"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
John McCain and the Politics of Torture
By Gary Krasner (11/21/05)
It must be said finally, that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is a cynical opportunist---a trait I suspect which rewards many pols with the joy of incumbency. In the case of McCain, it seems one must offer an obligatory concession that he was a courageous war hero, before daring to criticize his policy recommendations concerning the war on militant Islamists. So consider that said as well.
McCain's legislation---which would require the CIA and other civilian intelligence agencies to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Conduct (UCMC) with respect to the treatment of captured enemy combatants---is the sort of political grandstanding custom-made to attract support from spineless politicians, and for low-grade political opportunists to propose and hustle before the public.
Why? Because you're guaranteed that few legislators will wish to be labeled, "supporters of torture." (Just like there are no legislators courageous enough to admit to being an atheist.) We saw that this week by the lopsided 90-9 Senate vote in favor of his bill. On November 18th, former CIA Director Adm. Stansfield Turner toured the cable talk shows plugging his new book, and calling Dick Cheney, "the Vice President of Torture." This is partly why the Administration is the only one exhibiting any degree of 'profiles in courage' on this issue.
McCain's bill is also the sort of foolishness that's rarely challenged when proposed by war heroes like himself. Apparently, if you served in Vietnam, or sat in a prison camp for years, then you're an expert in the war against militant Islam. If you were ever tortured, then you're an expert on the Geneva Convention and when it applies. With Representative John Murtha's (D-PA) announcing on Nov. 17th that U.S. troops should immediately withdraw from Iraq (although he voted against such a resolution when the Republicans offered it up), the liberal mainstream media has another "military man" they can showcase. There must be thousands more people in the military, in thinktanks, in Congress, and veterans who like-wise served honorably, but who support the administration's policy. I suppose the few who do not must seem like "man bites dog" news to them. Yet editorially, it amounts to very unbalanced coverage.
The Legal Rationale
With that said, the justifications that McCain cites for his legislation are easily rebutted. But before I do that, I'll explain in this section one aspect of the rules of war that concerns torture and the rights of prisoners. Because the whole issue concerning the rules of war goes far deeper than whether or not combatants wear uniforms or insignias, or hold military ranks (etc.). Indeed, it goes the heart of the issue of how jihadist detainees should be treated, to wit:
A sovereign nation will, and can, confirm that yes, you captured one of our combatants and we expect he'll be treated according to 'Geneva'. By contrast, Al Qaeda and their combatants do not admit to being members of ANY army, let alone to one bent on our destruction by force of arms. The jihadist "armies" go to great lengths to conceal combatants' affiliation and identities. On that one aspect alone (there are others), the three-man military tribunal to determine whether or not someone is a combattant (pursuant to 'Geneva') is sufficient and justified, and extending due process and habeas corpus proceedings---to the degree they're applied in DOMESTIC criminal defendants in civilian courts---is neither justified nor reasonable.
Why is identification (minimally, name, rank and serial#) of combatants a pivotal point in the debate? Two reasons:
A -- Militant jihadists rely upon covert operations as their sole military tactic. That tactic is to remain anonymous and infiltrate undetected into our population to perpetrate sabotage and assassinations. Congress and the President are therefore free of 'Geneva' constraints from permitting this disadvantage---conceived by our enemy---to constrain its primary function as a government---to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic threats. And that includes setting special conditions under which the Uniform Code of Military Conduct will and will not apply to such detainees. Because applying stress, or even torture, under certain circumstances, may be deemed the most effective method to gain intelligence---both to prevent attacks, and to identify and capture other covert enemy combatants.
B -- Nations engaged in armed conflict have the right to know when hostilities have officially ended. To that end, when participants (and signatories to the Geneva Convention) in an armed conflict agree to terminate or suspend the conflict, they're required to deactivate and decommission their armed combatants. Unlike jihadist organizations, these sovereign nations possess land, and have governments (with an address) that can legally institute and enforce mandates on its citizenry. (Indeed, that is why only sovereign nations can be signatories to 'Geneva'.) In other words, we can return captured detainees to their nation's government with the complete assurance that these former detainees will not attack us again, and that it will be possible to sanction a government that fails in this responsibility.
