President Obama is in a major controversy this week over whether or not to prosecute military or CIA members who were engaged in allegations of torture in the post 9/11 environment.
This is a complex issue. Those of us who remember the Cold War era also recall that one of the great black marks on the Soviet Union and its satellites was that the communists used torture while Americans didn’t stoop to that level. Our society was supposed to be morally superior to the communists. (Although the reality was probably different than what we were told at the time.)
Now, however, some U.S. leaders argue that torture is not so bad after all — when Americans choose to use it on their enemies.
This confusing moral quandary crosses many traditional political lines. For example, John McCain, a former POW and last year’s Republican presidential nominee, strongly opposed the use of waterboarding, a stand that was in opposition to many in his own party.
Still, for all our desire to walk on a moral high road in the torture debate, I suspect many people don’t have strong black-and-white views on the subject. We are, after all, a nation where one of the most popular television shows is “24,” a spy/terrorist thriller where the lead characters often uses force and torture to get information from the bad guys.
There are a couple of threads that run through this debate. First, people define “torture” in a variety of different ways. Some say that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” — sleep deprivation, cold rooms and other physical and mental “discomforts” — aren’t really torture. And defenders of these practices say they are done under very controlled conditions.
But critics of those techniques argue that the level of discomfort is sufficient to label them as “torture” and furthermore, the information gotten from forced interrogations is often useless anyway.
The second idea in this debate is one of context. A captured enemy on the battlefield who is thought to have information about imminent attacks might be fair game for the use of physical or psychological force. But an enemy sitting in a cell away from battle who may not have immediate information changes the context and perhaps should not be subject to the same kind of physical or psychological abuses.
Perhaps the biggest issue in this debate is the moral and ethical standing of America. If the U.S. is to be a leader of freedom in the world, it cannot compromise that position with the unrestrained use of torture on its enemies. To do so undermines the very foundation on which our nation is built, eroding not just our diplomatic standing, but also our own political moral compass.
There are no easy answers to this issue, no matter what the chattering class may claim on television.
Is the use of forced interrogations always wrong? No.
Is the use of force sometimes wrong? Yes.
Sometimes necessary? Yes.
Confusing and morally gray? Definitely.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
If soldiers are captured on the field of battle, in uniform and fighting for a UN member state then I would be opposed to all torture on this person. If, however, the captured person was out of uniform or fighting an illegal war then all bets are off. I don't see why these people should be afforded American rights, or rights under the
Geneva Convention in any case. They are criminals or spies and should be tortured for information and subsequently executed after a military tribunal. That's how we did it in WWII. Why change now?
Two things that stand out to me is that for one, it destroys our moral credibility to the world. I don't CARE if they behead our people. WE ARE AMERICANS. WE DO NOT DO THAT. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT!
Second. It does not work. Yes, people will confess to all kinds of things. Does it make it true? If it works, why isn't bin Laden or Mulla Omar in custody? How many stories are there of American servicemen tortured in Vietnam giving false information? John McCain's story of giving his interrogators the names of the Pittsburg Steelers offensive line in leu of the names of his squadron mates comes to mind.
Lets not through out our history, our integrity, and our knowledge to substitute the plotline for '24'. America is a better country than that. We are all better than that.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023409.php
Do you honestly think that if we give these prisoners of war a "Trial" that the terrorist organization they are fighting for will hail us as a "Great Nation" and will stop their war against us....HELLO again!!!
I suppose your answer instead is to give them a trial where they will most likely be found innocent (due to our current unfortunate political situation). They can then be given a ride back to their county of origin (paid for by the Americna tax payers)where they can then make their way back to one of the numerous battle fields so they can kill more American sons & daughters. I just can't fathom how people can be so ingorant??? Do you honestly think that any good will come from holding these trials??
I have another get idea that I know you can relate to - why don't we instead let all the convicted killers in prison loose. I'm sure they would be so thankful & gracious for being turned loose that they would never dream of killing or harming anyone again! Why haven't we taken this approach sooner - its all so clear to me know! YES - you are a genious, when can we hold elections to get you into office?
You kiss your Mother with that extreme mouth of yours???
Sheesh!
Yes I do but your gettin a little personal aren't you? If you don't talk about my mother then I won't talk about yours! If you want to start talking about kissing things I can suggest a lot of things for you to kiss?
And as for extreme mouths - someone has to be. Obviously the majority of Americans are perfectly content to keep theirs shut and allow this socialist government to walk all over them! This has been painfully obvious in the last 100 days!
In short, the international ban on torture -- a ban incorporated into US law -- is absolute.
I am quite surprised that folks who proclaim to be "law abiding citizens" seem to relish in their sadistic tendencies and reveal themselves to be no better than the terrorists they want to torture. Anyone who tortures is a criminal. Anyone who supports torture abets that crime.
If waterboarding is torture why then, is it mandatory for all US Navy Seals as part of their training?
And another thing Mr. Pain: Those who disagree with you are not complicit in some imagined crime. Be careful how you vilify the good folks writing here.
For the purposes of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (which the United States is signatory to), the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
In short -- it is a crime to torture. There is no debate about that.
We train our military very well. We expose them to "harsh interrogation techniques" to prepare them in the event that if they are captured and tortured by enemy criminals that they might know what to expect. They are not being trained to torture others. That would be a war crime.
You say this, Mr. McCarthy: "Those who disagree with you are not complicit in some imagined crime. Be careful how you vilify the good folks writing here."
