Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Andrew Sullivan notes just how far the right has fallen since the days of their constantly-evoked hero, Ronald Reagan. Reagan fought for the passage of the U.N. Convention on Torture and made the U.S. a signatory to it in 1984. And not only did he push for each country to prosecute anyone in their leadership that engages in torture, he specifically called for the use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute leaders in other countries who do so. Here's what he said when he signed the treaty:
"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
And here's what the convention itself says about what is and is not torture and what excuses cannot be used to justify doing it:
Article 1.1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
In a mere 25 years, the Republican party has gone from championing the prosecution of torture to savaging anyone who dares to suggest such prosecutions. The next time some Bush/Cheney apologist invokes the memory of Ronald Reagan, remind them of this.
Politics
Comments
And this of course explains why the El Mozote Massacere and the Jesuits' slaughter in El Salvador happened. Reagan was great at mouthing the words of freedomness and equaliticity; on actually having foreign policy that mirrored the words, not so much.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2009 9:40 AM
These sorts of things just haven't been working for me. Now that Bush is out of office, he has suddenly become too "liberal" for the apologists I talk to. Their preference is now (and according to them, for several years) for real conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin and Plumber Joe.
So any criticism of Bush/Cheney is brushed aside by stating something like 'this is what happens when the Republicans become too moderate'.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 27, 2009 9:45 AM
Check out Article 3, which is just as damning:
"No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
Extraordinary rendition, anyone?
Posted by: cognitive dissident | April 27, 2009 10:05 AM
Of course, Dr Goo. Don't you know that True Conservatism (hating gays, illegal immigrants, tax cuts for the rich) can never fail, only people can fail True Conservatism.
Like that every man contains a seed of sin, so too does every man contain a seed of liberalism that may turn them into Fascist Communists.
Sarcasm aside, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a favorite of the hard-core base. The worst part is that the Republican base seems to be retreating into ever nastier ideology. While some of the leaders seem to be rethinking their positions, it remains to be seen if the base of the party will allow these positions to gain in the party.
If we only could actually have a sane conservative party in this country.
/And I say this as someone who currently feels that I will never vote for Republicans unless the Democrats eat babies live on public television.
Posted by: Tenax | April 27, 2009 10:39 AM
doctorgoo - you appear to be inferring that the Palin crowd no longer wants to use Reaganism to support their arguments. I have not experienced that. I have always experienced the 'no true Scotsman' argument when discussing Bush, even during the 2000 campaign, which is why Ed raises this point given that Reagan is the conservative standard bearer. I've never experienced conservatives claiming Reagan was no true Scotsman and therefore conservatives can ignore Reagan.
democommie - to be fair to Reagan, while you are absolutely correct that Reagan's rhetoric didn't match his actions, he also repeatedly took liberal or moderate actions that contradicted his conservative credentials or rhetoric, e.g., reduction of nuclear arsenals and raising taxes after mistakenly cutting them in order to reduce future deficits and fund social security.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 11:13 AM
I await for someone on the right to state that Reagan wasn't a 'real Republican'.
Posted by: Umlud | April 27, 2009 11:31 AM
Ed - Any idea if there's video of Regan's statement from above?
Posted by: Umlud | April 27, 2009 11:34 AM
I think this is an important little part of the quote:
Posted by: havoc | April 27, 2009 11:52 AM
The idea that an American government would be the one doing such things was probably inconceivable to Reagan.
Posted by: celcus | April 27, 2009 11:59 AM
Michael Heath:
Know what?, you're probably correct. Nevertheless, I hold Ronnie the Miscommunicator responsible for going with scumbags like Atwater to degrade the political process even further and faster than it might have otherwise been degraded.
I respect your opinion, but I definitely disagree with you.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2009 1:02 PM
I saw it plenty while he was President, particularly in his second term. But yea, not so much lately. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 27, 2009 1:20 PM
On April 27, 2009 10:39 AM, Tenax posted:
Of course, Dr Goo. Don't you know that True Conservatism (hating gays, illegal immigrants, tax cuts for the rich) can never fail, only people can fail True Conservatism.