Obviously, there's no likelihood---let alone assurance---that militant Muslim extremists would be willing to disband and deactivate, even in the unlikely event that some government or organization came forward and volunteered to accept that responsibility. For the militants, this is a struggle to the death. People like McCain need to accept that this must be a struggle, TO THEIR DEATHS. There must be no attempts at fair play with these religious psychopaths, especially merely to curry favor from resentful and jealous lesser powers who threaten to withhold their love for us when they deem us insufficiently humane. All the liberals who think that President Bush is responsible for the world losing its respect and admiration for the US should be reminded of the terrible receptions that President Clinton used to receive abroad. They're ignorant of history. All empires were fiercely hated.
The Practical Rationale
This brings us to why Senator McCain's "no torture" policy commitment is both cynical and foolish. I'll delineate four reasons:
1 -- First, we are dealing with an enemy that studies all of our published materials. They will study the UCMC and train their men to resist the stress and psychological tricks of our interrogators. Any interrogator will tell you that detainees who are prepared for the techniques and treatment they are to receive will usually remain noncompliant and yield no valuable information. Those who are not will more likely succumb to the interrogations.
2 -- McCain, his bill sponsors, and liberals frequently assert that if the U.S. asserts it's right to abuse, stress, or even torture captured terrorists, then U.S. troops will be at risk of receiving the same fate from our enemy if they're captured (through some sort of retaliatory motives, we must assume). This is patently false and illogical. The U.S. would never and has never asserted the right to violate the Geneva Convention protections of any combattant of any sovereign nation---whether or not that nation is even a signatory. (A sovereign nation is the only enemy that we would ever expect would reciprocate with humane treatment towards the troops they captured.) That leaves only the stateless militant islamists. These are the only types of combatants that the U.S. has reserved the right to stress, and in extreme instances, torture. And there's no evidence that this enemy has, or ever will, reciprocate with humane treatment in response to our humane treatment.
To the contrary, in the last 20 years, we've witnessed some of the most brutal and inhumane tortures and killings from these fanatics, ALL PRIOR to any alleged abuses by the U.S. Indeed, this enemy considers civility, equivocation and appeasement to be contemptible traits, and justifiably believes that more brutality and mendacity in response to such weaknesses, will advance their objectives further. Judging from our weak responses to Beirut, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Kenya Embassy bombings, the first WTC bombing, Somalia (etc.), it is no wonder we were continually attacked for 20 years. And this was all before our Iraq "occupation", which just proves that after we leave Iraq, the pretext for attacks against us will again be the existence of a Jewish state in the mideast. Those who give credence to the pretext that we are being attacked because of "Iraq", will then have to advocate that we abandon Israel, because that would keep with the logic of their position. If the U.S. accepted at face value---no matter how self-serving and absurd---every pretext for attacks uttered by enemies and critics of the U.S. suggest, then we wouldn't even be able to walk away with our original 13 colonies!
3 -- McCain and opponents of torture always claim that "torture doesn't work." It's echoed like a mantra, but with confidence and authority. Perhaps because no one publicly takes issue with it. (Who would admit to being a participant in, or supporter of such an unsavory activity?) The follow-up is, "any torture victim would just utter what the interrogator wants to hear, just to stop the pain." It all sounds plausible on its face. But its factually wrong, and contrary to common sense.
First, torture HAS worked. There have been many accounts from the days of the OSS and military intelligence during WWII, up to the cold war years. Since most of this sort of stuff was classified and often illegal, participants in torture rarely come forward with first person accounts. In recent times, victims of torture have sued their assailants. This is just one reason you'll never see interrogators appear on talk shows arguing the efficacy of torture, even if the government allowed them to appear. Torture was the hallmark of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It seemed to serve him quite well, as the supply of intelligence he obtained through torture was enough to thwart all internal attempts at a coup for over three decades. Before we execute him, lets put him on Larry King to argue (with McCain) that torture does work!
