I keep reading reports that the veracity of information gleaned from torture is tenuous at best. So I wonder what's the point when you can't even be sure of the information, and someone being tortured will tell you whatever you want to hear?
That reminds of a great scene in Dr. Strangelove:
General Jack D. Ripper: Were you ever a prisoner of war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well, yes I was, matter of fact, Jack, I was.
General Jack D. Ripper: Did they torture you?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, yes they did. I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, what happened?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Oh, well, I don't know, Jack, difficult to think of under these conditions; but, well, what happened was they got me on the old Rangoon-Ichinawa railway. I was laying train lines for the bloody Japanese puff-puff's.
General Jack D. Ripper: No, I mean when they tortured you did you talk?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
And it makes me think of Abu Ghraib, of torture and humiliation just for the fun of it. And if you think that was an exception rather than the norm.....
What is it that separates us from the enemy? Does the high road of "Freedom and Democracy" preclude torture? Is it all a bunch of hooey? Are we--as a country and as individuals--entitled to do whatever it takes to maintain our way of life and our bank accounts? Is there anything or anyone that we should answer to other than our own sense of survival?
A friend posed this question in a recent email:
Is it better to stand by your morals and die or to forget about your morals and live?
I'm not sure. In the post 9/11 model, where the Mob Mentality rules, 24 is the new Capra. Torture is not only okay; the torturer is the hero. The bad guy has the accent (and dark skin, usually, though I noticed a token Slav or Russian thrown in just for the sake of sentimentality).
It's sad that this is what we call entertainment, because it perpetuates that myth of the game of inches.
Morals are tricky, aren't they? That's the whole problem with The Rule of Law, I guess. It attempts to impose a set of values to separate us from animals and savages, but in any given situation, it can be exceedingly difficult not to become a savage. Especially when anger and fear are involved.
It's very murky. And it's also very easy to pose theoreticals as to How It Should Be when you're not standing in the shoes of the other guy. And standing in the shoes of the other guy, well, that's tricky, too. If we were born in Gaza or North Korea or Kabul, or if we were in Al Queda, or the Taliban, or...you name the "enemy"....would we not believe that we were fighting for "Right?" And that America is the villain? They are no more cartoons than we are, yet we picture them as such, and take umbrage when they do the same.
But we're not in the Taliban. We're in America...and we want to survive, we want to keep our way of life (myself included, though I know some would believe otherwise), so we frame our perspective accordingly. We only know what we have been taught to believe. It's only natural to believe that we are right.
The murkiness...reminds me of something else that happened recently. A conservative court struck down the death penalty for the rape of a child. I was surprised by their decision, proud of it, and agreed with it, though that agreement is based on intellect rather than emotion. Emotionally, my reaction would be to kill any bastard who rapes a child, but as soon as I let myself feel that, I begin to see the folly of my ways: 1) An assumption of guilt (what if the rapist is not actually the rapist? How many people have they released from prison in Texas just from the cases in Dallas County that were reopened with DNA evidence?); 2) the realization that death is not an equal punishment for rape; 3) the question of whether death is an equal punishment for anything, and who has the right to kill another, even in the name of "justice?"
That said, if someone ever did something like that to my daughter or to anyone I loved, I would probably kill them with my bare hands given the chance. I would not care about what happened to me. I probably would not even care if I had the right guy. I would want revenge.
And then I am reminded again why there is the Rule of Law. It is not only to protect me from criminals, but to protect "criminals" from me.
I listened with horror last night to the tape recordings of some yahoo in Texas who shot two burglars in the back. He's a murderer. He should be tried as such. But a grand jury decided not to charge him with anything. And some people are calling him a hero. Is that what this country has sunk to? If those clowns were breaking into his house, threatening his life, then I would applaud him if he blew their heads off. But the fact that they had robbed the house next door, not posed any threat to this redneck, were unarmed, and were leaving the scene.....sorry, but that does not allow this guy to become judge, jury, and executioner. The fact that he got away with it speaks volumes and is terribly saddening to me.
That doesn't mean I support burglars any more than I support terrorists. But what is justice and what do we stand for? What is the rule of law? Where do we draw the line? When does restraint supercede righteousness? Just how full of shit are we?
The moral high road is a much more difficult path to take than the road that panders to our fears, but I feel we are on the latter, and it leads to a dark place.
Not that long ago, it was the communists who were going to destroy our way of life. The Soviets were evil caricatures who would kill us all given the opportunity. History, or course, did not bear that out, and while those who currently seek the demise of America are indeed a different kind of enemy, they are not the enemy that is painted for us by neocons and warmongers, nor the threat that those individuals would have us believe.
Here's part of a speech that Kennedy made a few months before he was killed. I think it is just as salient today. Insert "Iran" or "Aabs" or your choice of evildoer for "Soviet Union" and you will see what I mean:
I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.
Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a Nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And ...every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the cold war and towards freedom and peace here at home.
First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process -- a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it.
And second, let us reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent, authoritative Soviet text on military strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of war, that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union, and that the political aims -- and I quote -- "of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth."
Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal.
If you made it this far, kudos. I'll sign off with Chris Hitchens getting waterboarded....
Posts
