September 30, 2004
We Must Not Support Torture
I generally support the 9/11 Commission Bill (which is more formally known as H.R. 10). However, Sections 3032 and 3033 are very disturbing. They make it very easy for the US to move terrorist suspects into the custody of other countries in order to allow such suspects to be tortured in that country.
I strongly believe in the principle of policing your own. I am a Republican and a regular advocate for the Republican Party. You should consider this post a kind of 'toughlove'. As such I have some harsh words for the sponsors of this bill. This portion of the bill is morally, ethically, and politically wrong. It may be that you did not know all of what you were sponsoring (the bill is 300+ pages). But you should know now, and you should take action to change it.
There are so many things wrong with the idea of allowing real torture that I hardly know where to start.
First, it is wrong to treat people that way.
Second, these rules involve terrorist suspects. It is bad enough that we sometimes imprison the wrong people. Can we live with ourselves as a nation if we have condemned innocent men to having their fingernails slashed or their balls fried with electricity? If the French experience in Algeria is any guide, the regularization of torture causes an explosion of torture cases. They moved from the low hundreds to the thousands in just one year. That would likely involve torturing at least a hundred people per year who were innocent.
Third, it is a well understood conservative principle that people tend to push past the bounds of the legally permissible. Even though we have banned the use of torture in our country, the line between torture and non-torture is still skirted from time to time. Overzealous law enforcement people sometimes go a bit further than we allow. If we move the line to allow for exporting torture, where will those who go a bit further go? They will go to using a person's children against them. They will send a man and his wife to these other countries so the wife can be tortured in front of him. I can't predict exactly how it will work. But I know for a fact, and you do too if you think about it, that law enforcement pushes the line and pushes it hard. If we move the line so far as to allow suspects to be sent to other countries to be tortured, the actuality will go even further. You should also note that such exporting of suspects will never be under the classic 'ticking bomb' scenario which is sometimes used to justify torture. If we have time to send them to another country, the information isn't so crucial as a 'ticking bomb'.
Fourth, torture is rarely more effective than other interrogation techniques. Why open ourselves up to such horrors without even a payoff?
Fifth, for those not convinced by the above, it is politically stupid. This plays into all the left-wing fears about conservative blindness to the problems of the justice system. It makes all the whining about a 'police state' look a bit less crazy. It provides a perfect example of willingness to abandon our country's principles in the war on terrorism. Voters want tough, but they do not want crazy. We are at a crucial stage in a vital campaign. Throwing it all away by playing into every swing voter's concerns about Republicans possibly going too far is just plain stupid. So if your heart is hardened to the moral implications, at least pay attention to the political implications.
My message to Republican leaders is this, either listen to the moral implications, or at least learn Dan Rather's lesson. The blogosphere is beginning to focus its attention on this issue. Look at the number of trackbacks to katherine's post. It isn't just going away. Put it to rest now. Admit that you hadn't fully thought through the implications of this small section of the bill and move on. It would be the height of foolishness to risk the American public's backing for the War on Terror on a practice which is both highly immoral and typically unhelpful. We are going to have to steel the public's nerves for a lot of things to come in the future. It would be a shame to waste time and energy defending the unhelpful and indefensible instead of dealing with other issues which are highly useful to the war and merely tough to defend.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2004 03:33 AM | TrackBack (1)President Bush is backing this measure. President Bush said he would not observe the Geneva Convention rules regarding treatment of prisoners when those prisoners are terrorists. President views anyone fighting American troops as terrorists, which is why he does not distinguish between Iraqi insurgents and terrorists, the former making up most of our enemies and the latter a much smaller part with very different tactics.
Abu Ghraib, as I have written before, was a direct result of Whitehouse leadership on this issue, and torture sanctioned by the U.S. continues with this HR 10 supported by the Whitehouse.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2004 04:08 AMI commend you, Sebastian, for defying the party line so righteously. I don’t understand how any American, particularly an elected official, can even *consider* torture as American policy.
You forgot to mention how an American policy favoring (or even condoning) torture undermines America’s role as the gold standard in the world for human rights, modern values, and moral superiority. And when we undermine our own position as the most humane and just nation in the world, it becomes easier for our enemies to justify and get support for their attacks on us.