I know that was meant as a sarcastic comment, but some people really seem to believe that. So do the political principles exist to serve people, or do people exist to serve the principles?
The Republicans are starting to sound like the image of Communists that I got in school in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 27, 2009 1:31 PM
No doubt todays True Republicans feel justified in scoffing at Andrew Sullivans's attempt to beat them over their heads and shoulders with the very words of their Revered One. They would say:
1) 9/11 changed everything. The gloves are off.
2) "...torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted..." is a phrase that depends on what "severe pain or suffering" actually means. If you missed the Yoo memo, it now means only acts which leave permanent and serious damage, like organ system injury or loss of limbs.
Hence, waterboarding is not torture unless it kills you. But since waterboarding, if done properly, does not kill you, then waterboarding is still not torture.
If you ask me, the way to change the Right's mindset on torture is to ridicule them for doing Anti American things simply because they are too scared of a few terrorists. Torture is for cowards who are so chicken they don't mind sullying themselves. Chickenhawks don't like being called chickens.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 27, 2009 1:36 PM
The Republicans have gone all Weimar. I don't know why they've become so paranoid.
Posted by: Chuck | April 27, 2009 2:01 PM
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 27, 2009 1:36 PM:
If you ask me, the way to change the Right's mindset on torture is to ridicule them for doing Anti American things simply because they are too scared of a few terrorists.
Heh. Isn't the jingoistas who keep screaming at us "libruls" that we should be willing to risk our lives for our ideals?
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2009 2:21 PM
Israel doesn't torture. They know it doesn't work. But even in a case where it might, their citizens refuse to have it done on their behalf. This is because, unlike the American right, they aren't cowards.
Posted by: Robert Faber | April 27, 2009 3:51 PM
Just because I really like Rachel Maddow, and it's about torture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kUdUCPbOv4
Posted by: Owen | April 27, 2009 5:50 PM
In an ideal world, torture is wrong, but since this isn't an ideal world, and we're dealing with enemies that want to literally kill us by using extraordinary means, lets see how far observing the Torture Convention will get us. As Michael Scheuer wrote in the Washington Post, people are willing to sacrifice American lives just to satisfy their own ideologies; or to be liked by pacifist Europeans.
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 27, 2009 6:36 PM
Posted by: Martian Buddy | April 27, 2009 6:46 PM
Hey Ed Burke
Its never been an ideal world pumpkin, and these laws were made for times like this
and yeah I'm fine with going to war if someone is trying to wipe me out, I am not a 'pacifist European' I will fight to the death anyone who would try to hurt me or my family
but here is my point, torture does not work, there is no real way of quickly finding out if that information is wrong and as has already been found out, people will agree to ANYTHING to make it stop.
So no I will not torture someone like a school yard bully
and here is an idea cupcake how about you try the Torture convention fist before you start acting like torture is ok cos 'these people want to wipe us out'
and what is with holding people for years and torturing them with out pressing ANY charges, and you better believe that if they had ANYTHING on you they would do the same to you
I am not willing to sacrifice any lives, but then neither am I going to justify something so barbaric
its called taking the higher ground and being a better person, and if you do things just as bad as they do, what makes you any better?
Posted by: Kim | April 27, 2009 6:54 PM
Martian Buddy wrote:
Yes. How many Russian terrorists during the cold war hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings? Or how many KGB officers strapped bombs on their bodies and blew themselves up in the US? Unlike the terrorists, the United States had a deterrence against the Soviet Union; I doubt al Qaeda cares about mutually assured destruction, they probably welcome it. Or did you miss what happened on 9/11 or did you conveniently forget?
