The Fate of the Torture Architects

Remove all ads!

@Cara, Ragausa, & Shaman,

I see your point(s), but I don't believe the majority of people (at least Americans) agree with you. If we did and thought this was an important issue the citizenry would be causing a ruckus. The only ruckus I see is from people with a political axe to grind.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

I'll give you this one, althought I'm not completly sure. If it had been possible for Bush to get a third term and he also continued spending like a drunken sailor I think the movement might have started anyway.

 

The political element probably blurs things when they should be clear. Ragusa is perfectly right in the sense that torture is illegal (and that is a perfectly objective argument that no amount of rationalization can invalidate).

If indeed most people in the US disagree then it is because they are afraid. In the aftermath of 9/11 (the oppressive climate of the War on Terror and the threat of bombings) they believe that their safety should be ensured no matter what. It's understandable but it's not rational. Only a sentiment that is based on fear will prompt the acceptance of such methods by the people.

I'd like to point out that criticizing torture is not necessarily Anti-Americanism (although you may perceive it that way). It's quite the opposite actually. It saddens me that American officials should consider waterboarding and other forms of torture to be a justified method of interrogation because it is barbaric (and as it has been pointed out ineffective).

It's all about ethics and it's really appalling when officials blatantly defy the Geneva Conventions.

There is no other way to look at it. You can't claim a moral high ground if you condone such methods. I'm not saying that only Americans are to blame. But America should set an example to the world instead of violating all that it stands for and betraying its ideals in order to prove that might makes right.

 

I disagree. I think it's because most people honestly don't care. It didn't happen to them or anyone like them, so they aren't willing to make a fuss over it. These are the same people that skip out on jury duty for murders. They honestly don't care that someone stabbed another person in the chest for a doughnut. All they care about is how much it inconveniences them. That being said, we have the trials anyway.

 

Well, there are laws, and sometimes it's a good idea to uphold them

 

If you're right then it's even worse. When people stop caring about human dignity and upholding the ideals that their country once stood for because they have become too engrossed in their petty lives and personal convenience it means that the worst is still to come.

 

TBH Caradhras, I think NOG is right. Most Americans don't care, as it doesn't disrupt their lives. Sad, but true.

 

But it isn't just Americans that don't care. Have you seen street protests in the capitals of Europe, South America, or Asia? Even our enemies don't seem to care. Have you seen Iran, Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea file protests and condemn it. Even if they did (and if they did I'm sure Ragusa can find a link to it), nobody reported on it or cares.

I'm not trying to claim a moral high ground, I'm just saying that the only people who care would have found something else to whine about if they couldn't latch on to this issue. I don't forsee any possibility of trials in the United States and we probably have more rabid "Anti-Bush" people here then the rest of the world combined. If by any chance another nation/court would try to prosecute/arrest any of the players involved it would cause celebration by the limited number of people who care, it would cause a smirk by a lot of other people, and anger by the rest. In the long run the economic consequences of such an action would probably make everyone involved regret that the fantasy of prosecution ever existed.

 

Welcome to the Modern West.

 

When it comes to war criminals, just like any other criminals, there is a de facto hierarchy. While everyone likes to urinate on the Americans who have certainly committed war crimes, priority is given to stopping those who have committed greater crimes against humanity -- macheteing(sic) entire villages, using rape as a form of psychological warfare, gassing and starving entire regions, using drug addicted child soldiers to slaughter populations . . . .

This does not exonerate those who authorized or conducted torture. But on a scale of atrocity, I think that NOG has a point that in the face of crimes of such magnitude, the waterboarding of people who even Obama's administration is loathe to release is small potatoes.

The way I see it , people are far, far too quick to pounce on the US for a mote and turn a blind eye to the beams elsewhere in the world. Sorry for the free use of a Biblical reference.

That doesn't change the fact that if the Americans want to get the moral high ground while attempting to address the beam level problems, their own (relative) motes will damage them in the court of international opinion.

Now we've debated the value of torture before, ad nauseum. I say that many Westerners don't particularily care because they are not only fearful, but frustrated as hell. They are tired of playing by rules that the other side cheerfully ignores and is never called to account for. For example, there was never any justice for the Americans who were tortured at the hands of the Viet Cong. In fact, as has also been discussed on several threads, popular Hollywood stars were sitting on enemy tanks and denying the fact that their own countrymen were undergoing the strappado. Hanoi Jane and her ilk never once have suggested that those who tortured those GIs should face war crimes tribunals. Such is anathema to such people -- holding the US to a higher standard than anyone else in the world is how they get their sanctimonious faces on TV.

Sorry for the vitriol. I know it's wrong to torture, I do. I wouldn't want to be waterboarded, and I wouldn't want it to happen to any of my loved ones. But dammit, in the grand scheme of things, it's small potatoes. I wish people would go after the big fish first, and not merely the fish that is the easiest target because of its easygoing nature.

 

Some people do care but the media don't for the most part. Groups like Amnesty International are very vocal about such things. People marched against the war in Iraq because they didn't believe it was justified or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Popular support for the war in Afghanistan is certainly not widespread. The campaign against anti-personnel mines is another example of disagreement with the US.

The main objection is that prosecution is useless because the US won't let it happen. The International Court of Justice holds no power, nor does the UN. Nobody is going to stand up and face the American Administration with these accusations either.

