This is a call for comment here on your personal condemnation of waterboarding and other forms of torture used to procure our "safety" from harm that our enemies would do us. If we condone waterboarding in our name and supposedly to procure our safety, we offend the noblest of principles for which we could ever ask our soldiers to fight and die, the sanctity of an individual human life. What point is there in pursuing the enemy when the enemy is us, a nation that appears to have condoned waterboarding to procure its national retribution for the terrorism of extremists. Let it not be said that you condon the use of torture.
Has the public discourse on enhanced interrogation techniques informed or confused the public? Both. Is the public really only concerned with the safety of law abiding citizens? Seems like it. (See the previous blog entry for a review of some of the public discourse and the machinations of some who would foster the use of torture as useful, as in useful on the War on Terror.)
What about when the individual, me or you, is accused of not being loyal or law abiding? Well then, no. Should we be afforded protection from unlawful torture by our own government? Yes.
In this representative democracy, can the electorate ever trust again the adoption of enhanced interrogation techniques by the military and intelligence agencies of the federal government? Looks like we are trusting them to do so. Can we ever again leave certain individuals in office when they condone and justify the use of torture? Well, some of us can claim we did vote the bums's surrogates out of office by electing other guys and gals. Must we be prepared to call for impeachment of any official who condones torture or justifies it in a public forum? Yes.
To my knowledge, President Barach Obama and Senator John McCain have not endorsed holding any persons responsible for the adoption of policies permitting the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, but rather look to the present and future in which the values of this country pertaining to the dignity and respect afforded the individual are not and shall not be compromised by the use of torture. See note 1 below for restraint of both our President and an eloquent stance of a former prisoner of war himself, McCain.
Of late the phrase "American exceptionalism" has been framed as one of high regard for the rights of individuals, even those persons perceived as guilty of heinous offense, to be free from torture inflicted by those agents of our government purportedly acting in our behalf. See note 2 below for a specific example of true note worthiness.
Do we Americans embrace moral turpitude? Do we want the historical record to one day say that we as a people looked the other way on torture of prisoners under the control and dominion of our government and its agents (which would include other countries who would conduct torture at our behest and in our behalf to gain intelligence valuable to procuring the national security of our country)? No, we do not.
Our Senate Armed Services Committee, among others, did obtain evidence and testimony of the torture and abuse of prisoners during the War on Terror and did report to the American people its findings of unlawfulness in the conduct of interrogation of prisoners and otherwise as means of subjugation and punishment of captives.
Do we want this record to say that the practices of our government in the execution of this recent war on terror were, even if immoral, necessary to procure our safety? No, we do not!
Let all who are charged with our Nation's security know that we the American people do not endorse torture, especially in its adoption as utiliterarian, a usefulness which argues that enhanced interrogation techniques, however denominated, are to be morally condoned because effective in procuring accurate information. In this blog see the previous article on the issue of flawed scientific acceptance of enhanced interrogation techniques. Furthermore, grounds for removal from public office, by impeachment or other legal means, shall always and forever be inclusive of authorizing, condoning, and utilizing torture as in the national interest as a means to procure public safety and the nation's security.
In those instances in which enhanced interrogation techniques induce learned helplessness the techniques shall not include torture even if the Red Chinese were able to extract confessions from captured American pilots due to the use of torture. That if speed is of the essence in obtaining information, that short cuts to obtain that information by means of torture can never be permitted nor condoned. Let all know that we the American people embracing our heritage of individual right, and governmental limitation in the face of that right, shall pay the personal price and embrace the sacrifice inherent in perserving our values and cherished way of life. We will not be stampeded into forsaking our values enshrining human dignity and decency in the treatment of individuals.