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 27, 2009 6:58 PM
Ed Burke - you failed to consider when making your argument the fact that the most effective interrogator in Iraq, "Matthew Alexander", claims that the number one motivation for people joining al Qaeda in Iraq to fight and kill our soliders was our treatment of detainees (per his team's surveys of actual al Qaeda detainees they interrogated). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30307470
Why are you condoning a practice that killed our soldiers in Iraq??? If you want to understand why the Bush Administration and the GOP from 2000 onward was such an utter disaster, I suggest looking at your own thinking, its consistent with their's.
There's a reason America became the shining city on the hill, in spite of developing in a 'non-ideal' world, and it was because our institutions previously resisted torture and attacks on human rights and instead embraced and championed them at a distinctly measurable difference than others. A core strength of America since its founding is now perceived as a weakness by conservatives, that's how broken the mindset of conservatism has proven to be in the 21st century. And for delusion, when faced with their failures like we see here, conservatives revert into an ever-more reactionary position like we see you do here.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 6:59 PM
Ed Burke,
In the real world, torture is illegal. I really don't know what part of that is so hard for you and your fellow apologists to understand.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 27, 2009 7:09 PM
Ed Burke - I see its not just delusion, but a complete inability think critically.
How does torture help us beat al Qaeda? We know it increases their numbers and their willingness to commit ever-more violent acts against us, it's not a deterrent but instead a motivator. We also know from the pros it provides less credible, actionable intelligence with less noise relative to using professional interrogation techniques. So please provide empirical evidence that torture is superior to non-coercive interrogation like those used by professional interrogators.
Besides Matthew Alexander's findings, here are two other pros who claim torture does not work:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30393599
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30353880#30353880
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 7:15 PM
What? Ed Burke, you're presuming a heck of a lot:
- That we have someone in custody to torture with the information we want
- That we know which person that is
- That torture can produce good intelligence
- Without being obfusicated by bad intelligence (ie, not just what the torturer wants to hear)
- That cannot be retrieved by legal, non-coercive means.
This is a pretty hard argument to make. It looks like we got most of our valuable intelligence before we decided to water-board our prisoners dozens of times per week, slam their heads into walls, and force them into stress positions like some sort of sick medieval psycho.
As for people willing to kill us, man up, nancy-boy! We've always had people trying to kill us. We fought against the native Americans as we pushed across this nation, we fought with the Canadians, fought numerous proxy wars against Soviet Russia. Don't be such a coward and vomit up your constitution, treaties, and the rule of law at the first scare. Hell, London was leveled in World War 2, bombs falling all around, and England didn't torture people. We prosecuted our own soldiers who tortured, at least up until 2000.
As for sacrificing American lives in some stupid "ticking time-bomb" scenerio, be sure to let all the new Al-Qaeda recruits know why you're justified. Remember, they are now fighting against a country that tortures their countrymen. Even China is laughing at us.
Sorry for the anger in this post, but I can't freakin' believe that we Americans are having to justify not-torturing. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky partisan-liberal ideal!
Posted by: Tenax | April 27, 2009 7:15 PM
Re Ed Burke
Fucktards like Mr. Burke couldn't care less if pertinent information can be obtained by use of torture. Their view is that torture is punishment. The fact that it may be counterproductive if the victim doesn't have the information desired is irrelevant to them.
Posted by: SLC | April 27, 2009 7:19 PM
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 27, 2009 6:36 PM: As Michael Scheuer wrote in the Washington Post, people are willing to sacrifice American lives just to satisfy their own ideologies; or to be liked by pacifist Europeans.
Well, the idea that people "sacrifice American lives" because "pacifist Europeans" will then like them pretty much establishes you as a nut; but accepting all of this for the sake of yuks, how will torture help in this regard? It has already been established that torturing people neither results in intelligence that is reliable nor dissuades people from joining American sacrificing, pacifist European loving groups.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2009 7:40 PM
Ed Burke, I think I can sum up the responses to your post and save you the time of reading them.
WTF? STFU!
Posted by: Owen | April 27, 2009 8:13 PM
Ed Burke spewed "...people are willing to sacrifice American lives just to satisfy their own ideologies..."
