I hope you all will take the time to read this exceptional piece by Andrew Sullivan regarding where the totture apologists have taken us as a nation.
We used to hear about "ticking time bomb" scenarios - cases in which we know a terrorism suspect has information that will save lives that will soon be lost unless the suspect gives up the information. We now have prominent writers on the political right arguing that our government should use "enhanced interrogation techniques" - including waterboarding - on the so called "panty bomber" to obtain information that he might have about furture terror plots.
This is why we can't move on and look forward. The Bush administration introduced a cancer into the heart of the nation. Whatever their motives, the Bush Administration ordered our intelligence agancies and military to perform actions that constitute torture under any plausible reading of the federal torture statute and the Convention on Torture. They did this in secret, but when it was exposed they doubled down. They claimed that it was legal, necessary and successful, all the while using fear to prevent any accountability. They offered no evidence whatsoever that torture was legal, necessary or successful, but their loyal followers drank the kool-aid anyway and defended them.
And Obama blinked.
The spectical of Americans advocating torture as a first response to a captured terrorist.
God help us.
Joe H
UPDATE
Andrew Sullivan is about an eloquent a writer on the issue of torture as I've encountered, so I'll just let you read his words without comment - they express my sentiments perfectly.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
3 comments:
You are naive and ignorant of history if you really believe that the Bush administration "introduced a cancer into the heart of the nation." That cancer was already present. Just read about US covert policies and activities throughout the 60s, 70s, & 80s -especially in Central and South America.
You seem to think that Bush/Cheney were the first to lie, deceive & subvert the constitution for their own (or the country's) good. They were not the first, and Obama will not be any different, although he may be more careful and strive to be more moral, at least in the public eye.
Men (and women) + power/influence = abuse & corruption, whether that's Clinton, Bush or Tiger Woods. A piece of paper and guys in robes can restrain but never eliminate that.
The cancer is not the torture - though that is bad enough. The cancer is their insistance that torture is a legitimate policy response to threats to our national security. The cancer is their use of fear and raw partisanship to pervert moral judgment and escape accountability.
Corruption is one thing. Scaring and confusing people into abandoning a core principle of western civilization (to save your own ass) is quite another.
Joe H.
Yes, Sullivan's posts on torture have been pretty good. Nice post. I agree, generally, with this:
...The cancer is not the torture... The cancer is their insistence that torture is a legitimate policy response...
However, I tend to think that state torture = cancer, literally. Unless it's caught early and cut out, it kills. Even tiny residual cancer cells can end up killing the body politic so it's worth spending resources on the political equivalent of chemo and radiation. And, of course, to stop torture from occurring/returning, preventive medicines, lifestyle changes, education, screening, research and so on are important. Cures in other countries that have been infected with metastatic state torture have tended to take a full generation.
Anonymous does make a point: Torture isn't new.
Alfred McCoy's A Question of Torture makes a strong case for torture being a significant strand of US cold war policy. However, theoretically, it was an illegal activity and, of course, our public rhetoric did not include torture as a legitimate policy. That said, it's worth noting that many of people advocating/facilitating torture during the Bush years were involved in our secret cold war era torture programs--Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, and the Albrittons, just to name a few. Unfortunately, none of these people were held accountable in a US court for their actions during the cold war.
I don't want to excuse the Obama administration but I doubt that, say, indicting Cheney for war crimes will cure what ails us. It's a start, perhaps, but if we want to cure our political system of torture, we are going to have to dig deeper and take a close look at US torture during the cold war as well as our more recent (or even current) torture programs.
Post a Comment