I was just listening to a debate on the radio over John McCain's anti-torture amendment. The amendment
passed the senate 90-9 and Precious Leader has threatened to veto a spending bill rather than be explicitly prohibited from torturing prisoners.
The fellow defending torture refused to classify that what was being outlawed was, in fact, torture. He kept insisting that something other than simple interrogation had to be allowed when questioning "terrorists". He trotted out the usual justification for torture, "the ticking bomb" scenario. This scenario involves capturing a terrorist who knows about a bomb that will go off at some date in the VERY immediate future, but won't divulge the location. Since "innocent lives" are in immediate peril, only torture will extract the information neede for the good guys to win.
Could we examine this realistically please?
I am NOT a person who enjoys pain. I dislike pain and will go to great lengths to avoid suffering if I can manage it. If I am captured by people who I consider the enemy, people who are (to me) evil incarnate and they immediately begin applying a branding iron to my testicles in order to encourage me to divulge the location of a bomb that will kill lots of people just like the folks putting a branding iron on my testicles, I WILL DIE BEFORE I TELL THEM A SINGLE THING!
Every bit of agony they inflict on me re-enforces my belief that these people are evil and the more of them that die, the better off the world will be. Each second that passes that I say nothing, puts me one second closer to knowing that my tormentor's ranks will soon be reduced.
Any government which embraces torture for ANY reason has forfeited all moral authority. They are no better than the people they call "terrorists".
McCain, during one of the few moments he wasn't busy hugging a war criminal, made the most eloquent argument about why torture is NEVER right and must NEVER be permitted:
We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.
"But what about protecting the innocent from terrorists?" you wail. "If we don't use torture to get information on future terrorist attacks, many innocent people will die."
As folks like you are fond of reminding me every other minute, "Freedom isn't free."
If we expect our soldiers to be willing to die to protect truth, justice and the American way, is it too much to expect us to die in order to prove that we actually believe in truth, justice and the American way?
And for those of you fond of wearing "What would Jesus do?" wristbands, I believe that Jesus FORGAVE those who persecuted and murdered him. By doing so, he showed that he was prepared to die for what he preached. By dying for what he believed in, he proved what he believed in.
In the final analysis, the "ticking bomb" scenario is a false argument. If I found myself in the VERY contrived situation where someone held my wife's life in his hands, and if he refused to give me the information I needed to save her, I would beat it out of him (but only after begging on my hands and knees and pleading to his humanity). Afterwards, regardless of the outcome, I would sign a full confession and submit to just punishment. I would not appeal, beg or whine. I would have broken the law and must take responsibility for doing so. Nothing stops ANY of our soldiers or intellience agents from torturing anyone they please, as long as they are willing to be punished accordingly. What these folks want is permission to torture LEGALLY, to behave inhumaely without consequence. This strikes me as rather cowardly.
If you are going to put forth the proposition that there are some things worth torturing people for, then you should be willing to go to jail for them as well.
If we legalize torture, no matter what the reason, we are just like Saddam Hussein. Actually, we are WORSE than Saddam as the only thing more evil than torture, is making excuses to justify torture.
these exceptions never are confined to such hypothetical cases, but are left to the discretion of those who have the power. Having such power inevitably leads to abuse and creates a culture of acceptance for the unacceptable. Have we learned nothing from Abu Ghraib?
Tracked: Oct 27, 16:12