A tortured argument

So this is what it's come to now, not a debate on the actual merits of torture in its own right, but expected condemnation of those who oppose Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General as weak on terror because they oppose it.

For once, I found a couple of Instapundit's links to be helpful (here and here). Torture is a slippery slope, and one that it seems America can not afford to go down. More on that in a moment. But what I find odd in the whole mess of a debate being stirred up is that in all these instances, the tortured is supposed to have information that is useful in the war on terror. But what if he does not?

From past readings you can see that I disagree with the concept of torture. You can argue that it could potential save American lives, but it can also serve to put more of them at harm. Arab world outcry over Abu Ghraib was loud and clear. How many people actually joined the fight against us after witnessing things that we did? In turn, how many of those recruited have killed American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

I guess another question to ask is, "How do we determine which captive may have information?" The answer is we can't. This Newsweek article reminds us that the information gathered from torture is often unreliable at best. And there is no way to determine who knows what or it's worth before we begin. That is why torture should not be used. Because it does not preclude the abuse of those that are altogether innocent.

And none of this "You have to break a few eggs," arguing, either. Suppose your mother or father came up as terror suspects. How would you feel if they had glow stick stuffed inside them, or worse yet, they picked you up to torture in front of them? Just curious.

Once again I think this is an instance of Republicans being a bit short sighted. As they drank from power's cup, they claimed all sorts of positions to weaken the minority role in Congress, thinking they will be there forever. Of course, they won't. But it is important, I think, to look at how these torture rulings will affect the role of the Geneva Conventions in future conflicts as well. If we are willing to roll over on the idea that human rights do not apply to everyone, that what is to stop a future combatant who other wise "plays by the rules" not to trust us and torture our own soldiers?

Of course, all of this is open to discussion, but those are my thoughts on where this stands. I look forward to anyone refuting or backing up claims and statements made here. I'm always willing to learn.

One last thing. To those who worry about Democratic opposition because Gonzales is Hispanic. First, if that's his best qualification, then something is wrong from the get go. Two, perhaps because of his views on torture, he is not the best representative of the Hispanic community in general?

More articles to read are here and here.

How could I forget this? Or this?

The section of the August 2002 memorandum specifically disavowed by the White House, concerning the president's power as commander in chief to ignore laws against torture, drew particular scorn.

"If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture," [Harold Hongju Koh, dean of the Yale Law School] said, "he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

*UPDATE* Reuters:

The U.S. military's regional command in Miami launched an investigation on Wednesday into FBI agents' allegations that interrogators tortured prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

The military's Southern Command, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. base in eastern Cuba, ordered two officers to investigate the abuse allegations contained in FBI e-mails made public last month.

The FBI e-mails described Guantanamo prisoners being shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor for 18 to 24 hours, and left to urinate and defecate on themselves.

One FBI agent reported seeing a barely conscious prisoner who had torn out his hair after being left overnight in a sweltering room. Another told of an interrogation in which a prisoner was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights.

*MORE* Pandagon:

Long story short - a basic precept of most moral codes is that you don't stop doing the right thing because there's nowhere there to hold you responsible. In the Christian faith, the truest test of your faith is not when the eyes of the world are on you, but when you are by yourself and only the eyes of God can see your actions. "Nobody made us sign anything" is not a reason for gross moral stupidity, no matter how pat of an answer it seems.

*MORE STILL* From Salon:

Yet reliable information is rarely gotten through torture: Prisoners die, pass out, become incoherent or are simply too traumatized to talk. My own research, and that of other experts, documents that the vast majority of those subjected to torture know nothing of any military value. The idea that a terrorist attack can be thwarted in the nick of time in the torture chamber is more a daydream of perverse "heroism" than sound military or intelligence policy.

Torture does not make us safer or more secure. (We need only read the headlines.) Torture defiles the perpetrators. (Look again at the photos of our criminal young soldiers at Abu Ghraib.) Regimes that torture send out the message that a penchant for brutality is a valuable skill set, a ticket for advancement.