Let me remind you that President Chirac's decision not to take part in the war in Iraq resulted into a massive campaign to ruin French exports and French economy (not to mention all that Freedom Fries nonsense). France was almost listed as a country of the Axis of Terror in the media. That was for not taking part in a war that was deemed to be unnecessary by our government... I don't know what the US administration would do to us if we were to confront them with human rights violations pleas. But since the current French president is clearly not opposed to war and forced us back in NATO there is no concern to be had on that point. To be frank, the current president is slowly turning France into a police state so we have a lot of things to be concerned about right now.

Still, I don't think that this issue should be as important to Europeans because it's your country's legacy to the world and to future generations that is at stake.

I'm afraid that dismissing torture because it looks innocuous compared to terrorists beheading hostages is not a valid point. It will only lead you down a road that can only end in acting like the people you wanted to stop in the first place.

In other words, if you start acting like them you'll end up becoming like them.

I believe that America has a responsibility to the world. I believe that America should show that it can live up to its ideals and not step down into barbarism by violating international laws, human rights and the Geneva Conventions.

 

All countries have a responsibility to the world to behave in a decent, civilized fashion. Not the the US, and not just the Western Democracies. I am not dismissing the torture by any stretch of the imagination. What I am saying is that a balanced, realistic perspective is necessary. If you have limited resources, who do you try to catch and prosecute -- The guys who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of women and children, or the guys who waterboarded 100 prisoners? I would go after the big fish. Once you clean up the big messes, sure, go after the little ones.

And as for the feelings of the American people, I see it as something like the Charlie Brown syndrome. Lucy keeps telling us to play by the rules, and then breaks them herself at the last minute. While it never happens in the strip, I see Charlie (the US) finally getting tired of his easygoing nature being taken advantage of, and so just as Lucy (criminal terrorist filth who rape women and children) smugly gets ready to yet again break the rules of common decency, Charlie kicks her in the <snipped with prejudice!> face! Maybe the rest of the world thinks that the US should play doormat forever and be a starry eyed idealist, but eventually cold, hard experience can make anyone lose their temper and do something they really shouldn't do.

 

I think we need to be clear about what Americans feel on the subject of torture:

My own personal take on that is that Americans tend to be pragmatic about the use of torture and how it is used is important. While those of us on the left are opposed to the use of torture by any "term" the government lawyers which to attach to it, those on the right and even in the center are not opposed, generally to its use, given the right conditions and HOW it is applied.

To say Americans "don't care" is not really accurate.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/explaining-torture-polling.html

http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture

 

I disagree Chandos. Most Americans are neither the right or the left. Most don't care about that scenario as well. They are too engrossed in their own daily lives that the torture of terrorists doesn't mean a thing to them. If the presidnet gave a speech on it tonight, how many viewers do you think he would have? My bet would be on a small % of the population. The rest simply don't care.

 

You don't need to be left or right to oppose torture.

It Is. Against. The Law.

as in: ILLEGAL. In America. A crime.

What part of that is difficult to understand? Not even Cheney and his crew of torture enthusiasts, not for lack of trying, have quite managed to change that.

That is the silliest part of it all, that the right wingers, who pride themselves for being tough on crime and punish those who break the law hard - call for the law to be broken in the name of fighting terrorism. So that is the one crime they like, eh? With bizarre ideas like that abound, it is unsurprising that at CPAC Bob Barr got booed for stating that water boarding is torture.

Barr was absolutely right. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the rule of law, you have to respect its laws. It is that simple. But as the CPAC episode suggests that is nowadays no longer a popular idea on the right, at least not with the more activist types who attend CPAC.

 

Well, I certainly agree with that point. The left is a small minority, with the right being larger, but most voters are somewhere in the center.

But looking at the poll results, only 4-5 percent didn't really know if they supported the use of torture. So, it seems that almost all Americans at least claim to have an opinion on its use.

 

Yeah, but what % would even take the poll? That's the question. Most won't. Why? Because they don't care.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later... ----------

Being "Illegal" has nothing to do with not caring Rags. Many are just indifferent to the law being broken. But, those same people would immediately take issue with a law that is broken if it affected them. See the difference? The thought process for most is this "Not my problem."

 

Driving a car too fast is also against the law, so is jaywalking. I'm sure there are still jurisdictions where sodomy is illegal. Although a better example may be perjury. Perjury is a felony and is a major crime. However, do you have any doubt that it happens almost every day in a court room? How often do you hear people screaming about perjury? About the only major case I can thing of was President Clinton and that is probably the best reverse example I can give you about your obsession. The only people who really cared about Clinton committing perjury were people with a political axe to grind against him. Everybody else just didn't care.

 

Neither driving a car too fast, nor jaywalking or sodomy or perjury are being threatened with any jail term or death penalty under US Code. Torture is right there with rape, manslaughter and murder.

 

Torture of a US citizen is, but torture of a suspected terrorists is a completely different ballgame. There would be an outcry if the gov't used torture on one of it's own citizens. But on a terrorists? You just won't see a reaction from most, except from those who have an agenda with the accused. That's reality, irregardless of what the law is.

 

I give a **** about the public opinion in the US. There are certainly also plenty of people approving of tax evasion, but that doesn't make that crime legal either.

And it is the very same ballgame. Torture of any US citizen is just as prohibited as the torture of anybody else, irrespective of his nationality. The law explicitly says that Americans must not do the act, not that they must not do the act to Americans. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Just in case you want to read it yourself:

Having and upholding laws means not being subject to the whims of a roused or frightened mob (or a tyrant).