Terrorism Comes In Many Forms

I love 24; the first seasons were the best, but I've got high hopes for season 7, and I can't BELIEVE we have to wait until next January for it. In 24, Jack Bauer runs around trying to save the world, and in the process he does some nasty things to some terrorists. There's definitely a subtle conservative message in the show, if you associate putting security over individual liberties with conservatism (and, yes, George W. Bush is still the Republican standard-bearer).

As a nation we have forgotten the words of FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." We have allowed fear of terrorism to cause us to strike out blindly in Iraq, which has been an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps worst of all, we have allowed this fear to corrupt us morally to the point where our administration utilizes torture in the name of national security.

Check out this link. Do you remember John Ashcroft? He was the first-term Attorney General in the Bush Administration, famous for stuff like: losing a U.S. Senate election to a dead guy, pushing through the PATRIOT Act, and being the Bush posterboy for civil liberties violations. Long story short, Ashcroft was answering questions in a public forum, and some kid brought up the fact that, in 1947, the United States convicted a Japanese officer of war crimes for using waterboarding on an American civilian, and sentenced him to 15 years of hard labor. The crux of Ashcroft's response was that American waterboarding doesn't compare to what the Japanese officer did, because the documents the questioner referred to said that the officer "forced" water on the torturee, whereas we Americans are simply "pouring" it.

It's very different, you see, because it's "pouring", not "forcing".

Is this really what we've been reduced to? Quibbling over the semantics of simulated drowning? It is torture. It is un-American. It is morally wrong. And it's not just torture. It's holding people without trials and the decay of other rights.

What's the legacy of 9/11 in this nation? For a while, the legacy was a sense of national pride, a sense of unity. Do you remember how we came together as a nation after that tragedy? I will never forget it. Unfortunately, 9/11 was also the starting point that enabled the Bush administration to use the politics of fear to accomplish its political purposes.

The minute we start sacrificing human rights in the name of national security is the minute we have no security at all!

I hope the next president -- be it Clinton, Obama, or former POW John McCain -- will have the integrity and the courage to stand up and say, "We are the United States of America. We will take the moral high ground. We will find a better way."

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what do we do if we know for a fact that certain people are terrorists, say "no big deal, you can destroy our country"? I'm not saying that torture is the answer, I am just wondering what your thoughts are on the proper way to deal with terrorists. (We know from experience that prison time doesn't work, so please don't say put them in prison)

big.bald.dave said...

Give the terrorists a fair trial, and if they are convicted, execute them, just like we would any other mass murderer. What is the difference? Last I checked, Tim McVeigh was a terrorist, and I somehow doubt he was waterboarded, being that he was a honky from down the street and all. Just because the people in question are not American citizens does not mean we shouldn't adhere to the same high standards we afford our own people.

Unknown said...

I agree with Dave. If we know for a fact that certain people are terrorists, than it shouldn't be too tough to convict them, lock them away forever, or execute them. Plus I don't know how relevant it is, because as I understand it, they're torturing for information, not to punish them or rehabilitate them.

No question that dealing with terrorists is bad news; I don't know how you can fight an enemy that has no regard for his/her own life.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Just to be clear, are you against the use of torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES? If so, shouldn't you detest Jack Bauer and "24" as a morally corrupt show? I think the series (which I also quite enjoy) provides an interesting moral problem--what are the limits of morality in an extreme emergency? It does seem that the scenarios in "24" may different than our current state of affairs in an important way. Bauer is trying to prevent clear and imminent disasters whereas (at least according to what we are told) the "interrogation techniques" currently in the news are to "gain information" about possible targets. But what if this distinction is not always extant? Would you support the torture of a known terrorist if there was less than 24 hours to prevent an imminent disaster the likes of 9/11?
By no means am I saying that I am in support of the policies of the current administration. But I think it is an interesting theoretical and moral question. What are the moral limits of protecting one’s own?

Amy said...

I always wonder if public executions should be reinstated not only to show everyone that "justice" is served, but also to serve a warning to others who are thinking about committing heinous crimes.

Anonymous said...

Travis, any true conservative already knows the answer to your question: if you give the government the authority to torture in extreme cases, under the assumption that such cases ("ticking time bomb" scenarios, basically) will be rare, you are inevitably giving the government the ability to torture in other, more common, cases as well. It's the same sort of Big Government "mission creep" that has led to the incredible dominance of the feds over other aspects of our lives.

Think about it. In order to implement a torture policy, you have to train people to be torturers, and then keep their abilities in check 99 percent of the time. Since right now torture is illegal, you also have to create mechanisms to keep the torture secret, or at least prevent any oversight of it by the courts. Then you have to resist the temptation to extend torture beyond the most necessary cases.

