject of pain, say Elaine Scarry, and tell me torture is not dehumanizing. There are also arguments to be made that it dehumanizes the torturer, and things like the Winter Soldier testimony (though not specifically about just torture) I think gives credence to this. Torture is immoral and nauseating. Period.
3 - arguing for torture is also arguing in favor of violating both US and international law. And claiming "enhanced interrogation" techniques aren't torture is exactly the kind of BS this administration is using to shield itself from the very real threat of legal consequences. It is EUPHEMISM, nothing more. Waterboarding - one of the techniques is question - is certainly to be considered torture just on the basis of past cases in US law. The US has executed people for using it - it is certainly illegal under the terms of normal US law. Experts have also made clear that many of the techniques in question do constitute torture, whether physical or psychological. Ask Jose Padilla if being locked in a bare cell and subjected to sensory deprivation isn't torture - except he can't really answer you. He's been driven insane by said techniques. (And no, I'm making no claims as to his guilt/innocence or justifying any possible crimes; I'm using him as an example of the REAL EFFECTS of these methods only.) Ask Vietnam POWs what constitutes torture. Does rape count? How about threats of rape and death in a situation where clearly they could happen? Threats of violence to one's family? Being chained and hit until you lose consciousness? Hung by the wrists for hours? Not torture? Even if you die? Being doused in freezing water and left in below-0 temperatures so that your legs have to be amputated? (It's been done.) How about having your children tortured in front of you? That's something the Yoo-Bybee memos specifically mention. I could go on but you get the idea. Also consider the fact that the techniques in question with "enhanced interrogation" are not permitted under the US Army Field Manual - THE guide to operating procedure for the treatment of prisoners. Consider why Bush had to create a separate "enemy combatant" status for "detainees" specifically exempting them from legal protections like the Geneva Conventions - if such techniques weren't torture they would be admissible under the GC and hence no special status would be necessary. Don't play with words: we are talking about TORTURE.
4 - while I'm sure the pain of those who lost friends and relatives in 9/11 is very real and I do not in any way attack them for being angry - I wish I could do more to help them with their grief - arguing in favor of torture merely out of revenge desires, while understandable, does not advance us as a nation or as individuals with moral consciousness. Revenge is the justification of terrorist acts like 9/11. No, I'm not calling anyone a terrorist or denying their RIGHT to be angry and WANT revenge; I have such feelings myself. I'm only saying that ACTING solely out of such feelings rather than from a place of rationality and desire for JUSTICE places us on the same level as those who murdered 3,000+ people on 9/11. Is this what we want? Aren't we called upon as human beings to master ourselves and treat our enemies better than they treat us?
Look, if my mother or father or friend died in 9/11, I'd want to roast every damn possible accomplice on a slow spit and law be damned. I'd WANT it. If I were an interrogator or were given access to possible accomplices, I'm not certain I would be able to resist giving them some 'payback.' Especially if I were told I wouldn't face consequences. But even in that situation, even if it was me myself, I would STILL from the standpoint of justice consider my acts immoral and worthy of punishment. I might try to justify it to myself at the time, but I've thought about it and I still believe I'd be guilty. Let that make it clear I'm not attacking people angry about 9/11 or anything; I'm attacking the pernicious beliefs and attitudes that make it seem like torture is in any way "all right." That is exactly the kind of thinking that we are supposedly fighting against in our struggle against terrorism.
I'll always continue believing that this natural ignorance comes from an inherent ultra-patriotism/ultra-nationalism. This is the belief instilled in every American, from birth to death, that there can be no greater citizen, no greater country, and no greater way of life than America.
This criminal Bush "administration" has deviously and immorally used patriotic propaganda to manipulate public perception into supporting its illegal aggressions, to strip away the civil liberties and rights of Americans. When someone speaks against these fascist policies, they're labeled unpatriotic.
You want to end this war? Start by consistently showing the American public the daily effects of it on the Iraqi population. Without censure. Show the blown-up bodies. Show the dead and wounded children. Show the grieving families. Anyone who criticizes this as blatantly indecent, should question the decency of what America has forced upon Iraq.
If the American public was truly exposed to the realities of what their government and politicians subject the peoples of other nations to, they would not be so quick to send their sons and daughters off to war, and they would think twice about the decency of their own morals and "Christian values".
The American mainstream media is complicit to this unnecessary war. They have failed both the innocent citizens of America and Iraq. Shame on them forever.
Bush and Cheney won't be impeached and they will suffer no repercussions after leaving office because they are Americans leading their country in a time of so-called "war". Simply put, American ultra-patriotism will save them.
To call someone "anti-American", indeed to be anti-American, (or for that matter, anti-Indian or anti-Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those the establishment has set out for you. If you're not a Bushie you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good, you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
-Arundhati Roy
I lost a friend in the towers. If waterboarding or anything short of pulling out some guys fingernails could have stopped he and 3000 other guitless individuals from being incinerated, I would have gladly walked to the spicket.
