Torture.

I am troubled, deeply troubled, about my country and my countrymen. In the 21st century, torture is actually a hotly debated topic, in AMERICA! Not only have we somehow forgotten what torture actually is, we can't seem to agree on whether it should be used. In an attempt to bring some degree of moral clarity to this argument, let me state a few things as clearly and forcefully as I can.

First and foremost, torture is wrong, period. Some things are intrinsically immoral, in other words, they are wrong by their very nature. Torture is one of those things. It cannot be made good, or right or moral regardless of any circumstance.

Second, torture is illegal, both as a matter is U.S. law and international law and U.S. treaty obligations including the Geneva Convention (which does apply to any prisoners in America custody, even so called unlawful combatants-a term our government invented that has no legal standing) and the UN Convention on Torture (treaties the US has signed and ratified).

Third, well, there is no third, that's it, that's the argument. And this is where everyone seems to get lost and this is why I am truly genuinely worried about how completely fucked up some of my fellow Americans have gotten since 9-11 (some of these confused people are friends so it does actually pain me to think about this). There is no honest debate here; not Alan Dershowitz's tortured arguments for "torture warrants" or Michael Graham/Jay Severin borderline racist rants or the host of logical fallacies that are tossed around the blogosphere, there is nothing to argue about. It's really is just this simple, just this absolute. Torture is wrong, it's illegal, period.

The circumstances under which someone commits an act of torture do not matter. There has never been a "ticking bomb scenario", the claims about torture preventing attacks are dubious at best and it's doesn't matter what I would do if my daughter was locked in a vault with 30 minutes of air and the guy who knew where she was stood in front of me and I had to force him to talk. None of those absurd fantasies matter. They do not, they cannot make something so intrinsically immoral, moral. Yes, I would torture someone to save my daughter, yes if there ever was a ticking bomb scenario I'm sure the person who had the critical information would be tortured. It doesn't matter. You can always concoct a situation where people will do what they clearly shouldn't, so what? Even if under some extreme circumstance torture may be justifiable, torture is still immoral, illegal and cannot be condoned or sanctioned.

The nature of the person being tortured does not matter but we are constantly reminded of who and what these people are, what they want to do, what they would do to us if we were their prisoner. Again, none of this matters. These argument operate on the premise that some people deserve torture, some people have it coming. They are terrorist, American lives are worth more than theirs, better that 10,000 Muslims die before one drop of American blood is spilled says Jay Severin (about as morally confused a person as I have ever heard on the public airwaves). What rubbish, all of it.

The arguments over whether we are really torturing or just abusing prisoners are perhaps the most infuriating of all. To hear some people, our own Tom Duggan in particular, we are playing frat-house like pranks on these terrorists. These arguments gloss over the harsh facts; stress positions like those used in Abu Ghraib caused prisoners' joints to dislocate and are excruciatingly painful even when used for comparatively short periods. As for the infamous act of water boarding, it's far from a dunk in a bucket of water. The method described in the now infamous torture memos that was used in Guantanamo Bay is exactly, exactly the same method used by the Khmer Rouge during Pol Pots reign of terror in Cambodia. Waterboarding in all its perverse variations has ALWAYS been considered torture. It was torture when we used it on Philippene insurrectionists, it was torture when is was used on our servicemen in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. In fact, we prosecuted people for water boarding POWs as war criminals. When some of these criminals raised the "Nuremberg defense", that they acted under orders, in good faith, thinking that they were acting lawfully, we, the US and the international community, rejected these arguments and rightly called torture what it is, an evil act that can never, must never be condoned.

During the Second World War our nation faced a threat vastly superior to any we face today. Our enemies displayed barbarism, fanaticism and a disrespect for human life on a scale that al qaeda could never match. In the face of the well publicized brutality of our enemies, America, while it did not always act perfectly or justly, never embraced the brutality of it's enemies. We had no death camps, no torture chambers, no renditions no water boarding or stress positions. Our enemies treated POWs savagely and America took pride in standing on the moral high ground regardless of the cost. How ashamed our grandparents would be if they witnessed the cowardice and moral confusion that my generation shamefully displayed in the wake of Sept 11th.