Secondly, that first clause---"they will just utter what we want to hear"---doesn't always apply. The only instance where torture would even be contemplated is upon individuals whom we know with certainty are terrorists, or have admitted to it. The very thing that led us to their capture is often related to the missing piece of the puzzle we must have. In other words, we would sometimes know enough to tell that they're lying. In instances where we wouldn't, such as seeking the location of the prisoner's arms, or cohorts, it would not be in the best interest of the prisoner to keep lying about it. For each wild goose chase we go on, he could lose a finger or toe, or worse. In other words, they wouldn't be able to lie with impunity as McCain seems to suggest.
Third, that second clause---"just to stop the pain"---also makes no sense. If interrogators determine that forcing a prisoner to stand in one place for 12 hours will help extract information from him; or depriving him of sleep; or forcing him to wear panties on his head; etc., then THOSE things will be the "pain" he wishes will end. In other words, WHATEVER forces him to talk "just to stop the pain"---whatever that pain might be---should be left up to experts in interrogation, and not to grandstanding Senators and talkshow hosts, former CIA analysts-turned-authors, or former Generals-turned-pacifist.
Finally, regarding my allegation that McCain is a cynical opportunist:
Our own troops in boot camp are subjected to the same stress positions as recalcitrant Gitmo detainees were. Interns in most hospitals in the U.S. are forced to work 36 straight hours. And many men willingly pay hundreds of dollars to be forced to wear panties and dog collars. So let's get real about inflicting stress on terrorists. McCain is saying that we must promise not to inflict these "atrocities" on terrorists. Consider this line he keeps repeating:
"We should declare that the US will not torture or inflict cruel, inhumane treatment."
If he had meant this to be an anti-torture bill, then he wouldn't need to include the terms "cruel and inhumane." They're superfluous, because in normal English, "cruel and inhumane" are obviously subsets of "torture". Therefore, McCain means to include in his bill ill-treatment that is not "torture", which he terms "cruel and inhumane", which can include the sleeplessness, physician and psychological stress, and all the rest.
4 -- The last argument concerns the immorality of torture: 'It's just not what our nation is all about', they say. 'The world will think ill of us.' (etc.) Or as McCain said in the Brian Lehrer interview (excepted later):
"
"It's not about the prisoners. It's about us. If we're going to inflict cruel and inhumane treatment on people who are captives, then I think it diminishes the US in a dramatic way. "
I have a choice rejoinder, but first, just a brief educational point: Successful politicians and lawyers are wordsmiths of the first order. They understand that words have meaning. "People who are captives" was a carefully chosen phrase. The subtext was to evoke sympathy for them, even though McCain was actually referring to "terrorists". It was well-executed spin on the fly, that I'm sure got by most people. It could have been second-nature to an expert pol like McCain.
My main point is that when you're engaged in an existential war for survival against a determined enemy, and you're willing to forfeit lives for the sake of maintaining a good image around the world, then you're betraying a high degree of conceit, as well as demonstrating your naiveté about other nations.
In the first instance, one would normally assume that the world would think ill of fundamentalist madmen who torture and murder innocent people and children, BEFORE passing judgment on the U.S. for harshly interrogating those murderers. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Nations follow their own agendas. They understand that American liberals like McCain are afflicted with the aforementioned conceit, and they play them like fiddles.
In point of fact, other nations of the world can't hold a stick to our level of morality and generosity. Even what we aspire to, and fail to achieve, is far worthier than anything they have to offer. Just look what's going on in France with their (dare I say) apartheid system set up to keep their Muslim population ghettoized and poor. Slavery is permitted in the Sudan and other nations. Enforced castration of young girls in African nations. Civil and tribal wars extending across 8 nations in central Africa killed about 2.5 million African civilians between 1998 and 2001 alone. Genocide in Rwandan, Bosnia and Sudan. And the nations of the U.N. passing resolutions condemning Israel every year, but had never passed a resolution critical of the Palestinian Authority or suicide bombers. The rise of anti-Semitism, with dozens of Jews in Western Europe being assaulted of killed every day.
And McCain feels it's the U.S. that should earn the approval of this world?! I'm very proud of the behavior of the US in this century and what we've accomplished for the world. We have so much respect and reverence for innocent life, that to prevent the loss of thousands or millions of such lives, we will resort to the very unsavory practice of torturing a few terrorists.
