http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Unredacted_documents_reveal_prisoners_tortured_to_0212.html
Of course, most people are already aware of the Bush Administration's record on torture.
To me it was a real puzzle as to why the Bush Administration adopted those policies, knowing as they did (or should have known), that not only is "enhanced interrogation" illegal and immoral, it is also useless and ineffective, the TV show '24' (cited as "evidence" by some on the Right) notwithstanding.
As a lay person, I am fairly well read, although not as much in history as I would like. That said, I don't know of a single documented instance where a "ticking bomb" catastrophe was averted by somebody resorting to torture. Perhaps there is one and I just don't know about it. But it seems like our friends on the Right would be throwing it up in everybody's face if there was one.
But it seems reality provides us with few (if any) situations where thought experiments like the "ticking bomb" scenario can be tested. I think that's why '24' gets cited as evidence.
Now In Austin, somebody also tried to use a online review of the movie 'Taken' in a backhanded way to imply justification for the Bush Administration...that's not to say, I didn't enjoy the movie in a primitive, vengeful kind of way, which led me to think--
Given that governments, generals, street gangs, mafiosos of various kinds, are hardly squeamish about the application of force and violence when felt necessity dictates it (and often when it doesn't), who can really believe that an official who really, really has ironclad evidence of a (really specific) ticking bomb that desperately needs to be uncovered would fail to resort to torture if that seemed to be the only avenue to stop it--regardless of any laws or conventions that might be on the books. And who can believe the official would be prosecuted if he/she did in fact keep the bomb from going off? The point is, prior validation of torture as an acceptable policy is beside the point in any situation where it could be proved conclusively after the fact that torture was necessary and effective to avoid massive catastrophe.
So why was the Bush Administration trying to enshrine torture as policy? I think it has to do with the same mindset evoked by movies like 'Taken'
Republicans and conservatives generally tend to believe the world is a highly dangerous place, and that the only real safety lies in having the biggest stick and being the meanest SOB in the valley. All else is mere window dressing & fluff. George Will* and the usual run of talking heads on Fox News & their ilk hew to a view of U.S. foreign policy that the U.S. should be perceived as somewhat crazy and dangerously unpredictable.
I submit Cheney, the neocons, et alia, weren't interested in developing information by torturing people. They were serving notice that Americans are crazy, dangerous people who will do ANYTHING when they feel threatened--or even if they don't. Even absent validation of torture as policy, given the invasion of Iraq I'll bet the world didn't need any additional evidence...
(In fact somebody commented on an earlier post--I thought I knew who, but I may be mistaken--cited me as an example of a dangerous American attitude because I was venting about the Taliban and Al Queda...
*I don't watch Fox News any more except for occasional comedic distraction, but it's interesting that I don't recall George Will being on Fox News much--perhaps it's too lowbrow for a great newspaper scholar like him...
Well, there are lots of things wrong with a maddog foreign policy. Maybe too obvious to comment on, but maybe later.
No comments:
Post a Comment