Torture for Political Gain

Torture to cover up flawed policy? (4.00 / 1)

It's amazing how this story has been twisted so much in recent days.

Republicans are demanding that Pelosi step down from her position because of what they say she knew.  If they accomplish this it would be striking that the only person to pay any political cost for torture would be Pelosi!  Has any Republican - you know the team that actually perpetrated these crimes - paid any price equivalent to what they want to do to Pelosi?  Rove, Cheny, Libby, Bush, Yoo, etc.  have had to pay nothing and they're the ones who did it!  Outrageous.  And there's Cheney saying "I did it and I'm glad I did" and the press buys it, as if his position deserves to be considered one of many reasonable pro or con positions about torture.  How far this country has sunk.  

The second twist is the emergence of the argument that if it works, then it's OK.  Sorry, it's wrong no matter what information is derived.  It's wrong because it gives permission to any other state or person to do the exact same crime.  The clip shown here makes a tremendously helpful point that this torture was not done to extract information to stop an impending terrorist attack (a la Jack Bauer or Dirty Harry) - it was done to try to create a link between Sadaam Hussein and Al Queda to justify an invasion that had already taken place.  Anyone with a half of a semester in world religion or political science would know that Hussein and Bin Laden had completely different perspectives: one was totally secular and the other fundamentalist.  They had virtually nothing in common.  But Bush sold the concept of a link between the two as justification for the invasion of Iraq.  One of the biggest lies ever.  So, of course, Cheney et al had to find a link at any cost, and that cost was torture.  There was nothing even remotely noble or virtuous about this torture, it was for cheap politcal cover for a bad war that was unraveling.  So let's take "it worked" off the table as one of the most morally bankrupt statements of our time.

The third twist is the idea that we can somehow resist looking into the details of torture that was done by the USA.  I commend the President for declaring - at the outset of his term - that torture will no longer be done.  This was especially commendable because the President in effect admitted what Bush and his cronies had denied in spite of the evidence - torture was authorized by the highest levels of government.  I object to hiding photos or any information about anything that was done.  This government must be totally transparent about what torture was done.  We can argue about who should be punished or not, but we have to be totally honest about what was done.  If we hold back anything, we are giving other governments permission to hide what they have done.  I understand the issue of protecting people in military service from vengeful attacks related to any photos that might be released.  This simply underscores the fact that torture always puts military personnel and Americans abroad in danger.  Those who would wish to enhance the safety of these people in danger zones ought to have realized this before torture was permitted, not after.  The only way to recover the moral high ground that this country has lost over the issue of torture (not just with enemies, but with our allies!) requires total transparency.  "Let's move on" is not a conclusion that works with assault, robbery, murder, rape or other serious crimes, and it does not apply to torture either.  

The fourth twist is the vocabulary.  Waterboarding is torture, and the USA signed off on that fact decades ago.  The Bush gang says with a straight face that waterboarding is not torture, that it is an "enhanced interrogation technique", and this supposed distinction is still given legs in the media.  What rot!  Mukasey couldn't even bring himself to admit that waterboarding is torture in his nomination hearing even though it is a matter of fact in international treaties signed by the US.  I have spoken with friends of mine who conclude that waterboarding is not really torture because no one died, as if to say that there is "good torture" (what we do) and "bad torture" (what our enemies do.  If we make this distinction, then we are giving permission for the whole world to make the same distinction, too, except that our people might not be considered good guys if we're someone else's enemy!  

My final comment.  I handed Rep. Christopher Lee a letter asking him his position on these matters at the end of January.  No response, even though his aide on the scene said that "quick turn around" from Lee's office would be a stark contrast to the 9 to 12 month response time of Rep, Reynolds.  I have since spoken to two of his aides who promised a quick response.  We're now coming up on four months without a response, which now gets us into the unresponsive territory previously demonstrated by Reynolds.  

Thanks for the space to offer these coments.  I don't usually carry on like this, but I'm really ticked off as you can see!

---

by: Jim in Holley @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 03:50:29 AM UTC

The question nobody is asking... (0.00 / 0)

If knowing about torture is enough reason to call on Pelosi to resign, what do the Republicans think should be done about the people who ordered it?  

---

by: Adama @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 16:18:55 PM UTC

It's not that she knew (0.00 / 0)

the Republicans are trying to destroy her because she dare accuse the CIA of lying...the great wonderful patriotic CIA!  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:19:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]