Former Vice-President Richard Cheney and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey are hereby, by we the American people, censured for misleading, inaccurate, and harmful defense of immoral techniques, specifically water boarding among other methods used for enhance interrogation techniques which are categorically torture. We condemn these persons and others who deem the utilitarian outcome as moral justification of immoral means to procure our safety. We shall not permit a denigration of the sacred duty to defend our country by the use of torture, at least not while perserving our way of life and the sanctity of human life. We can not allow either of these two men to in effect argue that we as a nation had to torture a person held captive in order to save the life or lives of others without our censure of them for doing so.
Please join others in signing this condemnation of former Vice-President Richard Cheney and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for endorsing enhanced interrogation techniques which include acts of torture such as waterboarding. Please forward to all your friends who share this view of our country's respect for individual human life.
Notes.
1. See Executive Order entitled Ensuring Lawful Interrogations issued by President Obama on January 22, 2009 shortly upon taking his oath of office. Also, see "America should not be a nation of torture," John McCain, Star Tribune, Friday, May 13, 2011, at A ll,
(The Star Tribune reprinted this article from the Washington Post).
2. See especially McCain's position: "America should not be a nation of torture," John McCain, Star Tribune, Friday, May 13, 2011, at A ll, (The Star Tribune reprinted this article from the Washington Post).
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Justification for Torturing Prisoners is not in the Effectiveness of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
We need to be informed on the uses of torture, not just the immorality of torture itself, but also that information is not to be morally obtained by any social scientist/torturer who argues the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Senator John McCain, May 13, 2011, in a Washington Post op ed has enunciated for the United States that torture must be prohibited by both our laws and our societal values, a moral imperative, with prospective benefit to our identity in the world as exceptional in our regard for individual rights as superior to the wishes of the majority which governs our nation:
"Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but evern then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others."
McCain states with certainty that "waterboarding," which he defines as mock execution, is an exquisite form of torture.
However, Senator McCain also took the position that those in our recent past who used these techniques should not be prosecuted. Does he also wish to protect from prosecution those officials who advised of the legality of waterboarding, authorized it, or condoned it? Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey may well endorse McCain's posture on prosecution, and for his own insularity from public condemnation for having condoned water boarding (although presumably there has to be some immunity available to this former judge and attorney general who has condoned and excused waterboarding). A former judge, the honorable Mukasey specifically has cited to the success however of waterboarding in unloosening the tongue of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
McCain concerned with Judge Mukasey's conduct checked the facts. He reports in his op ed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. The revelation of the name of a trusted courier of Bin Laden's by Khalid as valuable disclosure due to the effectiveness of waterboarding as an intelligence necessity was tied by Mukasey to the effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. McCain having checked his facts with the Central Intelligence Agency underscores that there is no such connection between the waterboarding of Khalid and the actual kill of Bin Laden by Navy Seals this spring of 2011. The good judge apparently in an effort to again condone waterboarding has been revealed as loose with his facts. His reputation for his brand of patriotism, my country right or wrong, appears to exceed his judicial review capacity for truth and veracity.
To make his case clear, McCain proceeds to point out that the information in fact obtained from Khalid was false and misleading. As a victim of torture himself, McCain has a clear picture of what disclosures might be made by a prisoner to bring an end to the torture experience. He makes it clear that the taint on the reliability of information which is the byproduct of torture is premised on relief from torture.
In effect, the victim of torture tells his tormentors what they want to hear if the victim can provide it and, if competent of subterfuge, will while doing so (if loyal to his cause, a patriot) provide misleading information or patently false information, especially if he or she can manage to do so. One has to believe that even a surcease of torture for a brief period of time is worth lying to your tormentors. I think it safe to say that an important aspect of torture is that the victim of it would do anything to have it stop (it being so psychologically harsh, a result of the type, nature, and duration of the pain inflicted). Waterboarding fits this aspect of the definition of torture.
McCain also makes clear that humane treatment of prisoners is ultimately a protection for our own who defend us in peace and war who may be taken prisoner, albeit not all enemies of the United States would reciprocate. At least, the U.S. known to the world as value centered could expect the humane treatment of its citizens as it treats its prisoners humanely.
