Important Note:

Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.

Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

The value of Torture                                                                                    

Posted at: Jun/23/2009 : Posted by: mel

Related Category: Perspectives,

First of all I need to be clear, I am not an expert on torture and while I like to expand my knowledge base… I am quite comfortable in my bliss with respect to this skill set. The debate on the use of torture by American’s for the sake of our security has been a very heated debate for most of the past 8 years (since September 11th, 2001).

On September 11, 2001 I was getting ready for work when I became transfixed by events unfolding before me on the television. Watching in real-time as the World Trade Center towers burned and subsequently fell in on themselves left me initially in shock. As my shock faded and I watched the video of the planes slamming into the towers being repeatedly played on the news I transitioned into a hatred-motivated vengeance. I wanted the terrorists who killed the September 11 victims and any trace of their existence wiped from the face of the earth. I suspect that what I felt was a fairly common human response to an infamous and tragic event and I don’t apologize for it. Despite this I know that hatred and vengeance are not good responses to any situation.

In response to the tragedy perpetrated on September 11th 2001, the U.S. military attacked bases in Afghanistan wiping out for the short-term the ability of people and resources in that part of the world to be used to plan and execute similar acts of violence. I view this as a measured, effective and correct response. It is not difficult to argue that the destruction of these terrorist resources and the government that harbored them has provided greater security to the rest of the world. It is also pretty clear that the surprise nature of the attack on September 11 indicates a significant failure on the part of the various intelligence agencies entrusted with our security.

Intelligence gathered for the sake of “National Security” is accumulated in a variety of methods, media analysis, operatives, extracting information from captives, etc. Sounds like stuff from a good novel or action movie, though I suspect that reality is not anywhere near as exciting as the movies. My concern here is on how we “extract” information from prisoners, captives, and other unwilling sources. This stuff is generally called interrogation and spans the range of endearing conversation all the way to torture.

The dictionary defines torture (noun) as “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.” The (verb) definition is “to subject to torture.” Sounds pretty unappetizing, more importantly, it does not “sound very American”. I suppose that worrying about sounding American is kind of idealist, but idealism counts and I am idealist. The United States is not just a country, it is a brand marketed worldwide. Like any brand you have to worry about actions that devalue the brand. We brag to the world about our freedoms and our Constitution. Can we really say that the constitution makes room for purposefully threatening, violent treatment, degrading actions and humiliating conduct of prisoners of war or those designated as "enemy combatant" by the Commander in Chief? No less important, has torture garnered any information that has improved our security or stopped a catastrophic terrorist event?

I am not an intelligence insider, but there has been a lot published on the lack of substantive information actually gained via torture. Ali Soufan, the supervising FBI agent who got important information from a terror suspect by traditional techniques insisted: “There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."

I like yielding to those who are likely to be in a position to actually know. FBI Director Robert Mueller said “no attack had ever been foiled by information gained from torturing a criminal suspect.” Mr. Mueller was again asked in December of 2008: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”? His response was “I’m really reluctant to answer that”. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.” Delivering this insight should be well within the bailiwick of the FBI director. Note: Robert was appointed by President Bush in 2001 and remains FBI director under President Obama.

The Defenders of using torture techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. Significantly, this has never been verified. GOP Rep Pete King said: “If we have another 2,000 people killed, I want Nancy Pelosi and George Soros, John Conyers and Pat Leahy to go to the funeral and say, ‘Your son was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some guy’s head under water for 30 seconds.’” This is the metaphorical argument that it is okay for me to beat up the bully because eventually he was going to beat me up. As controversial as torture is, verification that high value information can be gained would be widely reported if true. Even if it were true, I simply would not be able to condone torture.

I am very proud of the freedoms and liberties afforded me under the U.S. Constitution. We proudly promote our freedoms across the globe. I also believe we are hypocritically shredding our Constitution by using torture. At some point Americans will be held and tortured by others, but using this as an excuse demeans us to their level. Promoting torture only continues a cycle of hatred and violence. I believe strongly that promoting democracy can only come with a strong example of peace, justice, and “rule of law”. I am also aware that some situations will still require the threat or use of brute force.

Torture is a moral and constitutional question. Our society is identified by our application of these laws and we cannot pick and choose who they apply to, and who they don’t apply to, or when and when not. Individually, we are each defined by what we do, what we don’t do, and how we interact with others. Torture is not how I want to be defined. As a final thought I keep coming back to basic parenting and leadership skills. You lead by example and “do as I say, not as I do” never fooled anyone. We cannot promote democracy with our right hand while torturing others with our left.

Comments (0)                                                                                                                                                    [Add Comment]