You can disagree with me all you like. That is not a crime. Torture is the crime. And what I said, if you actually read my words, is that anyone who tortures is a criminal (by legal definition). If you fit into that category, then you are indeed a villain. If you support torture, you abet a crime, in that you are encouraging criminal behavior. This of course depends on what level of support for torture you offer. If the only support you offer is to stick a magnetic decal on your car or blather some jingoistic phrase, or some similarly shallow act, that would not make you complicit in the crime of torture. But it speaks volumes about your character.
And, Mr. McCarthy, I am careful. I obey the law and expect others to do the same. I do not consider anyone who tortures another human being, or encourages the crime of torture, to be one of the "Good Folks." That's my prerogative.
I'll take my coffee with a little cream please.
Yeah boy, in the last 100 days this country has gone to pot. Ah, for the "Days of Dubya" when everything was perfect and we were all happy! Incredible how one man can not only hypnotize and corrupt the majority of Americans in about a year's time, but single handedly bring down our economy and send hundreds of thousands of our sons & daughters straight into harm's way.....all just for the fun of it! Yep, I'm sure Obama is in the Lincoln bedroom right now just laughing his ass off at the one he pulled over on us!
See, you and Dubya? You're the ones who made the whole of America look like freakin' morons to the rest of the world. You've done your part, but I think it's time you stop "helping" America.
Your right...you didn't say anything about my mother (daa..stupid me, I'm such an idiot). We can still talk about things to kiss though can't we?????
Oh and by the way it's "W" not "Dubya" - not sure where you got that one...but here again I'm just an "idiot".
And yes I know...idiots can't really tell when the coutry is going to (u know where). And yes I know...idiots can't really tell when we're getting shafted (u know where).
Usually all us idiots know is how to follow blindly behind one carismatic leader who tells us of the great vision (change) he has for the nation.
Gee...maybe we're not so different after all are we Kathy. Maybe we can be friends after all - one idiot to another.
I wonder: WWJD?
These terrorists are not US citizens and fought illegally. They declared Jihad on America. WWJD my behind!
I'm not a pacifist.
Your question was obviously not persuasive so it required an answer.
I'm sorry to say that I believe Osama (Obama) already has the keys and is in fact already sitting in the drivers seat! I think the train has definately already gone off the Cliff!
It's ironic how a man that ran on the notion that he would "unit" and be "bipartision" has divided a county to such a degree! I wonder if this is the change he was referring to?
The thing that amazes me the most is the willingness of Americans to just sit back and watch it all go down the tubes. I feel sorry for Kathy, Jen, & Mr. Pain - what a fantasy land they must be living in - You have to wonder about their thought process. As you say, definately "living under a rock". Unfortunely the "Burden" is ours to educate these poor souls. Obviously they have spent to much time in an Univeristy of "Higher Learning" (i.e. "under a rock").
You indeed have a "Burden" to educate, but if I were you I'd educate myself first. After achieving that goal, you can address your efforts those folks that spent time at "an University" and who quite likely received higher degrees than is reflected in your substandard writing skills.
This has been a good debate. We have a difference of opinion, that's why it is being debated. My point earlier was that when some people feel like the debate is not going their way they resort to shifting the attention to the grammar of folks that happen to have a different opinion than they do. Pretty pathetic when you think about it.
Your comment doesn't change the fact that a grown person who cannot communicate on a 10th grade level is only going to invite sniggers when he/she attempts to present themselves as someone who "knows" what's best for our country.
And "O" - most of the world knows that "W" was referred to as "Dubya". Talk about being "under a rock"!!!
Let me re-phrase this: The left who advocate censorship are Stalinists. This also may be a bit of hyperbole but I like the description.
To advocate censorship of the local, privately held newspaper would still be advocating the same. Why do you think the bill of rights guarantee the freedom of the press silly? The British would not allow it.
Why would you use that name? Are you ashamed of your name?
If I were you, I would strongly consider not using my real name. Your writing is doing nothing for your reputation as a critical thinker. (E.g., your comments about Stalinism.)
If you would use your real name you might choose your words more carefully. You probably also have a road rage problem as your are incognito there too.
I'll take the 10th grade education as a complement - actually I only made it through the 8th before I had to drop out! So I guess typing away on these crazy blogs is teaching me some things - huh? I know I may not be quit to your level your highness (oops is that spelled right?)but I will keep on trying. And I think I have found the spell check on this blog site - it's called "Kathy" & "Charles". Great job guys obviously you two have found your calling in life. I suuure am looking forward to ya'lls reeply so yous too can teach me sum mor. Lets sea so far i hav leart how to spell "unite", "bipartison", and a hole bunch of other things. Could you please esplain more about this "syntax" and "metaphors" thing though?
Amazing how the topic of this blog has turned from torture to spelling errors isn't it? I believe JAUTRY was right - when all else fails - change the subject. And what better thing to change it to on a hometown blog than spelling. If that's not SHALLOW I don't know what is (oh - did I spell that right?).
And so goes the problem with America today. Over 60 years ago when America was attacked we took on the world and won! Not because we wanted to but because it was the right thing to do. Today America gets attacked and seven years later we act like a bunch of little school girls on recess - too worried about our spelling errors and what is "morally correct". 60 years ago do you pinheads think Americans were concerned about the "rights" of prisoners of war - I don't think so. Even though I realize some moron living in fantasy land is going to reply "Genevia Convention"! Americans had better wake up & pull their spelled correctly heads out of their spelled correctly proverbial you know whats before it's to late.