- - - end quote - - -
I would have run, no, sprinted - to beat you to the spicket, IF "..waterboarding or anything short of pulling out some guys fingernails could have stopped.." 9/11 and saved those lives who were not only guitless, but also included way too many of those who were Americas best heroes. I don't think that there is a sentient being on this continent that would disagree with you on that. But that is a very big IF.
But the point (to me) is that it is only in the movies that torture-obtained information does any good and save the day.
In real life, if we the people demand an accountable and transparent government, then maybe we would find out what, if any, response happened to the memo to the POTUS titled "OBL Determined to fly planes into US buildings this summer" one month before 9/11 . Was it really just ignored? Really? It bothers me that I don't know more about that. I don't like secretive government.
How about the Colorado FBI agent who was onto the "terrorists are in flight school" plot and got shut down by the FBI uber-dudes in Washington D.C.. Just office politics, or what? I wish I knew.
How about decades of neglect of our immigration policies allowing (how many? - more than half) the 9/11 nineteen terrorists to remain in the US past the end of their visas? I read that 10 of them had been pulled over by local law enforcement on traffic issues in the six months before 9/11 - what if their illegal visa status had come up on the screen for the officer? And what if he had authority to detain them for ICE?
What if there were an armed air marshall on every flight. Some flights, two armed air marshalls.
But the issue in front of us involves our loss of the best part of the idea of America. If our leaders conspired to take away my valued legacy of living in a humane country, then I want them held accountable by the same law that they would apply to you or me.
"Give in to your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete. ~ Emporer Palpatine" ...IS just a line from a movie, but the idea might have some application here in the real world.
Just ask John McKKKain.
When he was a POW he was known as "Songbird"
POWs who were incarcerrated with him say he gave up bomber routes which got a bunch of our pilots and crew killed.
Just Google John McCain Songbird and see for yourself.
On the morning of 9/11 when the president was notified of the attacks while talking with children in a classroom in Florida, he completely froze for a full 5 minutes before the Secret Service led a still obviously stunned president out of the room. (The scene was shown on network TV several times that morning, but I've never seen it since.) Our fearless leader then made a mad dash to Air Force One and flew off quickly, not to New York or Washington DC, but to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana! I'm sure the whole nation was relieved in those desperately uncertain hours to know that at least our commander-in-chief was somewhere safe.
Meanwhile, Our courageous Veep rapidly got himself to a secure bunker in an "undisclosed location" where he hid out for several days until it was evident that any danger was past.
Such examples of courage and leadership are truly an inspiration for the generations!
But, the two most astonishing things are:
1. These goons got reelected in 2004, and
2. No Republican politician since 9/11 seems to have asked the question, "Where's Bin Laden?"
You are blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome and no amount of clear, concise proof or evidence that collides with your world view will help alleviate your "tortured" conclusions and those of the other angry "hot-button issue" types to which you cling.
Is it possible that the Khalid Sheik Mohammeds of the world aren't built like your father or other gentlemen of Western-World fame? Is it possible that those who know how to extract information don't start with water-boarding, but with techniques that more resemble Cpl. Hanns Scharff of WWII Luftwaffe fame?
What I know hasn't occurred to you is that 3,000 American lives are worth immeasurably more than the life or opinion of 1 jihadist. You don't get that, and you and your ilk never will. You are incapable of making a moral judgment. You are incapable of judging for in that, you might have to live up to said judgment. The neo-liberal will not or can not take a moral stand against anything other than his or her country, because everything is morally relative. It is an illness, and I know, because I once suffered greatly under it.
Wake up. We are better than jihadists. Not because we would treat them better, but because we would at least give them a chance, unlike what they would do for you and your father or mother or child.
The fact is that waterboarding -- not torture -- worked to save lives. Please go on record that you would rather watch innocent children die than have your "image" damaged in some Marxist cafe' in Paris.
There's something not quite right about a nation that threaten to torture and murder those who don't accept its offer of peace and freedom; did I mention also dangerously juvenile.
But stop, wait - for the past 8 years this nation has been in the control of a bizarre dangerous little twerp with a major father hang-up. An alcoholic drug addict who's found J-E-S-U-S. I've got a big New Flash so has everyone on death row. I agree with Bill Maher George W. Bush should have to walk home. And then he should be tried for war crimes against humanity and hanged in effigy in the Court of Public Opinion.
Just because the Nazi didn't win WWII doesn't mean the President's name isn't Schikelgrubber.
Find a better economi=y based plan than John McCain's 3R's...
I dare you.
Progressive Candidate John McCain comes through for America with his 3R economic plan. In the aura of Theodore Roosevelt, McCain
W.