More on Torture and Democracy

It seems that the American people stand in stark contrast to the Bush Administration when it comes to humane treatment. The evidence of this comes as both the House and Senate resoundingly denied the administration any further leg to stand on when it comes to torture. Bills passing in both houses roundly, and rightly, condemn the use of torture and make it a crime for any military or civilian government employee to engage in interrogation that includes the use of torture as a tool. The Bush administration, after spending much time and making much noise, particularly from VP Cheney, supporting the use of torture as necessary (without really admitting they were pro-torture) did an about face when faced with overwhelming opposition from even its own party and ceded the point. No longer will U.S. interrogation policy allow torture as a means of gaining information.

On the surface, this seems to be a victory for decency and real American values. We have long held ourselves to be a nation of freedom and the rule of law, and this repudiation of such vile behavior in our name shows the world that it is not average Americans they need to be wary of, just the out of control leadership in the White House. Still, this is just one small victory. Indeed, if CIA operatives continue to farm out suspected terrorists to other nations for questioning, the issue becomes one of semantics only. The next step is for legislators to pass laws that forbid us from sending our captives to “ally nations” that would subject them to the same treatment we claim to abhor so much.

In other news, Iraqi citizens are exercising their voices in the first democratic election that country has seen in decades, if ever. In numbers that put our own political processes to shame, nearly 70% of eligible Iraqi voters have turned out to elect their first parliament. Imagine if 70% of American citizens felt so strongly about democracy that they turned out for our own elections. We’d actually have a better chance at a representative government in this country too.

But back to Iraq. The Bush administration will claim that this election validates their most recent justification for pre-emptive war. They will claim that the lack of widespread violence on Election Day is a testament to the fact that their plan is working. If the post election results return and violence continues to abate, many of their supporters will use that as evidence that this was the right war at the right time despite the president’s own admissions that the reasons given for going to war were false. But the truth may not be so cut and dry. And the success of these elections may in fact reflect more of a desire on the part of Iraqi’s for us to leave their country than anything else.

Despite administration claims that insurgents are foreign fighters imported to fuel the flames of the al-Qaeda jihad, many reports show that the insurgency is more home grown and in a large part due to the continued presence of American soldiers on Iraqi soil. Indeed, the president continues to reiterate the message loudly that we will stay until “the job is done.” That job is variously described in terms of having successful elections in Iraq, training Iraqi’s to defend themselves from terrorist and foreign attacks, or rebuilding the Iraqi economy. With this successful election, Iraqi’s are meeting the administration head on to see if they will do as they say.

What remains to be seen now is whether the U.S. will follow through with our end of the deal and begin to return some autonomy to the Iraqi government and their people. If we are to be true to our word, we must now set our own aims firmly behind those of the Iraqi government. We must become their tool, not their master. We must seek to withdraw our own forces as they ramp up their own. We must desist from getting involved with their internal affairs even as we assist them in rooting out the real terrorists in their midst. As Iraqi’s of all stripe engage in the political process and refute their guns in favor of their voices, America must prepare to pull out and let them handle the hard work of building a more free society.

Meanwhile, our own democracy takes more hits from the very people charged with defending it. Announcements today of President Bush authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on domestic phone calls and e-mails sent abroad in the months following 9-11 have the administration looking for another table to hide under. Such actions, engaged without the necessary court orders, are in clear violation of U.S. law and mark another instance when this administration views itself to be beyond the law of the land. Republicans were quick to denounce any misdeed of the Clinton administration, going so far as to impeach the man for marital infidelities (though they focused on the lie he told about the acts as their basis for impeachment), but so far remain silent at best on the myriad wrongdoings of the Bush bunch. How the conservative citizen can continue to support a man who ran on principals of integrity, honesty, and political compassion is beyond me, especially in light of the absurdity of those claims with each new revelation coming out of Washington. Clearly, this is one of the most verifiably corrupt administrations to appear in some time.

Fortunately, those elected to the Senate and House are beginning to recognize that average citizens are tiring of the bullying nature of the administration, the deliberate obfuscations and rationalizations, and their outright lies. Today also marked the Senate’s refusal to extend many portions of the Patriot Act that most infringed on the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. Unfettered access to the private reading, shopping, and conversation habits of American citizens, and so called “sneak and peak” searches without reasonable cause and court orders are not necessary tools in the war on terror, despite administration claims to the contrary. And the reports issued today about the activities of the NSA, at the president’s own direction, show that this is a government that can’t be trusted to respect freedom and liberty here at home.

Repudiating torture is a good thing. It shows that American’s still believe in humane treatment for even our enemies. This is one thing that separates us from them. Repudiating invasive spying and the trampling of civil rights by our own government against us is a good thing. It shows our government that we aren’t willing to sacrifice our freedoms in the struggle to be safer. This is what separates true patriots from paper tigers. And a high election turn out in Iraq is a good thing. It sets the stage for the U.S. to begin removing ourselves from what will ultimately be an Iraqi issue- the future of their country.