This last one is tricky. Usama bin Laden's personal chef may not know any of the details of an impending attack, he might even be 99 percent ignorant of UBL's plans, but he just might have inadvertently overheard the one little thing that is the last piece of the big puzzle that will allow us to prevent the next attack. Then again, maybe he doesn't know anything of value, but he MIGHT. Well, then, can we really afford NOT to torture him? Shucks, what have we got to lose? We'll just torture him at some "black site," completely in secret. If we do get the info we need and prevent the attack, we'll be heroes! Re-election guaranteed! If we don't get the info we need, well, nobody will ever know we did anything wrong.

Do you think that sort of temptation can be resisted by the same class of people that brought us Watergate, the Waco fiasco, and Abu Ghraib?

So, yes: Just to be clear, I am against the use of torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

What of that very, very rare situation in which it is certain that torture WOULD be justified? Here's what the courageous person would do: Go ahead and torture, prevent the attack, and then come clean to the world and submit to its judgment. But we should not under any circumstances create a structure that authorizes the government to torture people in secret without any real oversight other than its own. That way lies the Gulag.

And no, I don't think we need to detest Jack Bauer and "24" as a morally corrupt show, because it's fiction. Kinda like we don't have to detest "The Godfather" as a morally corrupt show. Ticking-time-bomb scenarios can happen every week in fiction, but they don't in real life. Also, of course, a TV show's value as story transcends the immorality of the characters. Or, if we do need to detest "24," we don't need to detest it in the same way every true American (not to mention every true Christian) needs to detest the Bush administration. After all, the Bush administration is torturing real people. Which is to say, since he heads up OUR nation and does so only under our sufferance, WE are torturing real people. (Anybody here care to use their vaunted agency to invoke the impeachment power? President Kimball was, and Monson is, as morally craven in this respect as most everyone else. Think of all the moral authority emanating from their office, and think of how it's been marshalled against the ERA, and against gay marriage, but not against torture! Compare the head of the LDS Church to the Pope in this regard. Though even the Pope, against torture and against the war, managed to embrace the president. Jeremiah Wright is a creep, but he's far from the only one.)

There was a time when John McCain vocally opposed the president's torture policies (though even he was too chicken to support impeachment). (I don't mean to let pro-impeachment Democrats off the hook, BTW. They probably would never be equally bold against one of their own. Most of them are just as scared as any Republican of being seen as wimps.) But not any more, apparently. Like every other major candidate, McCain would rather be president than actually stand for something. (And yes, I include Romney. Remember when he said he couldn't think of anything more awful than polygamy?)

Travis, I appreciate the fact that you don't necessarily support the administration on this one. And I appreciate your question, "What are the moral limits of protecting one’s own?" I haven't really even begun to answer that question, since my argument thus far has been pragmatic, not moral. But just as conservative political philosophy gives us a pragmatic answer, so Christianity offers us a moral answer. It's a radical one, far too radical for most to accept, but it's simple: Turn the other cheek and put your trust in God. If in the process of loving your enemy and turning your cheek you lose this life, you gain something far more valuable in return. Remember that Christ said this at a time when taking it to heart was far more difficult than it is for us today. In his time, his people were not merely threatened by but actively tyrannized by an evil foreign power. And what response did he counsel? Love your enemies. Did he counsel violent resistance? Nope. Did he urge anyone to join the zealots? Nope. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. I don't know how anyone can honestly read the gospels and conclude that Jesus would have approved of Jack Bauer, or of George W. Bush.

--David

big.bald.dave said...

I don't have an issue with the LDS church not taking a stand on torture; rather, I was disappointed that the church did take a stand on some of the other issues. The further the church stays out of politics (and vice versa), the better for everyone IMO.

Otherwise David, very well said - if we give the government authority to torture at all, we are on a very slippery slope to allowing torture in circumstances outside the original intent. I am also against any use of torture, for any reason, under any circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Here's another aspect of the question. It pales in comparison to the main moral issue, but nonetheless might be very important to those directly involved. Here's a story about an Iraqi who has sued sued one of the Abu Ghraib contractors, claiming he was tortured. Assuming for the moment that the plaintiff really was tortured, can the company defend itself by arguing it was only following instructions handed down by the administration? Obviously that's not a moral defense, but it might be a legal one. But what if the administration then denies the defendant's claim? The administration would then be in the position of leaving one of its contractors hung out to dry. Just another reason not to go the torture route in the first place (and maybe a reason not to contract out military operations).

BBD, I agree with your comment on political activity by churches. I have no problem with churches who wish to weigh in on political questions. But if they're going to do so in a highly selective way, they inevitably open themselves up to criticism, such as mine, about hypocrisy.

--David

Anonymous said...

I talked to a Marine this weekend, John Crozier from Mesa High School. I asked him about waterboarding and he said that as Marines, they are drowned several times as a part of amphibious training. He said, "You blackout but you just get used to it". So is this considered torture?

I think the question we need to ask is "what is torture?" To some, isn't being raped in prison torture? What about having your children taken away on unsubstantiated claims of abuse?

Anonymous said...

