Torture

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 14:54:38 PM MST

Take torture. Once a condemned practice in this country, it's now being used by U.S. officials. The fact that I even have to write this post attacking torture is an indication of how President Bush has misused his office, contaminated the rule of law, and set an ugly precedent for executives that follow.

Unfortunately, torture has entered the national debate. It's no longer how do we stop torture worldwide, it's when can we use it? It's no longer done in secret or with shame, but shouted out on a national stage and met with raucous cheers.

Lately there's been some interesting articles and posts on the topic. It's as if the collective knowledge of our crimes has begun to bubble to the surface, like a splinter working its way from the flesh.

And still the case against torture is clear.

Torture is immoral:

The baseline problem with torture, after all, is that it is prima facie immoral, a violation not just of the Golden Rule and basic Christian precepts, but of nearly any system of ethics. Even the most hard-nosed rationalist will come to this conclusion (see, e.g., Kant's Categorical Imperative). It's an obvious one if you're a Christian.

All you have to present to any Christian, when it comes to torture, is their own favorite moral-guidepost aphorism: What Would Jesus Do?

To anyone familiar not just with Jesus' teachings but the story of his martyrdom -- including his torture at the hands of authorities -- the answer is crystal clear.

Torture is un-American:

The reason that it is news that the U.S. tortures, but not news that Al Qaeda does, is because Al Qaeda is a barbaric and savage terrorist group which operates with no limits, whereas the U.S. is supposed to be something different than that. Isn't it amazing that one even needs to point that out?

Torture does not work:

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says [military intelligence specialist Army Col. Stuart] Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Torture is bad for the torturers. Though color me a tad unsympathetic.

And speaking of torture, the latest news to hit the wires is that all charges were dropped against an alleged terrorist held at Guantánamo. Apparently alleged al Qaeda member, Omar Khadr, had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier, and only "unlawful" enemy combatants can be tried by the Congressionally approved military tribunals.

The administration is playing the judgment up as a legal technicality. And it very well may be. If anything, the fact that Gitmo detainees were held outside the system may end up helping them legally, as the administration seems to have muffed up prosecutorial matters in its haste to stick the prisoners in its special camp.

Of course, the administration isn't going to let these guys go. They'll keep changing the rules and the charges until they find some way to convict the detainees:

Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, head of the Guantanamo defense attorneys, said the dismissal in the Khadr case would have "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

"It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

That's the real danger, isn't it? That the legal system will become suspect, untrustworthy. You can't expect a people to submit to arbitrary rule...