Torture is evil. Thats why the Geneva convention's restrictions are in place. Every morally sound person believes that torture is evil. What the US is doing to its prisoners is not torture. If you don't agree with me, The Jawa Report gives some graphical evidence of what real torture looks like. It is VERY GRAPHIC graphical evidence, so if you understand the difference between torture and discomfort, between forcing someone to stand for hours without sleep and dripping acid on them, spare yourself the images. However, if you think that Senator Durbin is right, or less than ludicrous, for saying that what happens at Gitmo is tantamount to Nazi or Soviet torture, then go to the link. See what real torture is. US interrogation techniques are not something I would want to go through, but they are not evil or torture -- at least in general. There may be some infractions that cross the line, and these should be investigated and punished harshly. But the general, accepted means of interrogation by the US are not evil, or anywhere on the scale with real torture. I think Scott McClellan had it right, Dick Durbin's comments are simply reprehensible.
In other news, everyone should have their eye on the election in Iran. Its essential that anyone in favor of real democracy in Iran scrutinize, or support the scrutiny of, their elections. Without such investigation it will not be possible for Iran to be indicted for its lack of true democracy. Making the world aware of the injustice in Iran is the first step in making its internal collapse possible. Why is it so important that Iran, of all the countries with fake elections, be held responsible? Because it is one of the most prominent and vocal countries of its kind. And its collapse will prompt the collapse of many such regiemes. Furthermore, there is enough of a movement for freedom in Iran that it is possible for it to be changed from within. China should hold real elections too, but right now trying to push them is not going to do any good -- except maybe spark World War III. Iran is ready for a change, but the people need to know they have international support. And calling Iran's leaders on their fake elections is a great way to show support.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
13 comments:
I sort of think you're right, standingout, though with some reservations. The pathetic bleating of the Democrats as they pretend to be "shocked" by what's happening at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo is...pathetic. (Did I use that word already? It just fits so well.) There's nothing wrong with slapping around a terrorist if you need information. HOWEVER, what I object to more is US hegemony in general. I object to the war in Iraq straight up, so while I don't really care about prisoners' "rights" being violated in Iraq, I can't exactly say "Good work, US justice system," because I don't believe that we should be there in the first place.
ROCK
me
HARD PLACE
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinions about the war and any politics. But this matter is really not about the war. As Hugh Hewitt points out (see sidebar for link) this is not a Republican vs Democrat issue, it is an issue of being for or against the military, if not the country itself. Democrat leaders, like Durbin, are pretty much accusing our soldiers, or at least our interregators, of being as bad as Nazis. Thats a very harsh and serious allegation. Forget the fact that it helps our enemies by giving them great propaganda, it is an insult to everyone serving in the military at Gitmo, if not everywhere. The issue right now isn't about Iraq, its about the treatment of prisoners. So I think its completely reasonable to say "I oppose the war in Iraq and don't think we should be there. But I also don't think there is anything wrong about the way we are treating the prisoners we have, I just have a problem with why we have some of them"
I don't know, I think Durbin's just blowing smoke. I think he's using so much hyperbole to try and ralley his side, consolidate his anti-war position. It doesn't change his being wrong, but it does change the "seriousness" of his allegation. No one is going to take him seriously, no one cares how many ridiculous things he says.
Who is this Durbin guy anyway? It sounds like some small time minor senator found an issue he wants to champion himself against and try to ralley enough support to be one of the big shots because of it. it's stupid, it's ridiculous, but it's politics.
Actually, Durbin is the #2 Democrat Senator -- which makes his comments even more ridiculous. From some no-name guy it would be annoying, but not much more. From someone in such a position of leadership it is absolutely unacceptable.
Here is the problem with your argument (and the whole “Conservative” downplay argument for that matter): torture cannot be defined simply by the severity of an action, the level of lasting pain/damage it incurs, etc. in relation to other actions, levels of pain/damage, etc. Torture is best defined as using painful or humiliating tactics to extract information, punish prisoners, or otherwise inflict harm or discomfort THAT SURPASSES THE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS of treatment for the perpetrating culture. That is why, even in countries like Saddam’s Iraq, there was a distinction (for Iraqis if not for the government) between interrogation or punishment and torture. If we lived in Babylon in the 6th century B.C., we would not think it torture to cut off a man’s hand for stealing. Since we live in America in the 21st century A.D., we think it is. It is culturally relative. For Saddam to drip acid on people was and is torture by both the standards of the Iraqis and the Americans. For Gitmo guards to desecrate the Koran was and is torture by both the standards of the Iraqis and the Americans. They are both unconscionable actions by the standards of our respective societies and in light of our respective foundational ideologies, albeit for different reasons. Simply because we aren’t dumping acid doesn’t mean we aren’t torturing. If we are treating people in ways that exceed acceptable limits or violate conceptions of human dignity, then we are torturing. So that is why we should be mad.