These questions have already been asked and answered, Matt. Torture is defined by U.S. statute, military policy, and Article Three of the Geneva Conventions (which BTW because we signed it and ratified it is the law of the land). Under any of these definitions waterboarding is torture. What your Marine friend seems to be saying is that "They tortured us in basic so it's not torture when we do it to others." Well, guess what? In basic you also run around and shoot guns, which is OK in training but not in other contexts. (Maybe there's a reason your Marine friend is not Air Force.)

Anyway, the Bush administration reopened the torture discussion and had John Yoo et al redefine torture as if there were something to discuss, but there isn't. It's as if Bush had said, "Bank fraud is not necessarily stealing, so let's discuss it and see if maybe we can redefine it as acceptable when I do it." It's utter bunk. Were he an honorable man he would have said, "Hmmm. We need to torture, but it's illegal. I'll take the question to Congress and try to convince them to change the laws and legalize the interrogation techniques I feel are necessary."

But openness, honesty, and democracy got in the man's way, so he dispensed with them. He knew he could get away with it, too, because he understood that you can fool some of the people all the time. He has contempt for us, Matt. He has contempt for you.

For a genuine conservative's take on this administration's war crimes, you can't do beter than Andrew Sullivan's blog. You might want to start here and then read other posts on the topic.

--David

KWS said...

Why does George Bush love to torture? I have been thinking, since trashing America's moral high ground and dispensing with openness, honesty, and democracy itself seems to be so costly, from a political point of view, why go to the trouble? Under this calculation, even a morally bankrupt man with contempt for all would surely abandon any practices that are so obviously ineffective and illegal. This is my question.

Also I would like to point out to all that no credence ought to be placed in claims of continued "black sites" etc. as has been put forward here as truth-by-repetition. That is, until we see something credible to support them! I happen to believe the official line, which is that no one has been in that interrogation program since three known terrorists in 2003.

I would also like to say that I AGREE that the slope is slippery, and that I don't agree with waterboarding, and that I would like to see Guantanamo closed.

Anonymous said...

David, what are you implying by "Maybe there's a reason your Marine friend is not Air Force."? Seeing that you aren't aware, the marines don't shoot people when they "run around shooting guns". They shoot guns for practice. Remember, these people are protecting the country that allows you to hate your country and not be executed.

I understand you don't agree with water boarding, but what about other forms of torture? What is the definition of torture and what is not. I wound rather be water boarded than raped in prison. Which is worse?

BBDavid suggested executing convicted terrorists. Isn't this more "evil" than torture. Who are we to act as God and take away ones life? Shouldn't we just forgive them of their crimes? That's what Jesus taught right? (just playing liberals advocate).

Anonymous said...

Matt, I would suggest you read the relevant portions of the Geneva Conventions. If you love your country so much, you should be willing to do a little work learning about its laws. It's your responsibility as a citizen.

You write, "I would rather be water boarded than raped in prison. Which is worse?"

Wow. I answer, "I would rather be robbed than murdered. Which is worse?" But they're both illegal, so what's the point of such a remark? That we should let the president off the hook because he's not as bad a lawbreaker as he might be? If I'm a robber, do I get a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" simply because I'm not a murderer? You're relativizing evil.

You write (with increasing incoherence), "BBDavid suggested executing convicted terrorists. Isn't this more 'evil' than torture. Who are we to act as God and take away one's life? Shouldn't we just forgive them of their crimes? That's what Jesus taught right? (just playing liberals advocate)."

First, the legality of the death penalty has been openly and repeatedly argued before America's legislatures and courts. Whether or not one thinks it is moral, it is legal, and America is (supposed to be) a nation of laws. That's the way things are supposed to work in a democracy.

The legality of torture has also been repeatedly and openly debated, years ago, and the United States chose to make torture illegal when it adopted the Geneva Conventions. Bush wants to ignore that and do what he wants anyway.

Do you see the difference? (I'm amazed that anyone has to spell this stuff out.)

Second, Jesus did indeed teach that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. What Jesus taught is indeed utterly impractical, and if widely followed would quickly lead to the destruction of our nation. But so what? I'm not the one who claims to be a Christian. Many years ago I read Jesus's words, thought about their consequences, rejected his words, and then, logically enough, decided not to be a Christian.

The hypocrites are those who CLAIM to be followers of Jesus, and then equivocate on torture and go marching off to war. They claim the high spiritual ideals of Jesus, but act as if motivated by the exact same survive-at-any-cost, kill-the-enemy-before-he-kills-you pragmatism as everyone else has done since long before Jesus. You're not "playing liberal's advocate"; you're revealing your own hypocrisy and trashing your own religion. You're basically quoting Jesus and then telling us how ridiculous you think Jesus is.

As for my comments about your friend not being Air Force, that's just a bit of inter-service rivalry. Your friend should be able to explain.

--David

Amy said...

So Mike wrote that he hoped whoever is the next Commander in Chief would take a stand by taking the moral high road and find a better way.

What is that better way? Reading these comments make me think that "America" is not united in her answer because the people who live here are not united in theirs. Do we just throw up our hands and shrug our shoulders because this is a big problem or should we hold some sort of national debate on the subject and just hash it out so everyone can come to a consensus?