Torture is wrong, morally, legally, wrong. Nothing changes that. America, if it is to hold the moral high ground, if it is to remain America, to stay true to the values that make America great, that make America worth fighting and dying for, cannot condone torture regardless of the "risk" to American lives.

Michael Graham and Columbus

I've been having another fun exchange with WTKKs Michael Graham. Today's posting and on air rant in praise of genocide and Columbus was more than I could bear. My response to Mr. Graham is below.

Michael,

You are all over the map on this one...what's wrong? Didn't eat your Wheaties this morning? Pirates, Al Quaeda and Columbus day in one poorly written article? Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

Piracy has been going on off the horn of Africa for decades, it's gotten far worse in recent years because the government of Somalia is non-existent. There are many reasons for the breakdown of civil society in Somalia, some have deep roots in western colonialism in Africa. It's a complicated situation for which there is no simple answer. One thing is clear, the current rise in piracy is driven by economics, not nationalism or international terrorist.

As for Al Quaeda, they are a growing presence in that region and are taking advantage of the political instability there but they are not a driving force in the epidemic of piracy (though some people may want us to think they are). If we really want to prevent religious fanaticism from taking hold and Al Quaeda from gaining a foothold in Africa, the western powers need to get involved with rebuilding Somalia and they need to act quickly. Is this Bill Clinton's fault? He certainly missed an opportunity when he mishandled the UN relief efforts there but the political and social collapse started long before Clinton came into office. There is blame to go around.

Now as for Columbus Day...despite my liberal sensabilities I am hesitant to judge a 15th century man by 20th/21st century values. That being said however, you are way off the mark in your praise of Columbus. Just about everything BU students said about Columbus is , in fact, true. He DID start the organized slave trade in America, he DID cause the extermination of the Arrowok people and he did start the proccess of genocide in the Americas. Most of what you said about Columbus is false or distorted. He was a brave and capable sailor but he did not bring enlightenment values to this continent, you're about 300 years early for that.

As for your characterization of indigenous Americans, while there were some tribes who engaged in "slavery", human sacrifice and cannibalism, you are making broad sweeping generalizations about millions of people living in hundreds of diverse, sophisticated tribal societies. Most native Americans were nothing like the savages you describe. The Arrowok's Columbus encountered were peaceful, happy people who treated all their tribesmen equally without regard for gender, did not engage in organized warfare, and lived in harmonious co-existence with their environment, as did the overwhelming majority of native cultures in the New World. Europeans didn't bring democracy to the Americas, The Iroquois Confederacy created it hundreds of years before Columbus "discovered" the new world. Columbus saw the indigenous people as slaves and subjects. His own journal speaks for itself. Unfortunately Michael, you again had the chance to have an enlightened conversation about important (yet unrelated) issues. You chose to make everyone dumber for listening.

Get thee some Howard Zinn Mr. Graham.
www.wmich.edu/dialogues/texts/apeopleshistory.html

Tennis Lilly

4/9/2009 10:54:08 AM #

You didn't just say "Howard Zinn" with a straight face, did you?

And your take on 15th Century American culture is utterly bogus. Nobody who knows anything beyond elementary school re: the Iroquois Confederacy ever mentions it as being related to democracy.

Let me guess--Zinn, right?

michael graham

4/9/2009 11:24:43 AM #

Yes I did say Howard Zinn...maybe you should actually READ one of his books; A Peoples History of the United States perhaps or Declarations of Independence may be more suitable.

As for: "And your take on 15th Century American culture is utterly bogus. Nobody who knows anything beyond elementary school re: the Iroquois Confederacy ever mentions it as being related to democracy. " Perhaps you should do some research first before you embarrass yourself.