The Trouble With Torture

The United States government is complicit or actively engaged in the torture of terror suspects. U.S. prosecutors have admitted as much when they dropped several charges against alleged “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla late last month because the testimony supporting those charges had been obtained from informants under torture. The White House admits as much in their vocal opposition to an amendment to the defense bill set to be voted on that would specifically forbid torture by U.S. agents or armed forces. Evidence uncovered that suggests the U.S. government farms out it’s torture needs to third world countries that lack laws against inhumane treatment has yet to be repudiated, lending more credence to the notion that the U.S. condones or actively participates in torture.

At the same time that they advocate for the inclusion of torture as an interrogation tool, the White House is playing a game of semantics, something that Republicans continually roasted the previous administration for doing, by claiming that torture is only torture when it involves organ failure that leads to death or death itself. Anything that falls short of that mark is, according to the Bush Administration, not torture. Conservative pundits fall in line claiming that no written torture policy exists that can be found. They claim that no actual torture cells have been uncovered. They dismiss the systemic abuses at Abu Ghraib as depraved acts of a few bad apples. They go so far as to encourage the use of torture as a legitimate way to glean information from an adversary, especially if that foe is Islamic.

The majority of those most vocally supportive of using torture are from the right side of the aisle- the so-called compassionate conservatives. If ever there was a misnomer, it is this one. These are the people who fight to make sure that every fetus is born while stripping away funding for health and education. These are the people who lock up a harmless pot smoker for twenty years and release a three-time rapist to make room in the jail. These are the folks who loudly claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, a man notoriously described as peaceful in every possible way; a man who himself was tortured by the Roman government and eventually killed. Compassionate is not a word that describes the aspirations of these pundits and politicians.

Most people in America were brought up to believe in the Golden Rule. Do unto others and all that. Surprisingly, torture isn’t one of those things we would like to have done unto us. As such, we instinctively understand that at its root torture is an unjust policy. It is unjust because it goes against the very grain of our human psyche. But in times of external strife, and especially during this ongoing War on Terror, the Golden Rule justification can be manipulated or even completely sidestepped in the face of “imminent danger.”

Imminent Danger is the code word du jour to imply that something bad is about to happen, but we could probably stop it from happening if we take drastic action immediately. American’s now have a better understanding of what our president means when he describes a situation as having imminent danger. He described an attack by Iraq as such. Subsequent evidence has shown us otherwise, but that hasn’t stopped the White House from continuing to use this as a rationale for questionable interrogation tactics. The theory that getting information to reinforce your beginning premise is the goal of all interrogation offers ripe ground for the acceptance of torture. After all, if you aren’t hearing the information that you want or need to hear, by applying torture, one can get a suspect to confirm pretty much anything. And therein lies the first real problem with torture, namely that any information retrieved through torture is automatically suspect and unreliable. Such information, when acted upon, can often serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, simply because the information was not true. Torture does not guarantee the truth. It only guarantees a confirmation of the torturers questions.

The second big problem with torture is that through its use, we expose our own citizens and service men and women to an increased risk of torture if they are captured or kidnapped by those who are our enemy. One of the hallmarks of America has been her unwavering commitment to human rights, if not in law, than at least in word and deed. America has been held as an example for the world to follow with its tolerant attitude towards other cultures and its more humane approach to the treatment of prisoners, especially prisoners of war. Our government spearheaded many of today’s international treaties that provide for the proper treatment of POW’s and other criminal detainees. By abandoning our legacy in the face of a devious foe, we undermine our own reputation as the “good guy.” America has succeeded in defeating horrendous enemies before without resorting to torture. Surely we can do so again.

For some, the end does justify the means. If a million lives are saved through the information gleaned from one suspect with the aid of torture, isn’t this a good trade off? The answer is not so black and white. Certainly it is good to have saved a million lives from senseless violence or death, but each of those lives is now stained by the act of inflicting torture on another. The truth is that these extreme examples of success are seldom, if ever, the results of torture. Often, suspects are being tortured to corroborate other information gleaned from torture interrogations. In no case that I know of has the use of torture saved the lives of a million people. Indeed, the greatest terror successes since 9-11 have not been stopped or discovered despite the use of torture by the U.S. or its temporary allies.

What about the claim that terror suspects are coached to say that they have been tortured while being interrogated? It would not surprise me if that were true. The enemy is not stupid and understands that the majority of Americans abhor the use of torture and cannot condone it. If the enemy can claim torture with a measure of believability, they can foment some level of sympathy from the general public and repaint their own aggression as an act against repression. Sadly, whether a suspect has actually been tortured is almost a moot issue in some cases, simply because we know that this government has been engaged in or farms out torture in the War on Terror. If we never engaged in the practice, and if we never encouraged our allies to engage in it, such claims would be patently hollow and would not be available for the enemy to use against us.

By using torture ourselves, our government has sullied the good reputation of America as being a country of humanitarian beliefs and humane treatment of all people. By advocating for torture, this government has made the safety of our citizens and our soldiers secondary to their need for information that corresponds to their own pre-ordained formula for the Middle East. And by allowing torture to take place in our name, the Bush Administration has given our sworn enemy ammunition to turn our allies against us and to justify their nefarious cause. Such is the folly of torture.