Thursday, April 30, 2009

Re: Torture

Ian, I had to respond in a full post of my own; I had too much to say that it just wouldn't fit as a comment!

First off, I don’t think it’s fair of you to characterize torture as a possible Conservative value. Besides the fact that it’s contradictory to even call torture a “value” in the first place, self-styled “Conservatives” like Dick Cheney are extremists and more accurately represent a fringe group in America that, I believe, is represented far more in the media than they are in the mainstream population.

You bring up several questions, which, in turn, bring up even more questions; here's where I stand...

1. Whether torture is ever OK:

It’s not.

There’s zero question that torture violates basic human rights and it’s absolutely absurd for anyone to even attempt to make the argument that it’s ever okay, in any way, shape or form. I am severely disturbed that this question is even being debated in the media right now. If someone can find justification for torture, then what can't they find justification for?

The question this raises for me is: what does it say about our society that this argument is being given any kind of credibility at all? And why is it largely coming from members of a party that not only identifies itself as a protector of "traditional American values" but also finds its staunchest support among a demographic that votes according to religious conviction?

Regardless of the reasons cited by those arguing in torture's defense, whether it be due to a misplaced hatred or even a lock-step deference to authority, their stance violates one of the most basic codes of human morality.

Even Fox News Anchor Shephard Smith gets it:


2. Whether its use on suspected terrorists keeps any more safe:

It doesn’t.

As is explained in the video you provided, there is not a single shred of evidence to even suggest torture is an effective tool; experts in the field roundly reject its viability as a method of obtaining information.

Not only is it highly unreliable, but torture-free interrogation techniques exist that are vastly more sophisticated and provide much more accurate results. But don't take my word for it, here's the former CIA Chief of European Operations:


…And that’s before even taking into consideration how engaging in the practice utterly compromises any kind of moral authority whatsoever you may have had, which hamstrings your ability to cooperate internationally with nations that will want to distance themselves from your actions.

Bottom-line? It’s not even useful.

3. Whether water-boarding is torture:

It is.

This claim is almost as bizarre as the first one. And it’s being echoed on mainstream media outlets as well.

Water-boarding, i.e., the modern day form of Ancient Chinese Water Torture. Christopher Hitchens thought it couldn't be such a big deal - what's some water on your face, I mean c'mon - so he tried it. Guess what? He didn’t last ten seconds. Weeks later, he’s still having nightmares. His column about the experience should be coming out with the next Vanity Fair.


Meanwhile, Sean Hannity has sneered with derision at water-boarding, offering to undergo it for charity.

…here we are almost a week since he made the claim and he still hasn’t went through with it. Why? Because not only is he full of shit, but he knows it.

If water-boarding is not torture, if water-boarding is not a crime, then why did we have Japanese prisoners of war executed for it?

-------------------------------------------------------------

No, the real question here is why are those who perpetrated such a crime against humanity not being investigated? Why are they not being held accountable?

Why, in the name of everything that is fair and just, are those responsible not being prosecuted?

Why, Obama?

It's more than fitting that you posted just before his press conference tonight, in which he was asked no less than 13 times about his stance on this very issue. His response?

I believe whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

A mistake? Not a crime, Mr. President? Just an "Oops. Well, let's move on." Really? Is that how we reclaim our "moral authority"?

And what about the over 100 detainees who died while held in Iraq and Afghanistan, 27 of whom were kicked to death, shot, drowned, or strangled? What about the fact that the U.S. leadership became aware, very early on, that many of the detainees were innocent of any wrongdoing and should be immediately released -- and chose to ignore it because it would have hurt their approval ratings? Where's that story? Where are those memos?

Thomas Friedman made a couple arguments in support of Obama's decision not to go forward today. One, prosecution taken to its full extent would put Bush, Rumsfeld and others on trial and "rip our country apart." Two, "Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy."

Mr. Friedman, two things. One, if there are really enough torture-supporters in this country to 'rip it apart' then this is a discourse that needs to take place. Right. Now. Two, that's the type of excuse that could be used to justify anything. And that's exactly the kind of thing the law is supposed to protect against.

18 comments:

  1. Spot on Tom, spot on! I didn't ever seriously mean to suggest that torture could be a conservative value, or a value of any kind... In fact I believe it stems from a complete lapse in moral judgment on the part of those responsible, and on the part of those who defend it (who I'm guessing were at some point convinced the ends justified the means).

    The only reason I posed such a question is the fact that prominent "conservative" leaders (Cheney, Rove, Hannity et al.) continue to defend it's use all over the airwaves. Which I think should be of tremendous concern due to the persuasive effect this has on lots of conservatives of weak moral compass.