Finally, McCain frames his position as a moral, not utilitarian one, and he would like for this country to decide from this time forward to be true to its values as the foundation of American exceptionalism. "Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us."
President Obama likewise appears to be genuinely concerned that this basis of American exceptionalism be perpetuated. Both President Obama and Senator McCain also seem resolved not to hold officials to account for conduct which during the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush so discredited and besmirched our reputation for upholding the dignity and respect of the individual captive who is under our control and dominion. Note that much of the harm that was done in the War on Terrorism was done to prisoners under the control and dominion of another nation, while the U.S. stood by holding the figurative robe of the torturer. Not just nasty, immoral!
Peter Dross, Center for Victims of Torture, rightly takes to task Jay Ambrose, an apologist for waterboarding as of limited use, i.e. three admitted cases of waterboarding individuals. Dross is very clear that Ambrose's attempt to relegate the humanitarian concern that this country not stoop to torture its prisoners as a ploy of the political left is a misrepresentation of the institutional disregard of the use of torture by leaders of the military, national security, and foreign affairs of this country, who supported President Obama's executive order banning torture back in 2009 shortly after he took office.
The potential efficacy of what proponent's call enhanced interrogation techniques is arguable if one listens to the recent public debate on such techniques. See Note 4 below for an example of Gregg Bloche's recent stance on the issue of public debate enhanced interrogation. Bloche points out that the case for enhanced interrogation remains unproven and unprovable since the utilitarian justification of immorality requires the practice of immoral torture be condoned long enough to document its effectiveness in procuring the public safety. Indeed, anyone acting in an official capacity, policemen or operative of intelligence agency, who tortures one to obtain information should be removed from office and prevented in the future from holding any office of public trust. That would include anyone condoning a study to scientifically establish that the use of torture is effective in obtaining vital national security information from a captive.
Notes:
1. "America should not be a nation of torture," John McCain, Star Tribune, Friday, May 13, 2011, at All,
(The Star Tribune reprinted this article from the Washington Post).
2. Ibid.
3. "A Silly debate? What a senseless argument," Peter Dross, Star Tribune, May 13, 2011, at A11 (Peter Dross is director of policy and development for the Center for Victims of Torture).
4. See for example "Torture is bad - but it might work," Gregg Bloche, Star Tribune, June 5, 2011, Op 2-3 (in which the author reports on the science of interrogation in conjunction with learned helplessness and the benefits of torture in inducing learned helplessness and disclosure of vital information by a captive) (originally published by the Washington Post).
5. Bloche at Op 3 makes this argument in his op ed piece as well.
Senator John McCain, May 13, 2011, in a Washington Post op ed has enunciated for the United States that torture must be prohibited by both our laws and our societal values, a moral imperative, with prospective benefit to our identity in the world as exceptional in our regard for individual rights as superior to the wishes of the majority which governs our nation:
"Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but evern then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others."
McCain states with certainty that "waterboarding," which he defines as mock execution, is an exquisite form of torture.
However, Senator McCain also took the position that those in our recent past who used these techniques should not be prosecuted. Does he also wish to protect from prosecution those officials who advised of the legality of waterboarding, authorized it, or condoned it? Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey may well endorse McCain's posture on prosecution, and for his own insularity from public condemnation for having condoned water boarding (although presumably there has to be some immunity available to this former judge and attorney general who has condoned and excused waterboarding). A former judge, the honorable Mukasey specifically has cited to the success however of waterboarding in unloosening the tongue of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
McCain concerned with Judge Mukasey's conduct checked the facts. He reports in his op ed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. The revelation of the name of a trusted courier of Bin Laden's by Khalid as valuable disclosure due to the effectiveness of waterboarding as an intelligence necessity was tied by Mukasey to the effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. McCain having checked his facts with the Central Intelligence Agency underscores that there is no such connection between the waterboarding of Khalid and the actual kill of Bin Laden by Navy Seals this spring of 2011. The good judge apparently in an effort to again condone waterboarding has been revealed as loose with his facts. His reputation for his brand of patriotism, my country right or wrong, appears to exceed his judicial review capacity for truth and veracity.