Um, yes. Even my own life. I excerpt from the U.S. Military's Code of Conduct:
My ideology is that we should live up to our own Constitutional principles. I'm willing to sacrifice American lives - including my own - for that. In comparison, your ideology appears to be to protect your own life against all threats, no matter what the cost to principles and ethics. And you're apparently willing to sacrifice other humans to that end, as long as they aren't part of your own gang. How do you manage to spin that to make it sound like something other than rank cowardice?Posted by: BobApril | April 27, 2009 8:33 PM
I read Schuer's article that Burke mentions but fails to link. Here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html
It's a really bad argument. While we continue to see more and more interrogators came out of the shadows to argue that torture as an interrogation technique is far inferior to professional methods and in fact those that tortured had no training in interrogation (to date, this may change with the release of current confidential documents); Schueur was a desk jockey in the CIA, who spent most of his time reading media releases and intelligence reports by the very guys in the field who argue against the use of torture, like 'Matthew Alexander' Ali Soufan, and Matt Baer.
Schueur was also the architect of our extraordinary rendition program.
Schueur argues that Obama is employing a personal ideology that threatens lives when in fact Obama's position exactly mimics what was ratified in the Constitution, legislated into U.S. law, developed into Military Regulations, and agreed to in international treaties signed even by Reagan and reduces the most effective recruitment tool that motivated Muslims to join al Qaeda in the fight in Iraq and kill our soldiers. Instead it is the Bush/Cheney employment of torture which veers into the personal and away from our principles, history, law and normal competence when at war. Schueur never provides any evidence to counter the professional interrogators' claims that torture does not work and even creates a fantasy ticking time-bomb scenario to make his case rather than grounding it in reality.
I really loved Schueur's book, Imperial Hubris, he certainly never made defective arguments like this in that book.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 8:48 PM
Bobapril - great post. I'd like to pile on even more.
Ed Burke wants to employ torture not just to protect cowards like himself even though its effcicy has been shown wanting, but also in spite of the fact we know it creates additional threats for those that honorably serve us in places like Iraq. That's given that we know that al Qaeda's most effective recruiting tool for gaining members for Iraq was the very policies that Burke supports. American soliders died in Iraq because Bush/Cheney decided to institute torture within both the military and in the intelligence community, Burke concurs.
We need to expand the definition of the term chickenhawk.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 8:55 PM
Michael Heath is being too generous. Scheuer's piece is a tirade worthy of your average spoiled three year old. It's a farrago of unsubstantiated assertions, thinly-veiled threats and caricatures of his opponents in lieu of evidence and argument. It reads like a parody of the pro-torture position. Ed Burke's endorsement seems to be in line with the level of critical thinking ability he's displayed thus far.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 27, 2009 9:16 PM
Re Ed Burke: "In an ideal world, torture is wrong"
In the REAL WORLD torture is wrong. It is only cowards who are eager to sacrifice principles for imagined safety who believe torture is an acceptable method of extracting information.
When we, as a society, are willing to descend to the same sewer we claim our enemies inhabit, we lose all semblance of moral superiority, or justification.
Go build your bunker, and cower in fear. I'll live in a nation of laws, fully aware that there are people in the world who may have my city in their crosshairs. It's better to die upholding freedom and equality than to live as a coward, who treats other humans as less than dogs out of fear.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | April 27, 2009 9:21 PM
Posted by: Martian Buddy | April 27, 2009 9:31 PM
Ed Burke, please read Gingerbaker's comment above. He's got you perfectly--you're a frightened little baby living your life in fear that the terrorists will get you.
You remind me of the guy I saw at a townhall meeting prior to the Iraq war. One of the panelists was arguing against going to war, and this guy jumped up, yelled that the panelist was just afraid of the terrorists, then literally ran out of the room before anyone could respond.
Fake tough guy bravado to hide your ridiculous little fears.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2009 9:44 PM
Tyler DiPietro:
"Farrago"--I think you win the internets today, with that one.
