Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Torture Question
If you have 6 or 7 minutes, this video is a fast paced discussion about torture. You have to think fast, but I think each of these people represent the positions of the left and the right very well. It makes me wonder if there is a correct answer to the torture question, but we must settle on an answer nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree with Cliff May and disagree with Jon Stewart. We are at war againsts terrorists that will cut our heads off and wipe out as many people as possible for the sake of furthering their agenda to rid the earth of any one that doesn't beleive as they do. They aren't a country that can or would sign a Geneva convention and Geneva convention doesn't apply to them, any more than they would adhere to it. The line should be drawn much differently for them than for countries that are at war. There is no reasoning with those kinds of groups.
It was an entertaining video.
First remember that torture is illegal. We have agreed to NOT torture. We have broken our promise not to torture and we have broken international agreements. Now what? I figure we need to decide upon a policy and share it with the world so that, at least, we will have been up front about it.
I understand Cliff May's point: we are not fighting wars in the same ways. Conventional warfare has been altered and is no longer what it was, beyond that, international terror with capabilities of mass destruction has created a brand new arena. Like I said in an earlier response, it seems to me that there might be some advantages to some torture. But permission for it must be given from the highest level; it is therefore a given that torture must be rare. After all, how often do we have the scenarios so often described by the pro-torture folks? Very rarely. And when we are faced with them, we have the time to pick up the phone to discuss it.
I think of Abu Graib in Bagdad. Those pictures are a national shame and changed my perception of our efforts there. I wondered what kind of army we had sent abroad. Thinking of them now still embarrasses me.
Torture? Maybe. But let's be clear: we will no longer be who we thought we were. Our hands will have done what we have always deemed to be unacceptable.
First, I have never seen any journalist or lawyer actually quote the law that states that torture is illegal, except for the Geneva Convention, of which Al Qaeda is not a signatory. Perhaps there is a law, but I have not seen it presented in any of the media.
Second, Cliff May is asking "What constitutes torture? What level of discomfort are we willing to accept as being within moral bounds?" Cliff May wasn't saying that torture is good or acceptable. He is saying the we need to lay out what constitutes torture.
Third, Abu Graib was not sanctioned by the Bush administration. It was carried out by rogue soldiers under insufficient supervision. It could have happened under any administration. Consider the stupid photo op of Air Force One over NY. Some bureaucrat made the decision. No one blames Obama for something he didn't know about or sanction.
I do beleive that the promise not to torture is with those countries that signed the Geneva convention. I do not believe it applies to those that did not sign it. Thus....I see no laws broken when we do a soft form of torture on terrorist that are not representatives of any recognized state and are not legal signators on the Geneva convention, especially to save masses of people.
I must admit that I can't give you the source for stating that torture is illegal. I heard George Will state it unequivocally on a Sunday morning news show. I assume that he is referring to the Geneva Convention and probably other international law agreements that we have signed.
As I have stated, I have stated warily that I believe that there may be times when torture is justified. I have described how rare I think that these times might be and that the responsibility for them must not be avoided at the very top. So what is torture?
That is the questions as Cliff May stated and Alan pointed out. Where the line? We have started down a very, very ugly road.
I personally do not believe that the soldiers at Abu Graib were just rogues. I believe firmly that with a wink and a nod, higher heads turn the other way in the military brotherhood. I believe this, I assert that this is probably the case. I can't prove it. I don't need to, I am not writing an opinion column.
I entirely agree that it could happen under any administration given that the military hierarchy virtually does not change from president to president except of course the Sec. of Def. and his/her entourage.
I also believe firmly that if our soldiers were water-boarded, Americans would claim it to be brutal torture, no one would be calling it Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as Sean Hannity likes to repeat over and over again to instill a more subtle approving vocabulary. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
By the Geneva Law Convention our soldiers are not considered terrorist...they are considered solderies of our state...so of course we would claim it to be torture since they fall under that umbrella and torture is illegal under that umbrella. But it is my opinion that terrorist do not fit under that unbrella....they will not apply the laws of Geneva with us and we do not need to either with them.
And....I disagree with you on the soldiers of Abu G. that they had the approval of higher heads and a turn of the heads. I don't beleive that at all. It could happen...but I don't beleive that was the case.
The last 3 or 4 CIA directors have all said that we obtained information via the EITs that saved lives. Sure, we don't want our soldiers to be tortured if they are captured, but it happens anyway. Examples include Saddam Hussein vs our captured pilots and soldiers, Somalia (of Blackhawk Down fame), and our soldiers captured by Al Qaeda. So not torturing so as to avoid reciprocity is a stupid reason. That won't prevent our soldiers from being tortured. Not torturing based on our higher morality may be a defensible reason, but the reciprocity argument is not.
Also, I don't listen to Hannity. I really don't understand why he is so big among conservatives. He is annoying like James Carvill is annoying.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I am not making the argument of reciprocity regarding torture, I am saying that many Americans who draw the line of what is 'acceptable' torture would not consider it 'acceptable torture' if done to our soldiers. You are right, it is stupid to think that if we don't torture, no one else will.
I hope you didn't take the word 'stupid' to refer to your opinion, which you have clarified. I use the word to refer to the reciprocity argument I hear in the media from time to time.
Post a Comment