To make his case clear, McCain proceeds to point out that the information in fact obtained from Khalid was false and misleading. As a victim of torture himself, McCain has a clear picture of what disclosures might be made by a prisoner to bring an end to the torture experience. He makes it clear that the taint on the reliability of information which is the byproduct of torture is premised on relief from torture.
In effect, the victim of torture tells his tormentors what they want to hear if the victim can provide it and, if competent of subterfuge, will while doing so (if loyal to his cause, a patriot) provide misleading information or patently false information, especially if he or she can manage to do so. One has to believe that even a surcease of torture for a brief period of time is worth lying to your tormentors. I think it safe to say that an important aspect of torture is that the victim of it would do anything to have it stop (it being so psychologically harsh, a result of the type, nature, and duration of the pain inflicted). Waterboarding fits this aspect of the definition of torture.
McCain also makes clear that humane treatment of prisoners is ultimately a protection for our own who defend us in peace and war who may be taken prisoner, albeit not all enemies of the United States would reciprocate. At least, the U.S. known to the world as value centered could expect the humane treatment of its citizens as it treats its prisoners humanely.
Finally, McCain frames his position as a moral, not utilitarian one, and he would like for this country to decide from this time forward to be true to its values as the foundation of American exceptionalism. "Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us."
President Obama likewise appears to be genuinely concerned that this basis of American exceptionalism be perpetuated. Both President Obama and Senator McCain also seem resolved not to hold officials to account for conduct which during the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush so discredited and besmirched our reputation for upholding the dignity and respect of the individual captive who is under our control and dominion. Note that much of the harm that was done in the War on Terrorism was done to prisoners under the control and dominion of another nation, while the U.S. stood by holding the figurative robe of the torturer. Not just nasty, immoral!
Peter Dross, Center for Victims of Torture, rightly takes to task Jay Ambrose, an apologist for waterboarding as of limited use, i.e. three admitted cases of waterboarding individuals. Dross is very clear that Ambrose's attempt to relegate the humanitarian concern that this country not stoop to torture its prisoners as a ploy of the political left is a misrepresentation of the institutional disregard of the use of torture by leaders of the military, national security, and foreign affairs of this country, who supported President Obama's executive order banning torture back in 2009 shortly after he took office.
The potential efficacy of what proponent's call enhanced interrogation techniques is arguable if one listens to the recent public debate on such techniques. See Note 4 below for an example of Gregg Bloche's recent stance on the issue of public debate enhanced interrogation. Bloche points out that the case for enhanced interrogation remains unproven and unprovable since the utilitarian justification of immorality requires the practice of immoral torture be condoned long enough to document its effectiveness in procuring the public safety. Indeed, anyone acting in an official capacity, policemen or operative of intelligence agency, who tortures one to obtain information should be removed from office and prevented in the future from holding any office of public trust. That would include anyone condoning a study to scientifically establish that the use of torture is effective in obtaining vital national security information from a captive.
Notes:
1. "America should not be a nation of torture," John McCain, Star Tribune, Friday, May 13, 2011, at All,
(The Star Tribune reprinted this article from the Washington Post).
2. Ibid.
3. "A Silly debate? What a senseless argument," Peter Dross, Star Tribune, May 13, 2011, at A11 (Peter Dross is director of policy and development for the Center for Victims of Torture).
4. See for example "Torture is bad - but it might work," Gregg Bloche, Star Tribune, June 5, 2011, Op 2-3 (in which the author reports on the science of interrogation in conjunction with learned helplessness and the benefits of torture in inducing learned helplessness and disclosure of vital information by a captive) (originally published by the Washington Post).
5. Bloche at Op 3 makes this argument in his op ed piece as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)