If a liberal feels the need to be loved, he should get a dog.
Furthermore, the same "civilized" nations of Western Europe that want us to universally ban torture, also want us to ban our death penalty. Should we do that as well? Wouldn't that garner their respect? Why limit our concessions to just torture? In fact, the death penalty, like torture, is not a betrayal for the reverence of life. Quite the contrary. When it's performed without errors, it's a proper demonstration of outrage and intolerance by a society opposed to the willful taking of human life.
When the U.S. is forced to go to war to protect the lives of its citizens, it's behaving in a similar manner. Our generals realize that the innocent lives of their soldiers will be lost. But it's the tradeoff that makes it just. Same with torture. Doing something harsh to one terrorist---albeit a human being---to save many more lives that are innocent. Is it because that terrorist is powerless while being tortured, that makes it so inhumane for people like McCain? Well, aren't experimental dogs and monkeys powerless against the vivisectionist? Weren't those Al Qaeda members at Tora Bora powerless when we launched bunker buster bombs into the caves where they were hiding? Indeed, isn't any enemy powerless on the battlefield against the overwhelming force we assemble? We dominate the battle space. Most armies are at the mercy of our forces, just like a prisoner is at the mercy of his interrogator. I doubt McCain would object to the mismatch in the former, yet he finds it objectionable in the latter.
McCain's Response
The quality of the national debate on the war is attrocious. The White House obviously has no one analytically capable, nor politically willing to engage in a debate on the war issues in any way but the most superficial, dumbed-down manner. With polls going south on them, maybe this deficit will dawn on them. Calling war hero Murtha a "Michael Moore Democrat" is stupid on so many levels. The Democrats are no better. Their arguments are shallow and full of catch phrases as well. Like Republicans, they get into personality issues instead of arguing the merits of the case. They vilify Dick Cheney. They line up behind Murtha and, in effect, say "look, unlike us liberals, this fellow loves the military, and look what he's saying now!"
McCain has fed far too long on the veneration he earned from his valiant military service. But just as I wouldn't ask a building superintendent his advice on amending the city's building codes, I wouldn't necessarily accept policy recommendations on the mideast today from a Navy pilot from the 1960s. Policy decisions must be made from cold equations, by top experts in their field. Make all the visits you want to veterans hospitals. But at the end of the day, you have to decide whether placing hundreds of troops in harms way today will likely prevent thousands or millions from being killed tomorrow. Policy makers must first consider the safety of the majority of the citizenry, and the survival of the society at large, before the heart-wrenching personal sacrifices undertaken by the men and women in the military. On November 18th, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Murtha advocated the latter and said nothing of the former, proving to me that he's a compassionate Congressman who loves our troops, but not the ideal person to determine national policy.
Great politician that he is, Senator McCain has been an advocate for veterans and members of the armed forces. He's a neoconservative who's supported most military ventures abroad, yet understands that Republican hawks hoping for national office must appear to have a bleeding heart for at least some people. Since 2000, he's been vying for the nomination as "favorite Republican among Democrats". His position on domestic issues are sufficiently centrist, and his foreign policy sufficiently multilateralist for Democrats can point to him as a "good Republican"---one whom they can embrace to enable them to appear nonpartisan when they vilify "real" Republicans. McCain has done his part in this symbiotic relationship, by carefully positioning himself as the leading moderate Republican. On a select number of issues, he's chosen the liberal position when it seemed popular. Albeit he wants to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. But he took that position when liberals were hammering Rummy's failure to maintain order in post-Saddam Iraq. Adding more troops isn't popular now, but doing an about face will cost McCain politically.
