The United States government is complicit or actively engaged in the torture of terror suspects. U.S. prosecutors have admitted as much when they dropped several charges against alleged “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla late last month because the testimony supporting those charges had been obtained from informants under torture. The White House admits as much in their vocal opposition to an amendment to the defense bill set to be voted on that would specifically forbid torture by U.S. agents or armed forces. Evidence uncovered that suggests the U.S. government farms out it’s torture needs to third world countries that lack laws against inhumane treatment has yet to be repudiated, lending more credence to the notion that the U.S. condones or actively participates in torture.
At the same time that they advocate for the inclusion of torture as an interrogation tool, the White House is playing a game of semantics, something that Republicans continually roasted the previous administration for doing, by claiming that torture is only torture when it involves organ failure that leads to death or death itself. Anything that falls short of that mark is, according to the Bush Administration, not torture. Conservative pundits fall in line claiming that no written torture policy exists that can be found. They claim that no actual torture cells have been uncovered. They dismiss the systemic abuses at Abu Ghraib as depraved acts of a few bad apples. They go so far as to encourage the use of torture as a legitimate way to glean information from an adversary, especially if that foe is Islamic.
The majority of those most vocally supportive of using torture are from the right side of the aisle- the so-called compassionate conservatives. If ever there was a misnomer, it is this one. These are the people who fight to make sure that every fetus is born while stripping away funding for health and education. These are the people who lock up a harmless pot smoker for twenty years and release a three-time rapist to make room in the jail. These are the folks who loudly claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, a man notoriously described as peaceful in every possible way; a man who himself was tortured by the Roman government and eventually killed. Compassionate is not a word that describes the aspirations of these pundits and politicians.
Most people in America were brought up to believe in the Golden Rule. Do unto others and all that. Surprisingly, torture isn’t one of those things we would like to have done unto us. As such, we instinctively understand that at its root torture is an unjust policy. It is unjust because it goes against the very grain of our human psyche. But in times of external strife, and especially during this ongoing War on Terror, the Golden Rule justification can be manipulated or even completely sidestepped in the face of “imminent danger.”
Imminent Danger is the code word du jour to imply that something bad is about to happen, but we could probably stop it from happening if we take drastic action immediately. American’s now have a better understanding of what our president means when he describes a situation as having imminent danger. He described an attack by Iraq as such. Subsequent evidence has shown us otherwise, but that hasn’t stopped the White House from continuing to use this as a rationale for questionable interrogation tactics. The theory that getting information to reinforce your beginning premise is the goal of all interrogation offers ripe ground for the acceptance of torture. After all, if you aren’t hearing the information that you want or need to hear, by applying torture, one can get a suspect to confirm pretty much anything. And therein lies the first real problem with torture, namely that any information retrieved through torture is automatically suspect and unreliable. Such information, when acted upon, can often serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, simply because the information was not true. Torture does not guarantee the truth. It only guarantees a confirmation of the torturers questions.
The second big problem with torture is that through its use, we expose our own citizens and service men and women to an increased risk of torture if they are captured or kidnapped by those who are our enemy. One of the hallmarks of America has been her unwavering commitment to human rights, if not in law, than at least in word and deed. America has been held as an example for the world to follow with its tolerant attitude towards other cultures and its more humane approach to the treatment of prisoners, especially prisoners of war. Our government spearheaded many of today’s international treaties that provide for the proper treatment of POW’s and other criminal detainees. By abandoning our legacy in the face of a devious foe, we undermine our own reputation as the “good guy.” America has succeeded in defeating horrendous enemies before without resorting to torture. Surely we can do so again.
