If torture is not effective, and if it does not work, and/or if it is used as a form of punishment, then, by all means, it should be outlawed.
If it is effective, then, of course we should engage in torture. It could provide valuable intelligence that will save American lives, and there is a certain strategic advantage if our enemies must consider the possibility they can be tortured to reveal information.
If we were to outlaw and criminalize torture, as is proposed, our credibility would be destroyed, and the old perceptions that we are weak, that we do not have the stomach to defended ourselves, and that we can be defeated, will prevail. We will be back to our pre-9/11 credibility, which was close to zero.
Our enemies would think that we are foolish, and would laugh at us as they beheaded yet another American, or planted yet another roadside bomb that kills our soldiers, or bomb our embassies, and our ships, etc, etc.
We should want our enemies to fear us; not laugh at us. We want our enemies to believe that we will destroy them, and not treat them with the kid gloves that these proposals would bring.
How much fear would our enemy have if they knew that, at the worst, they may be gently interrogated, and then imprisoned in this country, if they attack us ? Is imprisonment a severe punishment ? If an enemy knows that they may be tortured, and that they may be forced to reveal information, it has to affect their actions, and their strategy.
It is the same argument I would use for needing the death penalty in this country. Suppose that the Death Penalty were abolished in the United States, and that the most severe punishment is life imprisonment without possibility of parole. That means that every criminal who is serving a life sentence is free to kill another person, whether it be another prisoner, or a guard, or whomever, without punishment. There is only one life sentence; multiple life sentences are impossible. A murder would go unpunished.
There is an obvious deterrent in having the ultimate penalty of death.
And the same holds true for torture. Our enemies would be delighted to know that we would not torture them, and they would relish the thought that they could actually bring suit against those who might torture them illegally.
I don’t think we should discount the deterrent effect of at least having the option of torturing our enemy.
If torture is outlawed, then we might as well stop interrogating the enemy, because, eventually, liberal bias will redefine torture until even the slighted bit of discomfort is seen as torture. Such tactics as sleep deprivation, or playing loud music, or even talking to a prisoner, will be redefined as torture.
Outlawing torture will tie the hands of our protectors, including the President, and will ultimately result in the death of Americans.
Americans are not a dispassionate people, and we really don’t want to harm our fellow humans. From my own experience, I believe that most of us are not pacifist, either; we do understand that we need to protect ourselves, and our families, and our way of life, and it would be suicide if we did not protect ourselves. We have to be practical; we must have a way to protect, and defend ourselves, even if it means torturing our enemies.
For those of you who are so against torture, are you willing to see your children, and your wives, and your husbands, and your friends and relatives unceremoniously killed by terrorists who strive every day to do so, and who have no boundaries, and no compunction against doing so, and who have to account to no one, not even their God ?
If it were your loved one in the World Trade Center on 9/11, would you be able to sleep knowing the terror, and the torture, that they experienced when they were trapped in the Towers, as airplanes crashed into them, and as they came down ?
It would be nice if we didn’t have to torture our enemies, and maybe in the future we’ll develop some other methods that are effective, but not painful; drugs, maybe. But my guess is, those self-same people who are so against torture, would still decry the inhumanity of using drugs; the least bit of discomfort is torture in their eyes.
It would be nice if we could simply capture our enemies, and then ask them questions, and receive honest answers, but, that is not going to happen. If we lived in that kind of Pollyannaish world, then we really wouldn’t have to worry about our enemies, because we wouldn’t have any. But, that will never happen; not even if mankind survives for another 10,000 years.
If would be immoral for us to not torture an enemy if it will gain important intelligence that will save American lives, and our way of life. If we had a terrorist under our control, who had intelligence about an impending nuclear attack on New York, or Los Angeles, would we really want to forgo torturing this individual, and cause the annihilation of millions of Americans, to say nothing of the our overall way of life, because we are a compassionate people ?
If we could have avoided the tragedy of 9/11 by torture, would we not do it ?
Even the greatest pacifist will torture, or kill, to protect himself, and/or his family.
If torture is legal, and effective, I think it should be closely controlled and monitored. It would be immoral to do otherwise; we can’t let run amok. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration, along with support from the Congress, researched, and complied with our laws. The evidence is that the administration went to great lengths, at the highest levels, to ensure that the torture of an individual was absolutely necessary. And we are told that it was effective at preventing other attacks, and the deaths of Americans.
The notion that I hear so much, that the Bush people were simply awful, blood-thirsty individuals, who loved to torture, and kill, smacks of the still ongoing rage and hatred directed at Bush . On it’s face, it makes no sense. There is absolutely no evidence that the big ‘they’ are a group of thugs, bent on feeding their blood thirst by torturing, and killing innocents.
To his credit, President Obama originally closed the door on pursuing and prosecuting Bush administration officials who were involved in torture, but California Senator Feinstein, and California Assemblywoman Pelosi, among others, I’m sure, convinced the President to leave the door open to prosecutions. (This is looks like politics at it’s worst, and is yet another reason to be an Angry Californian.)
Pelosi, wants a so-called Truth Commission to investigate wrong-doing, which is ironic since she seems to be veracity-challenged at the moment, and Feinstein is doing her own investigations through her role as chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
I wish I could ask California Senators Feinstein, and California Assemblywoman Pelosi, what they would do if it were their responsibility to decide whether they would sacrifice the city of San Francisco, rather than torture the enemy to prevent it.
President Obama failed the leadership test, on this one, but passed the political intelligence test. Good leadership would have closed the door on the notion of pursuing and prosecuting officials of the former administration. It is a crazy idea, and Democrats will rue the day because, like it or not, they will not always be in power, and paybacks are tough.
The President does get an A+, for political savviness. President Obama knows full well that none of these investigations will not lead to a single prosecution. But he also knows that process, the prospect of hearings, and reports, and news coverage, etc, etc, will keep the hatred of Bush alive, and will keep his base of support, strong.
To myself, who has been around the block more than once, this appears to be a familiar smoke screen intended to divert attention from the real problems at hand.
These investigations may backfire on President Obama. If torture is absolutely outlawed, as seems to be the intent, then he may, some day, God forbid, be in the uncomfortable position of having to decide on how best to protect millions of American lives, without breaking the law.
And that’s my opinion.
Spencer Holly, AngryCalifornian
www.angrycalifornian.com