McCain is careful to appear on interview programs in which the host usually fawns over him. MSNBC's Hardball is a show where he appears often, where he can expect adulation from Chris Mathews instead of challenging questions. But on November 8th, while on a book tour (his book: "Character Is Everything"), McCain appeared on Brian Lehrer's radio program on WNYC. Brian is a liberal, but he's a very fair host, and not shy about playing the devil's advocate when there's no conservative guest to balance a liberal guest. The only bad thing about the show is that callers are usually only given one opportunity to speak. You can't ask a follow-up question or rebut the guest because while the guest is speaking, the producer quietly disconnects you. So when my call got through, I made sure to quickly state up front my objections to McCain's bill. The objections I managed to register with McCain were the ones I enumerated in points 2 and 3 above---that torture does in fact work, and that terrorists do not reciprocate with humane treatment of prisoners they've captured.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anyone who would like to listen to the entire interview with Sen. McCain can download the 13.5MB mp3 file from:
http://wnyc.vo.llnwd.net/o1/bl/bl110805a.mp3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As expected, I was disconnected as soon as McCain began to address my statement. But as it turns out, McCain's answer didn't require much of a rebuttal. It was the same canned answer he's been using everywhere he appears. It's the sort of weak answer that McCain tends to get away with, thanks to the softball questions from the media whores that adore him. He answered me as follows:
"You would think that the first country that would adopt such practices is Israel, who fight against suicide bombers on a daily basis. I've been told by their Defense Minister that they use psychological methods which are far more effective. And again, if you think it's all about the terrorists and how we treat them, then you and I have an honest difference of opinion. I think it's about us and how we treat people who are held captive by us. If there was an extreme case where there was an immediate threat, and the president took action, then I would be the first one to applaud him. But to hold people in prisons for years and think they're still somehow holding back information that's an immediate threat to the U.S. is something I just don't agree with."
Since the producer disconnected me, I couldn't answer McCain then, but I will do so here:
Apparently, if any Israelis had used torture in violation of their law, McCain is under the impression that they would casually admit it to him. Amazingly, McCain is ready to set US policy on a par with that of Israel, on the basis of what the Israeli Defense Minister told him, or their courts have mandated.
For the sake of argument, let's accept that Israel really doesn't use torture, and also accept that this policy, instituted in a nation half the size of NJ with a population of 5 million, is appropriate for a nation of 200 million that spans an entire continent with interests spread throughout the world. Let's just look at the merits of the argument itself.
First, just as a preliminary point, McCain is offering some red meat to liberals with this reference to Israel. Because the subliminal message in his answer builds upon an existing construct among the left wing: It begins with the implied and accepted supposition that Israel is an oppressor of the Palestinian people. Then it's followed by the more explicit concluding message: 'And yet even a brutal nation like that doesn't resort to torture.' Conceivably, it would work just as well as if he had said, "not even North Korea uses torture." Or, "not even Iran uses torture." It would not work by saying, "not even Switzerland tortures", because that country is civil and humane. Get it?
McCain might wish to rebut my point by claiming that he was merely comparing the treatment of captured Palestinian suicide bombers with Al Qaeda suicide bombers. Putting aside the lunacy of advocating the humane treatment of people who go to great lengths to violently kill themselves, McCain should consider that he is comparing stateless combatants (Al Qaeda) with combatants fighting for an elected and sovereign government (Palestinian Authority) which is trying to reign in the attacks. To that end, perhaps Israel's no-torture policy (in the latter case) might be efficacious towards peace and later, coexistence. Does McCain believe we can ever coexist with Al Qaeda, given their philosophy? Besides, Arabists and apologists for the PLO or Hamas might not be happy with McCain's Al Qaeda comparison. (But that's only a concern for liberals.)
But the main thing wrong with McCain's answer is best summarized by the motherly admonition we all received as children when we did something stupid that "Johnny" did ("if Johnny jumped out of the window, would you do that too?"). Historically, Israel has made many political and military errors. In prior decades, a few had almost led to its demise. The most recent mistake was failing to realize early enough that you can't negotiate with a group---80% of whom wanted the eradication of the Jewish state, according to polls---while that group is killing your people and showing no desire to negotiate. Their wall-fence was built only after a thousand Israelis were killed, and many times more maimed for life. The equivalent (for them) of thirteen 9-11 attacks.
The basis for this error should be a lesson for McCain: For too long, liberal Israelis held sway politically. It was felt that walling off their border would inflict hardships on Palestinians and make Israel appear inhumane to the world. But that last intifada was their "9-11". It made them wake up to reality. They woke up to the fact that ultimately, IT IS ABOUT THE TERRORISTS.