For some, the end does justify the means. If a million lives are saved through the information gleaned from one suspect with the aid of torture, isn’t this a good trade off? The answer is not so black and white. Certainly it is good to have saved a million lives from senseless violence or death, but each of those lives is now stained by the act of inflicting torture on another. The truth is that these extreme examples of success are seldom, if ever, the results of torture. Often, suspects are being tortured to corroborate other information gleaned from torture interrogations. In no case that I know of has the use of torture saved the lives of a million people. Indeed, the greatest terror successes since 9-11 have not been stopped or discovered despite the use of torture by the U.S. or its temporary allies.
What about the claim that terror suspects are coached to say that they have been tortured while being interrogated? It would not surprise me if that were true. The enemy is not stupid and understands that the majority of Americans abhor the use of torture and cannot condone it. If the enemy can claim torture with a measure of believability, they can foment some level of sympathy from the general public and repaint their own aggression as an act against repression. Sadly, whether a suspect has actually been tortured is almost a moot issue in some cases, simply because we know that this government has been engaged in or farms out torture in the War on Terror. If we never engaged in the practice, and if we never encouraged our allies to engage in it, such claims would be patently hollow and would not be available for the enemy to use against us.
By using torture ourselves, our government has sullied the good reputation of America as being a country of humanitarian beliefs and humane treatment of all people. By advocating for torture, this government has made the safety of our citizens and our soldiers secondary to their need for information that corresponds to their own pre-ordained formula for the Middle East. And by allowing torture to take place in our name, the Bush Administration has given our sworn enemy ammunition to turn our allies against us and to justify their nefarious cause. Such is the folly of torture.
This entry was posted on Monday, December 12th, 2005 at 7:45 am and is filed under Bush, national security, Politics, Terrorism, War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
“Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of today’s world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges.”
-Condoleezza Rice
The erroneous burden of proof being used against the US is totally unacceptable to me. Because, how can you accept the testimony of your enemy who is desperate to harm you by all means and at all cost, even by lies.
The rules of detention for suspects or prisoners of war should be determined by the gravity of their proven crimes and not by the Geneva Convention.
Imagine trying to get the truth from Osama bin Laden if he was captured and held in detention. You have to torture him, otherwise you cannot get him to tell you the truth.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
If you ask me, this whole notion of “srpeading freedom” is like tossing manure as fertalize an already dead soil. The alkaline is so dense that it does no good. What happens instead is the proliferation of terrorists. Much like the death penalty never stopped a murderer from killing, using torture only generates more reason for terrorism. Like the proliferation of terrorists in Iraq, through provocation of US military intervention. The unintended consequences of the W,Rove and Co miliatry actions are better trained terrorists…and more of them. They hear their friends are being tortured in various secret or not “detention” centers. True or not, it pisses them off and gives them more cause to fuel the jihad.
Who will be at fault when the terrorist use their Iraq gained and honed skills on American civilians on US soil? Will the apologists still support their W, Rove and Co then or will they try and blame that on Clinton as well?
P.S. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch!
December 13th, 2005 at 1:04 am
PS,
9/11 was a direct result of Bill Clintons missile strikes on Iraq. That came from Osama bin Laden himself.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:44 am
Sp, Jon, you are saying that military action against Iraq is bad? How very progressive of you!
December 13th, 2005 at 4:57 am
Personally, I am ashamed that our country is one that not only tortures people, but openly advocates it. Not too long ago, the media were awash with statements by Bush & Co stating, “no more torture rooms.” Now, we know that they have embraced them ala the “ownership society”, so that we own the torture rooms. So we’re as bad as our enemies. If you can’t beat ’em (to death), join ’em.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
SheaNC,
The Bush administration is all about saying one thing and doing what they want to do anyway. They talk about being a “culture of life” but they kill 80,000 people in Iraq (30,000) civilians. They talk about being compassionate conservatives, but they cut funding for medicade and food stamps. But they make sure that they give tax breaks to the wealthy. They talk about caring about education, but they make it impossible to carry out the laws they passed. I could go on, but most people have heard these things over and over again…
December 13th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
It does appear that the Bush and members of his administration are quick to state that they don’t condone torture as if this absolves them when information is obtained through such practices.
