The Dichotomy of American Torture
As a person of faith who serves in the Army National Guard, and as a student and teacher of history and political science, I am profoundly aware of the need for a strong, effective national defense that has its foundation on solid moral principles. The phrase “For God and Country” sums up my internal view of the loyalties I hold dear.
The torture memos that were made public over the last two weeks is the latest example of the age old question; what is more important – “ensuring domestic tranquility” or to “establish justice”. Both phrases are listed in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States but what happens when these two important ideals are in conflict with each other?
The United States of America has used torture throughout its history. In the Cold War, the C.I.A. used coercive interrogative techniques including physical and psych ops to discover information. The people of the United States condone domestic torture in the form of whippings, lynchings, and the latest method, electric tasers that can drop a person from 15 feet away with a dose of 50,000 volts.
Is the safety of our society more important than our moral sensitivity? I would think that most Americans immediately after September 11th would have gladly allowed our government to pursue any lead and taken any action to prevent a repeat of that tragic fall morning. If our combined safety is more important, then these accusations and outrage of both political parties is nothing but a load of hot air.
President Obama was correct when he announced that he was not going to legally go after the men and women in uniform who were following orders. I do not condone torture, and I would make it a point to convey that to my superiors, but I do understand the need to obtain intelligence from uncooperative people who might be planning an attack on our country.
Private morality or public safety? Can they co-exist? From 2002 to 2009, the policy of President Bush offered one response for this question. In February of 2009, President Obama has given us his answer. It is time to move forward, turn the page, and pursue peace as valiantly as we waged war.
8 Responses to “The Dichotomy of American Torture”
I think the real problem here is that torture was apparently not used in the '24' scenario, but rather was used to gin up evidence of an Al Qaeda-Saddam link to justify the war. Once you allow for torture in one situation that seems defensible – the immediate aftermath of 9/11, for example – you open the door for the truly atrocious use of torture like promoting a war on false pretenses.
Yes Tony. First you have to really get to the bottom of what Al Qaida is before you can start using a war against “them” as justification for torture. Or maybe you're one of the few left who believe and put your whole heart behind the innocence of “a string of seemingly related bombings” that fell in Bagdhad the day before Obama “secretly” landed there this month.
If Al Qaida was an organization truly hellbent on driving the US from Iraq, why would they “send a message” of the need to keep troops there the day before Obama “secretly” landed there? This just after Cheney's mantra that we needed to keep troops there.
Is it really so hard to do the math? If you take this seed backwards in time to 911, you can see that there may not only not be one single justification for torture, but there may also be a need for prosecution.
The ticking time bomb scenario is a myth. I think we would have figured this out at about the 180th time we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
If you're not interested in punishing torturers, then I regret to inform you that you are condoning it. Don't feed us this bullshit of “let's move on”. What utter cowardice.
I am sorry, but I find the allegation that “The people of the United States condone domestic torture in the form of whippings, lynchings…” totally irrelevant to the discussion of torture and even gratuitous and an affront to African Americans–and others The fact that sometime during our history some may have committed those crimes is by no stretch of the imagination–or our conscience–a justification for torture in the 21st century in the United States of America.
Tasering to control a violent criminal—something many people object to, also—is similarly irrelevant to the discussion of torture.
No, don't” let's move on.” We didn't move on with “whippings” and lynchings. We put a stop to them and enforced the laws and the rules of a civilized society and nation.
Tony,
Do you then agree than Lynndie England and her compatriots should be released and cleared of all wrong doing?
Tony, you and all other soldiers of the USA will be considered “the enemy” and “bad guys” by hostile regimes. They can and will use the same justifications to torture our service personnel. That's why we have international law and treaties. They define what you CAN'T legally do to your enemies. Unless you want your unit, your sons and daughters to be naked and humiliated, urinated and defecated on, and tortured, we must stand steadfastly against these horrors. No matter how evil we think our prisoners are, because we will be considered similarly evil by those who may capture our soldiers.
“Is the safety of our society more important than our moral sensitivity?”
By every measure, it is now clear that a policy of torture has made us less safe, certainly in the long term. Even those who are arguing with the critics of torture policies (see, e.g., Porter Goss's WaPo editorial), even those are telling us that the drip, drip, drip revelations of torture are reducing our long-term national security. Their portfolio was national security and they developed and implemented horribly flawed policies that through the context of processes in a democratic and free society whose principles and security they were sworn to uphold, they point out that our national security is being compromised. It is as unconscionable as if they had willfully ignored information that allowed a terrorist attack. They should have been at least sophisticated enough, at least thoughtful enough to think this through, to project what the consequences of their policies would be. That is what we entrusted to them and that is how they failed us.
That is, the torture policy makers, with nothing left to protect themselves, in desperation, are answering your question: our moral sensitivity WAS one of the important keys to the safety of our society and they slammed the door and threw away the key.