Torture:
"The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."
(Random House Dictionary)
I'm sorry, but I think it's wrong. Under any circumstances for whatever reason.
I know many will argue that we have tortured in the recent past as a way to prevent another 9-11.
But what happened to the moral argument that we once had the upper hand in?
We used to be the good guys. We promoted democracy and freedom and humanitarianism. We stood for something different.
Now, I am not so naive as to assume that over our history we have not engaged in reprehensible acts of cruelty and deceit. Of course we have. We have done everything under the umbrella of preserving our freedom and protecting our way of life.
Sure, Al Qaeda wants to obliterate us. Sure we have enemies all over the place and sure, we are at risk.
But what exactly are we at risk of? Losing our lifestyle? Losing our vaunted liberties under our sacred Constitution? Losing our lives at the hands of those we deem the "bad guys?"
I submit that by resorting to the use of torture and condoning the acts of those who mete it out, we are losing everything we have ever believed in. We are losing our morality. We are become those we fight against.
We claim to believe in the rights of man. We claim to believe in the beauty of nature and the creation itself.
Yet we have collectively decided to allow the most heinous acts to be carried out in our name with the handy justification that, by doing so, we will be safe.
Certainly safe in the short term...but never safe from the slippery slope we are stepping on. It will only be a matter of time before we are a completely amoral society bereft of everything that made us proud as a people.
We will only be safe if we set the example of goodness over evil and of love over hate. We will only be safe if we hold on to our principles in the face of all odds no matter how steep.
I'm sure the bright minds in government and academia can come up with a better way to get information from someone without torture.
But do we want to try...?
And those who sanctioned and used torture as a means to an end should not be allowed to get away with, literally, murder. They should be held accountable. They should be investigated and if, guilty, jailed. If not, they will be exonerated in a court of law...not "pardoned" in the Oval Office.
President Obama has stated that we will not use torture. But to abandon the investigation of those who may have committed crimes is to sanction the behavior and to say that it was okay.
It was not okay.
We are not okay.
Ok?
(One definition of "okay" is that it comes from the French and originally was "aux quais", which means "to the dock"...which was where slaves were put before being shipped out to the U.S....thought you'd like to know)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The GOP is up in arms, blaming Panetta and Obama for "abandoning the investigation" and "protecting" the torturers. As they brandish their propaganda across the internet, a marked omission is a standard characteristic of each of these claims. Unlike George W. Bush, President Obama was a constitutional law professor. Unlike Bush he knows and respectst the Constitution of the United States. (He took heat for stating this during his campaign.) Mr. Obama did not "abandon the investigation" of the torture nor did he "sanction" it. He spoke out against it and indicated zero tolerance for it for the same reasons you have cited above. As one whose expertise is in Constitutional law, the President realized that because the White House attorneys had given written statements saying that the torture was legal to those who had issued the orders and had perpetrated the incidents, President Obama is smart enough to realize that when it comes down to it, a case against them would not hold up in any court of law. Rather than spend tax payer money on a media sensationalized trial that he already knew, by law, would be dismissed, he issued a stern declaration against their activities, publicly denounced and chastised them. He would have seen them prosecuted if there had been a legal way to proceed.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds, eerily, like Nuremberg...
ReplyDeleteYou would prefer a kangaroo court? That is what Nureberg was. Don't represent President Obama as a man who approves of torture, Bozo. He is protecting your Constitution. You can count on Sarah Palin using exactly what you said as her platform when she runs for office in the next round. You can count on Limbaugh's riding the same pony. Barak Obama is as opposed to the torture as are you or I and has put a stop to using torture in the future. Turn the page!
ReplyDeleteConspiracy theorists are out there decrying Obama's decision while pointing their fingers in his direction saying he is a "co-conspirator" in the torture. This is rooted in a misinterpretation of the 1984 Convention Against Torture. The C.A.T. does not override the Constitution of the United States in this case because those who followed the legal advice of the Bush administration lawyers were acting under orders that the Bushites had predetermined was legal. That is why it cannot be brought to trial. The conspiracy theorists never seem to mention this.
The lawyers who handed down the legal rationale for the torture are the ones who should carry the brunt of the responsibility. Obama wants to get them. He just wants to make sure he gets the RIGHT them and that it is legal for him to do so. Give him time. These buffoons, (John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury) (the ones who provided the legal rationale) are still under investigation and very well could be prosecuted for their actions. The current administration has not "let it go", nor have they ruled out prosecuting anyone who exceeded the legal guidelines. They are currently appointing a special prosecutor, so it ain't over 'til it's over.
I just think that the investigation(s) should proceed unfettered by any bias from The White House, Constitutional Law Professor in Residence notwithstanding...and I loved Bozo...after all, we are all Bozos on this bus.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree...we'll see Sarah Palin in '12...Palin/Limbaugh...now there's a ticket to get energized about!!