Ed Burke:
I'm pretty sure mroberts is looking for you, he needs to be near someone who will make him look a little less batshit crazy.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2009 9:45 PM
James Hanley wrote:
I wouldn't call them my "little fears", after all I survived on 9/11, so I know what is like to be in the receiving end of a terrorist attack, something most of you, I presume, would not understand. Most of the vitriol against me here, however, isn't that surprising. As I said, those decrying the techniques used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, view the world in idealistic and yet dangerously unrealistic terms. Most of the post after mine, proves that most here are willing to sacrifice American lives because they rather view the world not as it is, but as it ought to be. UN declarations is not going to stop al Qaeda, neither would appeasing our pacifist friends abroad.
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 27, 2009 10:17 PM
We're not "decrying the technique used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed". We're decrying the technique used on anyone. Because it puts people through unbelievable torment. 183 times. And it nets no valuable information, and more civilized techniques work better. There is no possible frame that you can view this through where torture is better than the interrogation techniques we have used for decades (if not centuries). Torture is never okay.
Never.
Posted by: Sean Michael | April 27, 2009 10:27 PM
"Most of the post after mine, proves that most here are willing to sacrifice American lives because they rather view the world not as it is, but as it ought to be."
You are an intellectually dishonest, lying piece of shit. I challenge you to quote one thing said here that demonstrates this.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 27, 2009 10:38 PM
Posted by: Ed Burke | April 27, 2009 10:17 PM: As I said, those decrying the techniques used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, view the world in idealistic and yet dangerously unrealistic terms.
Right. Meanwhile, you are the one who thinks that people commit terrorist acts against Americans so that pacifist Europeans will like them. Yes, he did say that.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2009 11:03 PM
Burke stated
You have been provided empirical evidence torture does not work as effectively as non-coercive techniques and has cost us American lives, especially our soldiers in Iraq (e.g., three interrogators testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee report from last week also piles on). You on the other hand have provided no evidence for any of your assertions, yet you continue to claim we are unrealistic?
By advocating the use of torture in spite of your impotence in supporting your argument with hard facts, you also do a great dishonor to all those who served prior to and even during the Bush Administration who didn't torture, who defended human rights and this country's ideals, bravely I might add. So brave we became the shining city on the hill to the rest of the world. Burke would rather we join Pol Pot.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 11:12 PM
Here's a story about a great American hero who got a terrorist to give up Khalid Sheik Mohammed and exposed Padilla's supposed dirty bomb plot while all the while being a professional: http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print
Soufan was also a key interrogator in getting info about the U.S.S. Cole bombing.
So our top two al Qaeda captures were accomplished in significant part by non-coercive interrogrations, al-Zarqawi by Matthew Alexander and Sheikh Mohammed by Soufan. . . Meanwhile the torturers who water-boarded Sheik Mohammed 183 times were trying to get him to falsely claim a tie with Saddam Hussein in a manner that would help Bush sell a war in Iraq.
Burke's really got our interests at heart I'd say.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2009 11:40 PM
Who was it that said (something like):
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for their country deserve neither"? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2009 1:59 AM
9/11 did indeed change everything. It was the day when America for the first time in a long while knew what it was like to be attacked. It used to be ok for them to do it to others, now when it happened to them, it's another thing...
Posted by: Progress | April 28, 2009 3:27 AM
Yep you're all right. September 11, 1973 did change everything, oh wait we weren't talking about American sponsored coups that install ruthless, murderous dictatorships?
My bad.
"Shining light on the hill"? Yeah right. - :] DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2009 3:49 AM
DingoJack -
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin
Posted by: Woof | April 28, 2009 3:58 AM
Woof - Thanks. Mr Franklin is much more eloquent than my clumsy paraphrase. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2009 4:07 AM
I hope the Reagan-sponsored Contra death squad from Honduras and other Latin American countries never read those texts. It might have disturbed them. For a few minutes, I mean.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | April 28, 2009 5:56 AM
Sure - he knew that it was better to subcontract that sort of work.