PS – With reference to Durbin, he is an asshat. Look, simply because two things are torture doesn’t make them equitable forms of torture. But, I would caution, that doesn’t mean that it is more acceptable that America is torturing Gitmo inmates than it was that Germans tortured Dachau inmates. Because of the respective standards of our cultures (i.e. because of what Americans hold dear about life, liberty, and all that shit as opposed to the Germans during the 1930s and 40s) it is probably more morally outrageous that America is torturing Arabs than it was that Germany tortured Jews.
Well, if its true then that torture is defined by culture then we can define torture to be whatever we want. We, as a culture, can decide what is and is not acceptable or offensive. And if that is true then the Democrat leadership is on the right track -- convince people that an action is wrong and it becomes so. In which case as long as the majority of the country supports our treatment of our prisoners, which I think they do for the most part, then it is acceptable.
I'm not saying I subscribe to that belief, but that seems to me the ramifications of your argument. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Okay, let me try to clarify, because I think we there is some miscommunication about the nature of culture. Public opinion has nothing to do with culture. Culture changes very slowly and is not particularly tied to what people think about such and such. Culture is, among other things, historically grounded and, usually, legally regulated. Also, to clarify, simply because something is culturally relative doesn’t mean that it is capricious or can be easily changed – often, it is quite the opposite. As I said in my original post, those principles that are foundational for our society (drawn from English Commonwealth ideology, Enlightenment rights language, theistic religious assumptions, etc.) and our governmental system (one that stresses such things as equality, rule of law, distrust of power, etc.) are what make this torture – not what public opinion is. The fact that most people in America don’t think it is torture only means that they are profoundly uninformed about the standards of their society. Apart from that, however, these actions are interpreted as torture by the detainees at Gitmo because of their foundational principles regardless of our standards. So, even if we as Americans had no commitments that condemned these policies as torture (which we do), it would still be effectively such because of the way it is interpreted by those who receive this treatment (e.g. even if guards at Dachau didn’t think it was torture to starve a Jewish man, because the Jewish man interpreted it as such, it was torture).
How then can a people hope to uphold value they do not understand? And how can we regulate based on standards we cannot know? If torture is in the eye of the victim, how can we ever be sure that we are not torturing people? I'm sure that if you asked, many prison inmates would consider their situation torture. We do we do then? How can we hope to avoid torturing people when the only way to know if we are is to ask the people who may be being tortured when they are themselves immoral in our culture? It doesn't seem like a pattern of thinkning that can lead to any acceptable results.
Well, I think it leads to a pattern of thinking that requires a great deal of caution and vigilance with regard to any tactics used regarding criminals or suspects, especially those that aren’t Americans. I want to clarify two things: 1) I didn’t say anywhere that we have standards that we cannot know, but rather that most Americans don’t know. I think that through a very close and rigorous examination of the historical, religious, ethical, and intellectual development of our nation, we can know them very well and will have the tools to abide by them. The problem is that most Americans are profoundly ignorant about their own history – particularly its intellectual history – and that is the Achilles Heal right now of using popular sentiments as a meter for anything. 2) Perhaps I was less clear about how we ought to regard those being tortured. It has nothing to do with what they as individuals consider torture, but with what their inherited culture understands as torture. Again, that is not unknowable, but it does require a great deal of work on our part to properly understand that. And together, these constitute the backbone of what is required when making any policy decision about the treatment of detainees.
I'm never ever going to be able to call both dripping acid on someone's skin and desecrating a Koran in front of them "torture". I think torture needs to imply some sort of bodily harm to an individual or people that individual cares about.
The same culture that's violently upset about the "torture" of flushing a Koran frequently burns effigys of our public officials and our national flag - desecration is NOT torture in their culture, or else they're far less upset about torturing others than we are. Either way, I'm not upset about flushing the koran.
Well, I should have said this sooner, but the whole Koran thing is irrelvant to the point that Durbin is an idiot, because he wasn't referencing that when he said we were like Nazis. He was talking about a report, which I linked in another post, that talks about chaining detainees to the floor and making them endure 'extreme' temperatures and really loud rap music. Actually, I had a roommate who really liked rap, and I may consider making them listen to that a form of torture...
redhurt:
"The same culture that's violently upset about the "torture" of flushing a Koran frequently burns effigys of our public officials and our national flag - desecration is NOT torture in their culture, or else they're far less upset about torturing others than we are."
You would be right if we were talking about anything other than the Koran, particularly a Koran written in Arabic, which, to a devote Muslim, is sacred to a degree unimaginable to Western Christians. Desecrating an Arabic-language Koran in front of a Muslim is akin to Antiochus’s sacrifice of a pig on the alter in the Holiest of Holies to 2nd century B.C. Jews or the Roman crucifixion of Christ to his apostles. Culturally speaking, it is not something we can relate to.
PS - Durbin is an idiot.
Post a Comment