Liberty and justice for all...well, with a few exceptions.

So...I have made the decision that I will try to write at least (approximately) one post a day, and will try to focus (unless otherwise inspired) on some issue or current event that is "big in the news" that day or week. (Seems rational enough, right?) This week's news and political shows have been heavy with talk of torture, what defines or constitutes torture, whether or not what our military and CIA were doing for several years there was torture, whether or not those "enhanced interrogation techniques" were actually legal or not, whether or not torture produces the desired results, who should or should not be held accountable for those practices (the people at the bottom of the food chain actually carrying out the orders, the higher-ups ordering them, or the people at the very top of the food chain requesting and creating bizarre legal opinions to justify them), etc., etc., etc. It seems only fitting that my first "opinion post" sh0uld pertain to that touchy (no pun intended) subject.



I have to admit that I was a little disturbed this morning, as I read the Miami Herald over my coffee and English muffin, to learn that a recent poll found that "about half of all Americans, and 52% of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against terrorism suspects." I probably should not be surprised, much less shocked and appalled. After all, this is a country where the death penalty not only still exists but is still used regularly and still enjoys the support of a popular majority; where a vast majority of those who proclaim so vociferously that they are "pro-life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-preemptive wars that kill and maim countless civilians, including women and children; where one's "right to life" (including access to health care, even emergency health care) is largely dependent upon one's ability to pay for it. Oh yes, Americans value life, all right, but only certain lives, and certain people simply are not deserving (we say) of human rights.



Have we really not yet moved past the medieval mindset of the angry, vengeful mob arriving at the town square with fistfuls of stones, ready to throw them at the convict as he is being drawn and quartered? Either you are for torture or you are against it. Either you are for human rights or you are against them. There can be no in-between, there can be no middle ground, no "well yes I am but in certain cases..."



Naturally there are many people standing far to my right who would read this (well, they probably won't read it, but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that they would) and cry out triumphantly, "Aha! You see? Another lefty terrorist apologist! They all think we should just turn our country over to terrorists and become an Islamic nation like Iran! They think we should bow down to the terrorists, surrender!" This is the typical rallying cry for those who are more interested in imperialism than in the concepts of liberty and justice this country was founded upon; who are more interested in making sure that America stays at the top of the global food chain than making sure it remains a role model to developing countries who have not yet fully adopted, or indeed adopted at all, human rights.

The Eighth Amendment was put into the Constitution for a reason. The reason is, precisely, cases like the one we see today. It is not, and must not be, a question of whether the people being tortured are guilty or innocent, nor of what. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with in a court of law, following the American laws and judicial procedures. This is not me (or anyone else) saying that what they may or may not have done is "OK". We are supposed to be a country of principles. If we do not follow our own principles, how on earth can we expect other countries to follow them? This idea that, as the United States and as the leading world economic power, we are above international laws, treaties and conventions is absolutely preposterous...and extremely dangerous. In the short term, we are setting a very ugly and risky precedent, and providing easy and quite logical justification for countries that might capture and torture our citizens. "It's not torture when you do it; why is it torture if we do it?" What shall we argue to that? "No, no, because you are not Americans, and those people were terrorists!"? "Terrorist" is one of those loose terms we like to stick on any person or government we do not agree with or support; it has also been stuck on us, for our intrusive actions in other countries, especially the Middle East. We could argue all day on who is or is not a terrorist; at the end of the day, it still would not matter. Our founding fathers upheld, rightly, the idea that we would not torture under any circumstances. The Eighth Amendment does not say, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except in the case of terrorists." When we grant certain political entities the discretion to decide who is or is not worthy of human rights, we do ourselves, our country, our principles and the entire world a grave disservice.

This is the only issue here. The issue is not whether or not torture works (it appears that most evidence shows that it does not work, often eliciting inaccurate confessions and destroying any chance of building the sort of rapport that could lead to useful intelligence). Even if it worked like a charm, it would still be morally wrong and ILLEGAL. There is a reason why confessions obtained by police from suspects under harsh conditions are thrown out. Should we hold our leaders and our judiciaries to a lesser standard?

This "ticking bomb" scenario keeps coming up--shouldn't we be able to do it if we know this prisoner knows something, he won't talk, and a huge attack is about to take place? It's ridiculous. First of all, these people are trained to be, and are psychologically prepared to be, suicide bombers. They are ready to die for this cause they believe in, regardless of what we personally think about their cause. If they are willing to crash an airplane into a building, or strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a public place, why would we believe that torturing them might get them to crack? When dealing with individuals who already have such a low opinion of what we represent that they are willing to blow up hundreds or thousands of civilians to prove their point, all torture would do is reinforce those ideas and strengthen their resolve. Furthermore, assuming that for some reason the torture could succeed in obtaining some kind of information, and that that information was not a blatant lie in an attempt to stop the torture, the intelligence would already be dated by the time it was obtained. Only current, up-to-the-minute intelligence from the field would really help stop an imminent terrorist attack. And still, even if we put all of this aside and made the gross leap of faith that it COULD get accurate intelligence that COULD help stop a terrorist attack, it is morally wrong, ILLEGAL, and sets a precedent for our country and an example for the rest of the world that we WILL live to regret.

Our leaders should know this. That the American public is divided on it attests more than anything else to the same vengeful nature that demands "an eye for an eye" (forgetting that in the New Testament Jesus tells them to "turn the other cheek," in other words, follow your principles of non-violence and serve as an example). Americans, more than any other country in the Western world with which I have experience or insight, like and want revenge. But the leaders of our country--the President, his cabinet, the Vice-President, the Attorney General, our Supreme Court justices, any other member of Congress involved--they are all legally trained. They know what the law is. They know that calling something by another name does not change its substance. They must be held accountable.

I commend Obama for releasing the torture memos. However, I will be bitterly disappointed--and worried for the future of our country and our world--if his administration does not pursue an effort to determine the whole truth about this affair and hold the perpetrators accountable. I keep hearing people fretting about what image of the U.S. this will present to the rest of the world. The truth of the matter is--and everyone should know this already--the rest of the world already knows what we have done. They knew it long before the exact details were released in the torture memos. None of this is brand new information. What they are waiting and watching for is to see what we are going to do about it. Are we going to sweep it under the rug and say, "Well, we don't do it anymore, so let's just forget about that whole ugly chapter of American history and move on"? Or are they going to say, "This was a travesty of justice, it goes contrary to American principles and the United States Constitution, and to prove that we refuse to condone torture we will hold accountable those responsible for it"?

And screw public opinion. Whether polls say Americans are for or against getting to the bottom of this and prosecuting where necessary--who cares? Do we use information gathered from polls to decide criminal court cases? No. We have a judge and a jury and they decide, based on the evidence presented, not whether or not they like the individual on trial, not whether or not a conviction will "blemish" their town, but whether or not a law has been broken, which one, and what the consequences should be. We love to say in this country that no one is above the law. It is now time for Obama, Attorney General Holder, the rest of the administration, the judicial system, and this country as a whole to prove it. If no one has broken any laws, then no one will be prosecuted. But if laws have been broken--and all evidence suggests they have--then in the interest of justice and upholding our example as a country that respects human rights and honors international laws, treaties and conventions, we have a duty to investigate and prosecute...regardless of what Americans say about it in ABC polls.