    No doubt there are many, like Bruce Fein, who object to such extremism, but it is no small number who do not (whether it be for reasons of moral corruption or just pure party loyalty and deference). So I think it's an important question to ask whether there are enough conservatives who accept the arguments for torture to continue to let the Republican party be led by war criminals, or whether there are enough to soundly reject such people in favor of new leaders. In short, will the Republican party return to its values or continue its moral drift?

    I often wonder the same about the Democratic party...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right, well we obviously agree on this; I felt so strongly about this issue I really wanted to expound upon yours.

    There are few issues, I think, that really cut so deeply into the very core of our value system as torture does. This issue just goes so far beyond party politics... the attempts being made to politicize these crimes by irresponsible journalists and former members of the Bush administration are absolutely abhorrent. I'd like to think that many Republicans wouldn't jump on the pro-torture bandwagon simply to defend their own. But I'd also like to think any Democrat wouldn't choose to ignore such an issue so that it wouldn't "interfere" with their current agenda.

    That includes Obama who becomes complicit in this too as he turns a blind eye. Regardless of how successful he goes on to be - and I still do see the potential for one of the Great Presidencies of our time - this decision will forever leave its own smear on his legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you had asked me on September 12, 2001 what I wanted, I would have said “bomb them, blow their country off the map” with my mantra being “kill them all!” I lost my cousin and a couple of friends on 9/11. Lives were changed that day, for better and worse, and we need to recognize that we are frail human beings, capable of hatred and dark thoughts of revenge. While today, I believe torture is wrong, back on 9/12 I definitely wouldn’t have argued against it, needing to satisfy my bloodlust. Until you walk in the shoes of those men and women who did the torture, you have to at least allow for the possibility that they did it for the right reasons. Or maybe they just did it for their bloodlust. Who knows? But life is funny, never say never because you may one day be faced with the unimaginable and then you may do the unimaginable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mary Ann,

    I am so sorry to hear that you lost people close to you on 9/11. I can't even imagine what that would have been like and I count myself blessed that I've never had to endure through such a sudden, irrevocable and senseless loss. There is no torture more painful than that. You were, and still are, completely justified in your anger.

    If you'd had the power to that day, perhaps you would have personally hunted down or seen to it those responsible were captured, tortured and even killed. And though it may have lessened your pain, as terrible as it is to say, it would not have brought your loved ones back.

    And yet, consider this: what if you found out later that you had been mistaken? What if the unthinkable happened and it turned out that those you had tortured and killed had been as innocent as the friends you had lost in the towers? And what if they had loved ones of their own back home, who suddenly felt as you did on 9/12?

    I think you would agree that there no greater crime than causing someone to endure through such pain as you had to. And that's the risk we can never afford to take because, in the end, torture doesn't keep us any safer. It won't prevent future loss such as you have suffered; it can only create more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm going to tell you why Obama is doing the *correct* thing. It is incredibly simple. You cannot take legal proceedings against your predecessor's administration this soon without looking incredibly bad. He will only hurt the cause, as it will come out as an opportunistic attack by a vengeful, retaliatory majority against a downtrodden, defensive minority. Republicans win. Economy loses, since this sort of major fight will detract attention, and will lose Obama support and compromise credibility.

    This is why Obama wanted to sweep it under the rug. Once people made the issue into a bigger issue, Obama came out with more conciliatory measures. This issue can and should wait for 10 years, until it will no longer look like a vengeful democratic attack against replubicans, and until we don't have better things to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're right to a point; it is essential that the investigation is carried out free of the influence of anyone who would seek a political vendetta. And trial proceedings would not commence immediately; it would take years for an investigation do a thorough job and write up its report, send the report through the proper channels to be reviewed, initiate legal steps, etc.

    While Obama cannot allow for the law to be used as a tool for pursuing a partisan agenda, neither can he set a precedent by allowing such human rights violations to go by with impunity. He doesn't have to "sweep it under the rug" just as he doesn't have to allow for vengeful, partisan attacks. I outlined the reasons for why that is just as much a threat to civil liberties in my response to Ian concerning Spanish use of Universal Jurisdiction.

    Obama is at fault in his failure to signal the absolute need to have an impartial and thorough investigation done and to enunciate a firm stance against politicization of the issue that would make it clear to both parties involved any such actions will not be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that even a simple signal about the need to have an impartial investigation would appear partisan.

    In a sense, time and/or some nonpartisan player is a necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tom -

    I think yer right on the money. This video is proof that there are still some "conservatives" out there that want america to be seen in a good light. unfortunately, there are still some other conservatives that really don't give a shit how america looks to the rest of the world because we are already in the right. so fuck them. isn't that what jesus believed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sal, your arguments are unbecoming of a libertarian sir! (Might I suggest you (re)visit the interview with Bruce Fein I posted).

    This is supposed to be a country of laws, not of men. The argument that we must wait to follow the law until a time that is more convenient I find to be extremely dubious because it literally is straight out of the mouth of those responsible for committing the crimes (see Rove, Cheney). There is no better time than the present!

