In all of the fuss about the imminent confirmation of a man who says he can't judge whether or not strapping someone down and pouring water over them until they think they're drowning is torture, there's an important question that I think we've lost sight of: how on earth did we wind up in this position in the first place?
How is it even possible that we are having discussions about what is and is not technically torture? How is it possible that we are listening to Senators ask a nominee for Attorney General to take a position on whether or not certain "interrogation techniques" are torture in the first place, and how is it possible that anyone, much less the person who nominated him, thinks that it is OK for the nominee to dodge those questions. How the hell did we get to a spot where we find ourselves (understandably) skeptical of the President when he firmly declares that the United States does not torture?
More importantly, how do we get out of here?
- Log in to post comments
They are drowning. It's just that by drowning a person slowly you have a good chance of controlling whether or not you are murdering them by drowning.
We got here by some people believing Bush was a silver bullet against terrorism.
I like the Watergate parallel: Accept a new AG with the additional appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate the contentious question. Then the AG doesn't have to make a disqualifying jugdement during his hearings, and the crime gets investigated. See http://susiemadrak.com/2007/11/03/06/53/a-last-thought/ on John Dean's idea.
This administration needs investigation.
No, because the administration would stonewall the special prosecutor. Remember, by this point it's clear that they thoroughly realize that there is no punishment or sanction that they can't block - with 40-odd GOP Senators, if necessary. Heck, half the time they take all of the GOP Senators and add some Democratic Senators.
The international community can make a start by making it very clear anyone involved in torture will face possible prosecution, the US's refusal to acknowledge the International Criminal Court not withstanding.
It's an embarrassment that we even have to discuss whether drowning someone is wrong.
I'm ashamed.
There probably is a statute of limitations fro these laws, but it doesn't expire with the current regime. This could start an unfortunate precedent of an incoming president pursuing legal sanctions on the preceding one, but in this case it should be justified.
Or, my dream of presidential order #2 on 1-20-09. Rescind unconstitutional presidential authorities assumed during the current regime. Order #1 is to turn around Air Force 1 and 2 to fly Bush & Chaney to the Slobodan Milosevic Memorial Jail Cell in the Hague.
I wish that anyone who says that they are unsure as to whether or not waterboarding is torture would submit to undergoing it: if they're not sure, then there's no harm in experiencing what is not torture, you know? That's a question I'd love to see asked: "Do you believe that waterboarding is or is not torture? (If not) Would you be willing to submit to a waterboarding, then?"
if we are willing to buy even vaguely that the " surge" is working,when troops out decreases and bombing runs increase,we'll buy anything.mass graves are down but over 2 million iraqis have left their homes. hard to kill those who aren't there.what happens when they return? they'll have to return because no one really wants them to stay.torture is listening to shumer and realizing that no matter how often he votes against what new yorkers want,no to the ag nominee, no to more supplemental appropriations for murder and torture and contractors, he'll get re-elected.torture is realizing that your time in a combat zone was just for tax breaks for the rich.so no one will cry over spilled water.
Mike,
I've wondered about this for a long time. How did we suddenly manage to set aside fundamental ethical behavior in the service of expediency?
The irony is that the people doing this claim to be devote Christians and make a particular point of their own righteousness and especially how they are fighting the evil of terrorism.
Ethical behavior is what you do even if it isn't expedient.
Ignore the fine points. How can we claim to be the "good guys" and at the same time torture?
It's not that the people doing the torture don't know it's wrong. If they thought it was right, they would advertise their actions to the world and hold press tours. Instead they keep their actions a secret. They hide in legal loopholes. They obscure their actions in euphemism.
Our greatest fear is supposed to be a rogue terrorist nation that might use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world at any time.
Isn't that just what we have become?
I want to know what gives these people the idea that torture (by name or not) is an effective interrogation tool. Consider the inquisition. It's less of a tool for finding withheld information than for wringing out a confession, with the victim willing to say anything just to get it to stop. Sure, occasionally some true information will leak through. But so will countless lies and guesses at what the interrogators want to hear that any information revealed under such stress should be suspect.