Torture Has Destroyed Us All
I haven't wavered much on the usefulness of pursuing the torture issue. I still think President Obama should stay away from it. Whatever happens, I don't have any interest in prosecutions. That said...
Why is the country debating torture? Does the debate we're having do us any good? Are we trying to figure which specific techniques constitute torture? Are we trying to figure out if torture produces good intelligence? Are we trying to decide whether to investigate the uses of torture? Are we trying to decide whether it's okay to torture at all? All of the above are part of the debate but there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it.
Part of the problem is that our national identity is at best fractured, and at worst non-existent. Debating our values is not new. However, we haven't set any parameters for this debate. As a country, we can't seem to decide whether torture is okay. If we can't be honest about that question, I don't see much use in discussing anything else. Hell, we don't even know what torture is, let alone whether it's an sensible policy.
The notion of "torture" is something we have, at times, rejected in theory. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". However, to my knowledge this applies only to citizens, and not surprisingly there is disagreement over which punishments are "cruel and unusual". The United States has also ratified the Third Geneva Convention which prohibits torture or prisoners, among other humanitarian concerns. It follows then, that at least as of 1949, the United States prohibited torture. There are many ways to torture a person, and again, these techniques are not specifically outlined. Presumably, we know it when we see it. Alternatively, even though we may see it, without specific techniques being outlawed, it's possible to define a particular technique as not being torture. Or, we can create a new type of prisoner of war who is not a real prisoner of war, such as an "enemy combatant" on the account that they aren't uniformed military. Thus, we don't need the Geneva Conventions at all.
I believe that the means by which such determinations were made will eventually be revealed. The people who sanctioned torture will probably be held to account in some way, even if it only amounts to public shaming and historical disgrace. The problem as I see it, goes beyond these specific offenses and enters the realm of our values as a nation; our national identity. Regardless of whether any particular technique is torture, and the legal end-runs that were created to get around the Geneva Conventions, do we want the United States government to behave like this? Another way to put it is "Do we wish to behave like this?" Despite what some righties would have us believe, we ARE the government. When the CIA tortures, we torture. I may not be John Yoo, but he served the Presidential Administration of the country to which I belong. I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't leave either. We're all in this together.
Americans tend to believe that America is the "best country in the world", a phenomenon some have referred to as "exceptionalism", and trace back to our Puritan origins. If there are people who find comfort in the belief, then I'd like to know why they believe it to be so. Because of "freedom"? A lot of countries have freedom; even more freedom than us. Because we are a free market economy? Nope, plenty of those around. Because we care for the least of us? Hell, we don't even do that. Because God has placed us here? Because we can buy almost anything we want, often without having to pay for it? Because the second amendment allows us to keep nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles in our garages?
Human rights is rarely mentioned as a reason why America is "exceptional". Unfortunately, human rights has become code for "weakness" by those who believe America to be exceptional. If one group of people chooses to not talk about human rights because another group of people will say they are "wussies", then our moral bearing is clearly dysfunctional. Some will justify torture if it is deemed to keep us "safe". Others will condemn torture under any circumstance because it's morally wrong. Those most willing to condone torture also happen to be evangelicals. The teachings of Jesus are apparently to be applied only when it's convenient. Sadly, if ever there was a place where Biblical concepts should be considered, this is it. Jesus didn't waver on how his enemies were to be treated.
The most frequently used argument for torture has been that it can produce information which saves lives. This is dubious, but we all imagine ourselves holding some secret that we know we'd reveal under duress. Thus, torture must work. I'm not going to argue the efficacy of torture here. I'm merely questioning whether we wish to define ourselves in this manner? Is torturing people part of what America is about? If we consider torture to be okay (even some of the time), then the world of nations are certainly free to follow our example. When another country gets called on it, they can reply, "But America did it and they didn't get in trouble!" and they won't be asked whether they would also jump off a bridge.
President Obama quoted Winston Churchill in his press conference on April 29, 2009. Obama is obviously conflicted on the issue. He is stuck between wishing to do the right thing as a matter of national principle and accomplishing things that will help people in a tangible way right now (jobs, health care, etc...). Nonetheless, his reference of Churchill best explains the risk posed by our moral equivalency on the issue of torture:
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don't torture -- when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
Labels: politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home