    Investigating a crime committed 10 years in the past is way more difficult because time makes things easier to hide. People forget, evidence gets lost, etc. If anything, the more time passes the harder it is to prove a crime. Don't take my word for it, ask any investigator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with you that the issue is being spun by powerful Republicans as a partisan one (and will continue to be if this is pursued), but that doesn't make it true. And I'm certain they will do an excellent job of portraying this as "an opportunistic attack by a vengeful, retaliatory majority against a downtrodden, defensive minority" - rich white Republicans are great at pretending to be downtrodden and defenseless when it suits them (just look at talk radio). But they will do this no matter when the issue is brought up.

    What disturbs me is that they seem to have convinced even their political opponents that they are so indispensable, and that challenging them would be so catastrophic, it would tank the entire economy. Like a parasite that cannot be removed without killing its host. That is truly dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And a couple more points:

    One, the Obama administration can tackle more than one thing at a time. If it can't, we're doomed anyway. The problems we face as a nation are serious and they won't wait.

    Two, it's not up to the office of the president to investigate and prosecute crimes. It's up to the Justice Department. To paint it as if Obama would be taking legal proceedings against the former administration is fallacious at best, deceitful at worst. The fact that he's already given an opinion about not investigating the former administration is shameful enough. It simply isn't his decision!

    All the Obama administration must do is follow the law. Anything else leads back down the road we've been traveling for much too long.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ian,

    I completely agree with everything you are saying. That is the way that I want the country to be run, and ideally that is how it would be run.

    I think that you would agree with me though when I say that things don't actually run by the intent of the original law. The president has an undue influence on both the legislative and judicial branches. If he were to take a step back and reverse the executive branch's gathered power, I would send him a bouquet of roses. Sadly, giving up more than a token amount of power is beyond even Obama's grasp. Again, the pure rule of law is great, but in practice, we find that finicky public perception can drastically sway the system, especially when compounded by the sensationalist media. Obama is getting things done because he is extraordinarily popular, and if he were to lose that, it would impact his ability to take care of any other items on his agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Granted... to get my libertarian credentials back...

    I would personally prefer that Obama prefer the rule of the law to getting the rest of the agenda done. I think that an overpowered presidency, and skirting the pure rule of the law is way more dangerous than a swinging economy (especially when you consider that Obama's tactics may not be accomplishing anything at all).

    However, if you assume that things on Obama's agenda are important, there is something to be said for accounting for public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. From Obama's perspective

    Advantages of prosecuting now:
    Rule of law is respected
    Bush gets punished
    International community is happier

    Disadvantages of prosecuting now:
    Obama looks more partisan, hurting his popularity among moderates
    Democratic party looks more partisan and vengeful, making people afraid of the 60-seat filibuster-proof majority
    Increased focus upon the prosecution issue, possibly retarding other issues

    ReplyDelete
  15. If we prosecute 10 years from now:
    Rule of law is respected (check)
    Bush gets punished (only really important insofar as the rule of law is concerned)
    International community is happier (maybe not)

    The international community, however, is already happy with Obama. Throwing them another bone might actually hurt Obama's popularity rather than help it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sal,

    You've shifted the argument to immediate prosecution from initiating an investigation. As we talked about over the weekend, a proper, non-partisan investigation could take years to carry out and would, in all likelihood, lead to prosecutions much further down the road (even 10 years later if it gets tied up - which is definitely possible when you consider how many levels of government it will have to climb).

    And, Ian, I'd agree that Obama needs to step back after calling for an investigation, but not before. When illegal actions reach this high into a previous administration, the president absolutely has a responsibility to step in and address the issue since they reserve the ability to pardon (as Ford notoriously chose to).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tom good point. I don't mind Obama addressing the issue if he advocates an impartial and proper procedure be carried out, aka the law. That's fine. What I do mind is his statement that nobody would be investigated/prosecuted/etc. It's simply not up to him. Here's hoping Eric Holder has the cojones for the job.

    And Sal, the only way to really get things done is to transcend day to day partisan politics and appeal to values everyone can agree upon. Like a consistent application of the law. Like seeing to it that justice be done. Like investigating not only members of the Bush administration, but also the Democrats who were complicit.

    If we can't learn to practice a politics that is win-win instead of win-lose, we're all going to lose. That sometimes means taking risks and rising above what is politically expedient or convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tom,
    as per what we said over the weekend, announcing an investigation would (albeit to a lesser extent) have the same negative ramifications. The argument against instigating an investigation is identical.

    Ian,
    Do you believe that starting an investigation would have no possibility of a negative effect on Obama's popularity and ability to carry out the rest of his agenda?
    OR
    Do you believe that the rule of law is thus important to preserve that popularity and other matters are unimportant in comparison, and Obama should take the dive for this issue?

    ReplyDelete