Friday, December 16, 2005
Torture: The Otter Slide To Hell
I've discovered that the use of torture by the U.S. government is far more pervasive than previously believed. There are major facilities all over the country where thousands of men and women who have not committed any crime are held for prolonged periods while subjected to physical and psychological coercion that violates every tenet of the Geneva Convention.
They are routinely made to stand for long periods in uncomfortable positions. They are made to walk for hours while wearing heavy loads on their backs. They are bullied by martinets who get in their faces and yell insults at them. They are hit and often knocked down with clubs ... They are denied sleep for more than a day at a time. They are forced to inhale tear gas. They are prevented from seeing friends or family. Some are traumatized by this treatment. Others are injured. A few even die.
Sadly, the screeching of Reich-wing torture apologists continues on unabated as they seek to pull the frilly panties of neocon illogic over the head of John Q. Public:
Just talked to James Schlesinger, former secretary of everything. He can't be smeared as a right-wing Bush apologist or “pro-torture.” In fact, his report on Abu Ghraib is often cited by supporters of the McCain amendment.
He says the fall-out from Abu Ghraib has already limited our intelligence take: “We’ve already had a chilling effect on interrogations going on out there in the field.” He meant “chilling effect” in the sense that liberals use it--the tamping down of legitimate practices because of a crack-down on something else. He says it is now our rule to release anyone we catch in Iraq in three weeks unless we get them to confess to something. Detainees know how to game the system: “Don’t say anything for three weeks and they’ll release you.” He says the McCain Amendment will write this chilling effect into law: “It is likely to codify the inhibitions on interrogations”
Further, he says because of the McCain amendment, “We are going to extend Geneva rights to terrorists. That’s what we fought off in the Reagan Years in Protocol I. Now we’re going to legislate it.” This is absurd. “It’s appalling,” he says. And he makes a basic point: “The purpose of the Convention was to protect civilians. These people blow up civilians and we’re going to treat them as POW’s—it’s directly contrary to the Geneva Convention.”
Rumor has it Mr. Schlesinger will not be invited to Andrew Sullivan's next little soiree.
The point often made by the so-called 'anti-torture' crowd is that there is a slippery slope: if you allow "borderline practices" such as stress positions, then due to human nature people will push the envelope and we will spill over into worse things like outright torture.
This strikes me as a moronic position, because this spillover effect cuts both ways.
Rules exist for two reasons: first and foremost, to let everyone know where the line is drawn. But if everyone voluntarily obeyed rules, we wouldn't need the second part: enforcement, training, and organizational support to ensure compliance. So rules tend to proliferate: for every top-level rule that gets handed down, multiple rules are made downstream, each of which (especially in a military environment) tends to generate an aura with its own emanation and before you know it we're enduring the horror that is Night Of The Living Penumbras and no one can remember what the original offense was.
Clearly a line needs to be drawn. But casting anyone who wants to draw that line thoughtfully as "pro-torture" just because they want to stop and think through the practical implications of using an Army Field Manual that can be amended without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress as the basis for our national policy on torture strikes me as not only anti-democratic but a shirking of Congress' duty to seriously consider this issue. For some unknown reason Congress has, after the "horrors" of Abu Ghuraib, decided to waive civilian control over the military and put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Well isn't that special. This is something that must make even descendants of traditionally military families like myself extremely nervous.
Once more McCain is grandstanding and because he's a Vietnam veteran he's being given a pass. Any time Congress votes 90-9 on an issue, we're not seeing careful consideration, but a rush to judgment. In the end, this is likely to turn out just like the Patriot Act vote: wildly popular at the time and just as soon regretted when they wake up the next day and find the Army Field Manual looked a lot prettier at closing time and al Qaeda doesn't even respect them in the morning.
Way too funny: Grim reads my mind.
2 Comments:
By 
Pile On®, at
Fri Dec 16, 10:17:00 PM:
I agree here, but let me tell you,if I ever meet someone who is secretary of everything....I am going to tell him or her to get me a fu**ing cup of coffee.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Dec 17, 07:40:00 AM:
I thought that was a pretty good like too.
I am just aghast that there isn't more thoughtful debate about this - this and the Patriot Act. It just seems that all the hand-wringing, when all is said and done, is for the TV cameras and no one really cares enough about either issue to really sit down and hash out what is really acceptible to the American people in terms of trade-offs when it comes to keeping them secure.
And *that*, as I pointed out on more than one occasion, points up the ultimate insanity of even having a 9/11 commission in the first place. We never did decide what in the heck we're willing to give up, to be safe, as a society. And unless and until we make that decision, the rest is moot. I've always maintained we're not willing to give up *anything*, so all this talk about how we're STILL NOT SAFE!!!!!!! 4 years after 9/11 is just a bunch of crap.
Of course we're still not safe. We're not willing to change the way we live, and we never will be unless we get attacked again. And even if we get attacked again, we won't be willing to change for long. As soon as the pain wears off, so will our willingness to put up with inconvenience.