I often wonder how the insurgent situation in Iraq would differ if Bush was outspoken in condemning torture, for example if he condemned his own legal counsel and the Justice Department for having such poor judgement that they actually prepared legal briefs defending torture, or if he fired every general and officer even remotely associated with Abu Ghraib. I also wonder: if Bush had been outspoken in opposition to torture from the very beginning, would Abu Ghraib have even happened at all?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 30, 2004 05:21 AMI hate to tell you this but this Support of Torture has been in place BEFORE Gitmo and Abu Graib. I distinctly remember watching Fox News a few months after 911 when they reported the capture of suspects in Pakistan. The female anchor (A blond) mentioned that the US will let the Pakistanis interrogate the suspects and the male said Pakistan had a reputation for “creativity”. Then they both WINKED at each other!!! In Live TV Broadcast around the world!!! I remember the despair I felt. That was when I became anti-Bush. Thinking back on it, that must have been what the ancient Romans looked like when they sent people to be killed by Lions. Being less than human under a veneer of civilization. When did we become this? Was it always there or is it like the Flu that comes with the season?
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at September 30, 2004 08:05 AMAldous… while it is true that we have used “extraordinary rendition” before, as far as I know this is the first time the practice has been enshrined in law. It’s utterly disheartening that this has been attached to the 9/11 recommendations bill.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at September 30, 2004 10:07 AMHow can the U.S. foster toruture in HR 10 and at the same time prosecute, convict, and inprison our own American troops for engaging in torture with perceived approval by command? Is it any wonder people’s of the world are losing trust in the U.S. and view this administration as arrogantly above the rules of either international law or logic and consistency? Our troops being imprisoned for what their Commander in Chief supports is absolutely abhorrent to me.
“President Bush said he would not observe the Geneva Convention rules regarding treatment of prisoners when those prisoners are terrorists.”
Lack of Geneva Convention treatment is not the same as torture, not by a long shot.
“Aldous… while it is true that we have used “extraordinary rendition” before, as far as I know this is the first time the practice has been enshrined in law.”
I believe this is true, and it is the reason I make such a big deal about how we go push past the lines we draw.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2004 10:32 AMI remember Richard Clarke saying something in his book about how certain provisions in the Patriot Act have become counterproductive to the cause of counterterrorism, because they sour the public towards legitimately tough measures against terrorists. I think this could be a perfect example of that.
It’s a simple principle really, and we both get it: America must practice what it preaches when it comes to human rights, or else be hypocrites in front of the rest of the world.
I must disagree with you on the Geneva convention point, though, because that convention deals specificially with the laws of war, and how prisoners of wars are kept. It was Bush’s denial of that convention in regards to terrorists that lead to the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2004 12:18 PMThere aren’t that many comments on this thread yet, but I’m still surprised there are no Republicans weighing in on why Bush is right to back this bill. I’d honestly like to hear from someone who feels torture can be justified.
Posted by: Alejo at September 30, 2004 04:35 PMI often wonder how the insurgent situation in Iraq would differ if Bush was outspoken in condemning torture, for example if he condemned his own legal counsel and the Justice Department for having such poor judgement that they actually prepared legal briefs defending torture, or if he fired every general and officer even remotely associated with Abu Ghraib. I also wonder: if Bush had been outspoken in opposition to torture from the very beginning, would Abu Ghraib have even happened at all?
Personally, I find Abu Ghraib and its spinoffs almost as upsetting as 9/11 - and that that it’s an even bigger blot on Bush’s record, that this complete failure of “moral clarity” happened on his watch.
Posted by: William Cohen at September 30, 2004 05:48 PMSebastian,
I’m glad you posted this. Principled conservatism is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: John-Paul Pagano at October 1, 2004 02:09 AMWhy is it that so few Conservatives have added to this thread? Martin? A response?
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at October 1, 2004 10:22 PMThere is a homan foilable here. Many Americans are angry over 9/11 and the videos of the beheading of innocent captives. Justifiably so.
There have been times in our history where torture and even genocide has been sanctioned. But i wonder aloud are those times that make us proud?
I myself recently, when a trial of some gangs in Houston who raped and killed two 14 year girls, noted that one of the parents of the victims was a rather large and strong man compared to the rather short gang leader on trial. My suggestion was that this man be given a baseball bat and be left alone in a room with the creep who commited this crime. To some extent, I still believe this would have been justice. The gang member was sentenced to death.
I believe that most wars involve at times the use of torture. It is a time when society seems to sanction out of bounds behavior. That is one of the insanities of war.
For our legislature to introduce this bill is to me a sign of the depths of depravity to which we have fallen. Those that fail to speak out against this have lost their moral compass and should look deeply within their own hearts and should look to their God.
No one who supports this should be called a patriot, in my opinion.
Posted by: Greg at October 2, 2004 03:41 PM
