This is one hot topic. It seems like everyone wants to chime in, so of course I will too. There are so many problems with this debate that it is hard to know where to start. First, is the problem of defining torture. Second, is defining the rationale behind these interrogation techniques. Is the only question really whether or not we extracted useful information from suspected terrorists? Finally, we are seeing a fundamental debate whether or not constitutional privileges should be extended to non-US citizens. Of course, the main stream media sets the premise of the debate, as they always do, as if some of these issues are not debatable. I disagree.When you imagine some of the most horrific means of torture human beings have been subjected to, ask yourself these questions- is it possible to to endure any of them without long-term physical repercussions? It it possible to endure any of them repeatedly without dying? Most probably the answer is no.
Encarta dictionary defines torture as the "infliction of extreme physical pain." The issue with waterboarding, and other similar techniques, is that there is no extreme physical pain nor lasting damage. They are, in fact, means of inflicting psychological pain rather than physical pain. Reports of suspected terrorists being waterboarded several times a day for weeks on end (and living to tell about it) proves that it really isn't dangerous nor fall under the text book definition of torture. I argue, therefore, that waterboarding is not torture in the terms that were enunciated by our founding fathers. Surely, having tasted the brutality of the British Empire, they understood real torture in a way that we can only imagine. I even think they would laugh at the idea of waterboarding being torture.
The FBI and the CIA seem to contradict each other in terms of the effectiveness of waterboarding. The question of whether or not we are getting good information through the implication of these techniques is important and should be asked. I argue, however, that we should be asking more. Every manager knows that sometimes you have to fire an employee for even a small infraction in order to send an important message to his/her organization. What type of message do we want to send to people all over the world who would seek to destroy us? These people would kill our friends, our spouses, and even our children if they had the chance. When they watch us debate over whether or not splashing water in their faces is OK, I think they too must be laughing at us. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to cut our heads off if they could. And they have, at least to our brave soldiers.
Finally, are we obligated to offer constitutional privileges to every human being on the planet? I don't think so. Here is my reasoning. The United States stands as a beacon of hope to the world and an example to all other nations. Since this country was formed, we have extended welcoming arms to people everywhere. We ask very little from those who seek our country to provide a better life for their families. We ask that they learn English, that they be prepared to work hard and embrace our values, and that they enter this country legally. And by doing so we seek to extend our constitutional privileges to everyone, but those privileges have always come with a price. What rights do those who have done nothing to earn those privileges, and in fact seek to destroy those very privileges for the rest of have? None. It seems to me that those who believe that breaking the law is the same as trying to destroy the institution that creates the law are very naive.
In short, I don't have a problem with waterboarding. I know there are those who think we should all experience it before we say that, but here is the thing: I am not a suspected terrorist involved with evil organizations. Have we ever asked those who support capital punishment to experience it themselves? Do we force supporters of new prisons to spend a few years in jail? No! So don't be ridiculous. It is so easy for some to stand up and proclaim moral superiority by attacking the people who try to make us safe, but when that day comes that we have legitimate evidence that the next September 11 is on the verge of happening and we have in custody someone with suspected information, what wouldn't you do to get that information? It's time we start using some common sense.
1 comment:
If you want to get down to it, I like asking the question, "What would justify torture?" We have decided as a society that murder is acceptable if it is in self-defense or the defense of the lives of others. If we have decided that murder is ok for defending a life, then we must accept the idea of torturing someone to save a life. Now, I'm not saying that we should chop off limbs or conduct gross scientific experiments on people, but if we believe that even one American life can be saved by waterboarding a terrorist, it is impossible to condemn the practice. Morally, waterboarding to save lives is a simple decision; if you don't waterboard, you are essentially allowing a murder to happen.
Internationally, it is hard to argue that waterboarding violates torture rules. People have said that the Geneva Convention prohibits waterboarding. These people have not read the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." Part II Article 13 states in its entirety, "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Waterboarding isn't mutilation or an experiment, nor is it violent nor intimidating nor insulting nor a measure of reprisal, nor does it kill or seriously injure the subject. The closest you can get to claiming this passage prohibits waterboarding is that all prisoners must be "humanely treated." That is a very open and vague phrase, and given some of the other practices specifically stated, it would be difficult to put waterboarding on a similar level of cruelty.
The best part is that these terrorists are not considered prisoners of war by this very same Geneva Convention. Part I Article 4 lays out who is considered a prisoner of war which status is conditioned upon things like carrying arms openly, being easily recognizable as an enemy from a distance, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. These terrorists fail a number of these qualifications, and therefore cannot be considered prisoners of war.
I will probably never advocate the use of harsh torture techniques on anyone, but something as mild as waterboarding (something we use to train our own military) should definitely be used to help secure our safety.
Post a Comment