Posted by: Dunc | April 28, 2009 6:12 AM
Re Ed Burke
Putting aside the morality of applying torture, the question arises as to its efficacy in extracting useful intelligence. There is no question that torture is an effective tool for extracting false confessions. Mr. Burke, however, has not provided a shred of evidence that any useful intelligence was extracted due to the application of these techniques to captured suspected Al Qaeda operatives. The very fact that waterboarding was applied 183 times to one of the captives points to its ineffectiveness. What information was obtained during application 183 than had not already been obtained during the first 182 applications? In fact, if waterboarding is as effective as the Ed Burkes of the world seem to feel, what information was obtained during application 183 that had not been obtained by application 5?
Posted by: SLC | April 28, 2009 7:34 AM
SLC - to pile on your point . . .
Even if we discovered that actionable intelligence was extracted by use of torture that saved American lives, one would still have to measure that benefit against its costs. What is its marginal utility versus alternatives? Here is my brief assessment that should be weighed when assessing the wisdom of torturing:
1) Our un-American treatment of detainees is believed to be the #1 recruitment tool for getting radical Muslims to join al Qaeda in Iraq and kill American soldiers. We expended blood and treasure way beyond the budget for this war which was about $50 billion. Outlays are approaching upwards of $1 trillion and possibly up to $3 trillion in total economic costs projecting into the future.
2) There are more effective processes to extract information without the costs we incur by torture. To date, professional interregators are in unanimous agreement - yes, the hands-on approaches taken by 'Matthew Alexander', Ali Soufan, and the subcontracting approach taken by Tyler Dunnheller and Matt Baer (to the FBI, Military, or other law enforcement) have provided empirical evidence for their successes without the resulting harm that comes with torture. According to these professionals, more effective is more information and less disinformation.
3) In the past torture was tied to tyrants looking for false confessions to promote policy that could not win on its merits. In the case of Sheikh Mohammed getting water-boarded 183 times, we find a major rationale, if not the only rationale, was to get Mohammed to make a false confession of an operational tie between al Qaeda and Saddam Huessein that could be used to sell a U.S. invasion into Iraq. Bush used torture the same reasons the Viet Cong did.
4) The costs are numerous: arbitrary application of law, breaking of treaties, loss of soft power, loss of hard power, more expensive military ventures since we'll have less allies, anticipated increase in mistreatment of our own when they are captured, a societal moral and intellectual degradtion with Ed Burke as Exhibit 1, and many more costs not mentioned here.
Our abandoning the rule of law and the idea that no human is above the law, coupled to the idea that humans do not possess inalienable rights as even Reagan stated, is in my opinion the most important loss of all. We are not a liberal democracy operating within a constitutional republic if we abandon the requirement that government can not exceed its powers unless "the people" delegate such powers while remaining loyal to the idea of human rights for the even the most despicable humans. This is not about our treatment of them so much as it is about what it does to us.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 28, 2009 8:36 AM
SLC:
Silly, the FIRST time he was waterboarded the Sheik gave it up. The next 182 times were just for confirmation.
Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2009 9:28 AM
Demo - "Silly, the FIRST time he was waterboarded the Sheik gave it up. The next 182 times were just for
confirmationfun." fixed it for you. - :) DJPosted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2009 10:13 AM
This little bit is entirely anecdotal and non-scientific, but I think it indicates something generational.
I know 6 men, members of my wife's church, who are WWII veterans (Air Force, Army, and Navy) - great men. Each of them is appalled at the news items about torture - and these are men who also use language that really shouldn't be used in church (okay, I don't care, but other members might) when they describe what they think about the people behind September 11.
There are also people we know who not only don't care that we've tortured people, they want it to be done more. These are guys my age and younger (50ish) who've never been in the military. If you didn't hear them speak, and strongly disagree with the veterans, you'd think they were normal.
At least for this (totally non-randomly selected) group, the military experience seems to make a difference.
Posted by: dean | April 28, 2009 5:48 PM