Will it take another attack on the U.S. before McCain wakes up and drops that tiring sanctimony: "It's not about the terrorists; it's about us"?
Finally, his last sentence falls outside the bounds of the torture debate. All I'll say is that the proper length of time that a given terrorist should be held and questioned should be done on an individual basis and determined by the appropriate counter-intelligence agencies.
Excerpts From The Interview
Before I was able to call in to the show and state my points, Brian did a fair job of posing some challenging questions for the Senator. Not exactly hardballs, but neither were they the sort of fluffballs McCain is used to getting on MSNBC or CNN. Yet you'll notice (if you listen to the mp3 file of the interview) that McCain stumbles and struggles here and there. Here's part of the exchange, with my personal commentary in [brackets]:
Brian:
If the US already has laws banning torture and we signed treaties prohibiting torture, why do we need another anti-torture amendment? (i.e. McCain's bill)?
McCain:
First, there have been questions raised about the treatment of prisoners. Second, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility "for captures on land and sea". Third, our image has suffered badly throughout the world regarding "Abu Gharab and other alleged abuses". We should declare that the US will not torture or inflict cruel, inhumane treatment.
[First, you shouldn't enact laws based solely on allegations and "questions raised". Second, Congress does indeed have jurisdiction here. But to propose good laws, not your law. Third, I responded to this one earlier.]
Brian:
But the President has said as much [that we will not torture etc.]. Can you give some examples of specific practices that are allowed under current law or treaties that your amendment would ban?
McCain:
I don't know specifics that are practiced. I know an allegation that a person was killed by the CIA while interrogation.
Brian: But that would already be illegal, wouldn't it?
McCain:
Yes, to kill someone. But they didn't intend to kill anyone, from what I understand. But it was the interrogation techniques that were used.
[Sounds like he's talking about an accident, and an allegation to boot.]
Brian:
So I'm just curious, if you can articulate one or two specific interrogation techniques that are allowed under current law that your measure would ban?
McCain:
Well, one example, and I don't know what's allowed under current law, but what is practiced, or what is allowed, is 'waterboarding' [a technique that makes one think he's' about to drown]. That's clearly against the Geneva Conventions. Now, I don't know how often this is practiced. I do not know the details. This is information that I'm not allowed to know. I just know that we have a tremendous image problem in the world, and for us to be on record saying this can't be practiced and won't be practiced, is something I think is important to assert. As does Colin Powell, as does every other retired and active duty military person that I know.
[Obfuscation. If waterboarding is illegal, is he alleging that the U.S. performs it on legitimate prisoners of war, or on stateless terrorists who refuse to declare their identities and affiliations, and for which no Geneva protections apply.]
[Also, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Forced Committee, does he really expect anyone to believe that if there were documented cases of waterboarding of Al Qaeda members, that he wouldn't have the security clearance to view that documentation?!]
Brian:
Vice President Cheney wishes to have the CIA exempt from your anti-torture amendment with regards to terrorists. On the substance, why aren't those good arguments for you?
McCain:
Because again, it's not about the prisoners. It's about us. If we're going to inflict cruel and inhumane treatment on people who are captives. Also, torture doesn't work. Also, Israel's Supreme Court has forbade torture [how do they define it?]. So, if Israel is somehow able to cope with the attacks that are inflicted on them, without torturing people, or inflicting cruel or inhumane treatment, it seems the US could as well.
[I responded to the image argument above, as well as the 'torture doesn't work' argument. But there's one tidbit he adds here responding to Brian that he didn't use with me---in the earlier section. Here he claims that Israel was able to cope with the terrorist attacks without using torture. In fact, the Israelis were failing to stop the attacks, until they built a wall along their border. It just further shows the weakness of his Israel analogy, as who would suggest that building a wall around the U.S. would prevent terrorist attacks on the U.S.?]
Brian:
[asked a somewhat open-ended question about the national character and image of the U.S.]
