"I envision a country that takes a stand against torture. It is not enough to put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. There must be investigations, and if criminal conduct is discovered, there must be prosecutions.
From a moral standpoint, we must uphold one of the founding values of this country: that no detainee shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. We know that torture has occurred over the past 8 years. This is not a partisan issue. Both presidential candidates acknowledged that it occurred, and said they would stop it. If there are no prosecutions, I'm worried about the legal precedents that might be set, as well as the signals being sent to the rest of the world.
Taking a stand against torture is also vital to our national security. We know that those subjected to torture often fabricate the intelligence that they believe interrogators want to hear. Unfortunately, we know this all to well. In 2003, Colin Powell made the case for the Iraq war to the United Nations based on evidence that had been obtained through torture. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi told interrogators that Iraq had an operational relationship with al Qaeda. Specifically, that the Iraqi regime had trained al Qaeda terrorists how to use chemical and biological weapons. As it turns out, al-Libi simply lied so the beatings, water-boarding, and lengthy confinement to small spaces would end. This "evidence" helped to justify one of largest foreign policy disasters in our history.
Mr. President-elect, today the Bush administration said it would not grant pardons to those involved in its torture policies. The current President believes that the memos drafted by his justice department provide him with all the legal cover that he needs. Don't you see what is going on here? Mr. Bush is attempting to use your mandate to repair his legacy. By not granting a blanket pardon he is asserting that no wrong doing took place. If you and your Democratic allies in the Congress do not act, you are implicitly taking the same position, and at the same time giving George W. Bush more political cover."
I hope that all of you will share your vision, whatever it may be, with the next President.
2 comments:
Yeaaa I missed your blog posts Charles!!!! I'm glad you're back!
I believe that there are three major aspects of the problem to be considered here. First, torture from a moral perspective, whether it is right or wrong to torture another human being. Secondly, the circumstances under which the torture is to be performed, weighing the pros and cons of both sides. Thirdly, just to tie the two other points together, the legality of it.
Everyone has their own opinions about the morality of torture. This typically stems from our upbringing and church influences. In my opinion, torture can be a useful means to extract information in the right time and place and with the right people. I believe we should only use torture on someone we know beyond a reasonable doubt is withholding valuable information. An example would be we have satellite images, or other undeniable intelligence gathered to prove this person kidnapped a girl, and we're trying to get her location, or something along those lines.
Obviously then, assuming you agree torture can be useful in certain situations, we must define what the situations are and when is the appropriate time to use it. I DO NOT believe that our situation was an appropriate place to use torture. Also, I do not believe the information they were trying to gather should have been obtained by using torture. As I stated above, I believe it's okay if you know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the torturee did commit said crime and is withholding information that could cause death to others. It seems to me they just picked up a handful of insurgents, locked them away, and tortured them without knowing whether they knew anything or not. This form of torture should not be legal. Also, torture should be used as a FINAL tactic and not the only tactic to extract information.
Okay now all I can think about is Jack Bauer from 24, where is he when we need him?
Vanessa, you make a good argument. It sounds like we agree that rounding up enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan and torturing them in the hopes of obtaining useful information is a morally reprehensible policy.
With that being said, I'll focus on the question: when is torture permissible, if at all?
I'll start of by conceding that I can imagine scenarios where torture is justified. For example, the CIA has custody of an individual with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack involving a nuclear device. However, I ultimately believe that the U.S. should not be in the torture business for a few reasons: its efficacy, and overriding moral obligations.
In terms of effectiveness, I think we have many reasons to be skeptical about the use of torture.
I read a piece in the New York Times a while back (I couldn't find it, otherwise I would have provided a link) that featured a professional interrogator. He preferred an approach that built up trust with those he was trying to extract information from (something you can't do if you are making them think they are drowning). He felt that he was able to extract much more reliable information this way. If the person had valuable information, he could usually extract it. If they didn't, the interrogator didn't run the risk of obtaining potentially harmful false information. Another benefit of the approach is that information obtained in this fashion is admissible in court. Evidence based on torture is not.
We should also be crafting our policies based on what is in the long term interests of the United States. Isn't it possible that torturing prisoners may increase the likelihood of terrorist activity? I would argue that this is indeed the case. The torture policies of this administration are currently being used as a propaganda tool by terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.
The second main point I would like to make is that the use of torture is currently prohibited by domestic and international law. As I mentioned in my original post, the U.S. constitution states that we ought not engage in cruel and unusual punishment. This is the founding document of our federal government, and for this administration to engage in torture is clearly unconstitutional in my opinion. The other legally binding document that the United States is in violation of is the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners in a time of war. Both of these documents were ratified by the U.S. government. Hence, we have a moral obligation to abide by their terms. In fact, it is in our interest to abide by their terms. The Geneva Conventions not only protects those detained by the U.S., but they also protect our soldiers. By violating the Geneva Conventions, we potentially put our soldiers at risk in the future.
Post a Comment