And to think, it is the anti-war critics that embolden the insurgents in Iraq.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:14 am
Actually I think the war in Iraq is the right thing to do and my comment was countering the remark of 9/11 was on Bush is watch.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Dear jon,
Did 9/11 happen while W was installed in office or not? How can you counter that? Do you have a source for your OBL commentary?
Did you read today’s speech by W himself where he said the decision to go into iraq was based on falty intelligence and an over active imagination?
I like folks who suggest that there were other reasons for the Nine Eleven attacks and then offer no real evidence. I suggest that perhaps it was more than just W’s fault, but that the actual green light was given to the sleeper cels to come alive when and only when W stole the 2000 elections. Can I prove that? Nope. Can you prove your asssertion? Doubt it.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Suhweeeeeet blog! Definitely worth a bookmark!
If you want a really good laugh, visit http://www.horacefinkle.blogspot.com – People these days just don’t get to laugh enough, and here’s my remedy!
December 15th, 2005 at 7:22 am
(responses)
Orikinla- I would suggest that by condoning and participating in the very acts we profess to despise, we are losing that part of our democracy that is worth fighting for, namely the value of freedom and rule of law.
If as you say, you can’t even accept any testimony of an enemy, how does torture make that testimony less false?
If the rules of detention should be determined by the gravity of their PROVEN crime, mustn’t it first BE proven? And if the evidence to convict is such that is gained through torture, how can we be sure it is true, therefore, how can they be convicted? Your logic does not follow.
Information gained through torture is no more accurate than that gained by other means. The only difference is that the tortured person will tell you want you want to hear whether it is true or not.
Nice to hear from you again.
Windspike- I agree that our presence, or maybe better- our bungled presence in Iraq has increased recruitment for the terrorists. And claims of torture do inflame their radical base even more.
And though 9-11 happened on Bush’s watch, I don’t hold him responsible for that act of terror. Maybe it could have been avoided, maybe not, but the faulty system was long in place before him. He just happened to be there at the time. His responses are what he should be judged by.
Jon- I don’t recall hearing that particular Osama quote before. At any rate, it is likely more accurate to say that 9-11 is a result of decades of American foreign policy that propped up violent dictators who would let us have access to their resources while they brutalized their people. That, and artificailly induced religious hatred.
Shea- This administration can’t remember what it says from one day to the next, and probably looks at archived factual statements as revisionist history. Fact is, once we start emulating the behavior of our enemies, we begin the slide towards our own brand of despotism, something less like freedom and democracy and more like Roman occupation.
We are better than this as a people. Let us find some politicians who really represent the average American.
Doc- Nice to hear from you again. And it’s never too often to remind us what we are losing each day or about the hypocrisy we have to endure from this administration.
MacD- One must wonder if we really are this stupid, or if they are. Which lies are becoming truth fastest?
Thanks for the comment.
Jon- If the war had been intelligently planned and prosecuted, there would be less internal conflict than there is now. Removing Saddam was a good thing, just done half-assed with no thought for the aftermath. Even as this administration finally confesses that its intelligence was faulty, they refuse to acknoledge that their application of reform and reconstruction is badly managed and only prolonging the situation.
Horace- Thanks for sharing your highly creative blog. Check it out folks, for something to take your mind off of the heated debate for a few minutes…
December 15th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Torture works on “24” all the time. I thought life imitated art and it would work in the real world too. I never would have endorsed torture if I knew that TV was not a magic truth box
December 16th, 2005 at 3:26 am
Ken
Another great post and a great summary of why torture is wrong. Keep it up!
CoolAqua
December 16th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
(responses)
Me4- Yeah, sorry about bursting your bubble about the whole TV thing. In reality, the only real truth comes from magazines like “People” and “The National Enquirer.”
Cool-Thanks friend. Looks like the congress agrees with me on this one too! Good to hear from you again.