McCain:
[A portion of McCain's response:]
Let me mention one other practical aspect of this. Suppose in another conflict we're in, an American soldier, airman or marine is captured, according to the procedures we use now, that government will just say: "we'll just turn that person over to the secret police", if you carve out an exemption for the CIA from our prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment. See my point?
[Here again, gentleman Brian allows McCain to obfuscate. Cheney's exemption would not apply to nations we are at war with; just stateless terrorists. Terrorists are not eligible for Geneva protections because (1) only sovereign states can enforce the required provisions, and (2) there would be no incentive for them to live up to the conditions if the protections are given to groups whose primary tactics violate the rules of war, such as the torture and beheading of innocent noncombatants.]
Poor advocates
This is a complicated issue even without the cheap political demagoguery. Advocates and journalists have done a poor job distinguishing "torture" from physical and psychological stress. The public's understanding of the issue is vague and misguided. Perceptions of what the public may feel constitutes an act of torture usually varies greatly from the official definition. Some people would consider "waterboarding" torture. It isn't. With so many subjective attitudes displacing objective facts, how can this issue make sense to anyone?
On November 18th, Adm. Turner said on the MSNBC's "HardBall" with Chris Mathews that he feels McCain's policy is great; that torture doesn't work; but that we should allow interrogators on their own initiative to lapse into inflicting torture when extraordinary circumstances warrant it! Besting Turner on the absurd, Mathews mused that interrogators might try tricking detainees that 3 years had gone by! These are just a couple of the "geniuses" leading the national debate on torture. It makes you realize what a poor job of advocacy the White House is doing when they're losing the debate against these people.
[note: paraphrasing was done, because transcripts for the program was not available by the time this article was submitted for publication.---GK]
Indeed, as courageous as the administration has been in taking politically difficult positions on torture, detainees, Patriot Act, Saddam Hussein (etc.), its ability to articulately support its actions and explain them to the public has been breathtakingly, astoundingly, and unimaginably feeble. On the hot-button issues that Democrats used in their political attacks since 2000, if it were not for the various conservative op-ed writers and radio talkshow hosts carrying the administration's water, Bush would have been handily defeated in 2004.
New Rules
In this new form of conflict we find ourselves engaged in, it's long overdue for Congress to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities. Laws which govern civil rights protections, rights of enemy combatants, border security and immigration enforcement, all need to be updated and revised to accommodate the new realities in this novel war.
Sometimes clear, unambiguous rules can prevent a war. Many thought, for example, that the Taliban refused to evict Al Qaeda from Afghanistan because it couldn't conceive that the US would invade a nation because of the actions of an "army" it doesn't own. And without the support of the UN, no less. In this instance, a war changed that rule. Nevertheless, no other nation now will question our intentions and resolve if they provide sanctuary to militant fundamentalists.
Nevertheless, we should have a clear rule for captured terrorists. Maybe it can be restricted to those we are certain are stateless terrorists, or perhaps in situations in which time sensitive intel is required to save lives. But torture must not be completely taken off the table, as McCain's amendment would do. The rule should say that they will never know what we'll do to them if we capture them alive. It doesn't mean torture is mandated in every case. Within specific bounds and conditions, we leave the final decision up to expert interrogators. We don't mandate which medical proceedure is best for heart surgery. We leave that up to the experts in their field.
And please don't talk to me about humane treatment, Senator. We should reserve humane treatment for humans---that is, true human beings, and of course animals (the furry ones with four legs and cute faces). Because in the end, you're right: It is indeed about us. "It's about us" preventing the loss of innocent lives on a massive scale. Because prevention is the only real defense.
Next time, don't speak to Israeli Defense Ministers or PR men. Speak instead to the Israeli parents with crippled children from nails buried in their flesh and bones. It's about them too.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
Gary Krasner grew up in the Bronx in the 50's through the 70's. He moved to Queens in 1975 after obtaining a B.S. degree in Psychology from CCNY. Today, Mr. Krasner works as a computer graphics artist by day. By night he runs Coalition For Informed Choice, a non-partisan organization that promotes personal freedom of choice in decisions involving our health.
Send Feedback To Gary Krasner
Site: http://www.cfic.us/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
