Another post from our guest blogger Joe Mays. Please note that I've actually had this in my hands for 12 days and just haven't posted it until now, so this was written before the Cheney and Obama speeches on torture. Just wanted to clarify so that when Weir bitches about it not being timely the fault is mine, not Joe's.
I was thoroughly shocked last month when I discovered that roughly half of the country finds torture acceptable, but I'm even more disturbed at the public discourse around the practice. The debate that is constantly running on all of the 24 hour news networks always seems to be centered on one question -- does torture work?
This is completely backwards to me. Let me explain myself with an analogy...
Let's say your child is screaming on the seat behind me on an airplane. One way to solve the problem is to pull out my NRA-approved assault rifle and blow his cute little face off. The screaming will stop. Problem solved! My tactics worked!
I don't do that because it's immoral.
There are also unintended consequences. If I didn't blow a hole in the plane and we all crashed, I'd probably get mauled by everyone else on the plane - even those who agree that your screaming baby is annoying! Torture has consequences, too. There is a pretty strong consensus that the president did the right thing by *not* releasing the two-thousand or so torture photographs as demanded by the courts recently. Commanders on the ground noted that releasing the photos would cause an escalation in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of our troops would die because of the torture and humiliation the pictures portray.
Finally, if the moral issue *and* the fact that I would be making enemies out of allies aren't good enough reasons, the legal punishment for killing a newborn is overwhelming. I'd probably get a**raped in jail for the rest of my life. This is precisely why we need to prosecute those who torture -- a lot of people don't have any moral issue with torture, and some even think it is perfectly legal.
They are mistaken. The U.S. hanged Japanese commanders who waterboarded our soldiers during WWII. These executions, along with the treaties we signed banning the practice, made our nation's stance on the issue clear - torture is immoral and illegal.
If you're one of the people who always thought that torture is a good war strategy and should be used daily on everybody we capture, that's another discussion. I clearly disagree with you, and I expect our conversation will get as far as me telling you to f*ck off, and perhaps you saying the same.
This post is directed at those who used to think torture was immoral, but have changed their minds because they believe Cheney when he says "it works" (we know he's never lied before). Support for torture started increasing just after the attacks on the WTC and has continued to rise. Two months after 9/11, only 32% of Americans thought torture was acceptable. Apparently, the "torture isn't wrong because it works" argument is catching on...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh, when I saw the title I thought you were going to juxtapose Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on torture vs. abortion. That would have been interesting.
Well said. I can’t argue your point and wouldn’t want to anyway.
I want to take it down to the next level though—holding suspects without trial. On this I can more empathize with the Republicans, though I’d still come out saying it’s wrong. The thing is, when you feel sure the person is guilty and if released will strike again, yet you don’t have the right evidence to convict, what do you do? Do you keep them locked up forever? What about the small percentage of the time that you’re wrong and the person is innocent? I know in our domestic criminal court system, they let suspects go if they can’t convict, and every so often that means a killer strikes again. However, as a society it seems we have decided this is the price we are willing to pay for liberty. Will the same scale be used to weigh international terrorist suspects?
(Notice I don’t propose any solutions, ‘cause I suck that way.)
This article is not timely.
Here is another angle to this: I LIKE being morally superior.
Who the fuck are we (as a country) to lecture countries like China, Iran, and North Korea on issues of torture, human rights, and jailed political prisoners (to name only a few countries and only a few topics.)
I keep hearing this argument that "these tactics worked because there wasn't another attack for 7 years..." and to that I say that the attack has not been on our buildings, economy, or biology, but on our identity as a nation. We've always been the nation of Superman. Truth, Justice and the American Way. We're going to fight crime and evil, but there are some lines you DO NOT CROSS.
"With Liberty and Justice for all" CAN NOT be replaced with "Do as I say, not as I do..." because one day we'll wake up and realize the things that made this country great, the things that made us Americans, the very things our brave soldiers are fighting for are gone. And no longer can we claim ourselves as the morally superior, and we can barely look ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves as American's anymore.
And THAT is when the terrorists have won. Because they set out to disrupt our society and our way of life, and when they so frighten us into bending our own rules, we have given up exactly what it means to be 'us.'
(wow, that got preachy and speechy.)
Also, I liked this editorial as to where to put the prisoners from Gitmo.
Alright, I've got a couple of strange analogies, but please bear with me.
I just got Star Trek II on Blu-Ray the other day and I was watching some of the extras. They've got an interview with Ricardo Montalban and he's talking about what he liked about the character of Khan. He said that what he found so interesting was that Khan, like a lot of great villains, doesn't realize that he's the villain. He thinks that he's the good guy. Now I'm not saying that America is the villain, but it's very dangerous to operate under the assumption that we never could be. The right likes to scream about the "blame America first crowd", and with some validity, but "never blame America" is certainly just as ignorant.
It's hard work being the good guys all the time. It puts you at a distinct disadvantage. The enemy gets to use tactics on you that you can't use back on them. But I like that about our country. I like when we do the right thing even though it puts us at a disadvantage. Some Southeast Asian countries have companies that pay workers pennies per hour in unbearable conditions and as a result they can produce goods for a fraction of what we can. We can't compete with them on cost, but we don't think about degrading our conditions to match theirs just so we're able to.
I will echo Joe's concern about the idea of the acceptability of torture gaining traction. Thomas Friedman was on Meet the Press a few months ago and said something "I believe that we are one more 9/11 away from the end of the open society." Though I hope not, I think he may be right. the pendulum swung pretty far towards "security" and away from "civil rights" after 9/11 and it's only very slowly started to swing back in the last few years. One more attack and we'll get a much farther swing; one which I doubt will come back anytime soon. Not taking liquids and taking your shoes off at the airport will seem like a distant memory. This concerns me much because I am confident that there WILL be another 9/11-type attack, and probably within the next 10 years. We've already heard of a dozen or so getting broken up and there's probably twice as many that never made the news. When you're dealing with an enemy with unlimited motivation and no regard for their own or anyone else's life, that makes it only a matter of time.
Jeez, John, way to scare the pants off everybody.
I believe you're totally right, on every point. And actually, the analogy is spot on.
Post a Comment