I Oppose Torture
So I'm voting Democratic.
I don't think your average Democrat is more moral than your average Republican. There are a lot of things about which I disagree with Democrats.
But I love the Constitution and I love the principles that the U.S. was founded on. We were very lucky in our founding fathers. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Morris, Hamilton, Adams -- they all understood that people who think they're doing the right thing all too often commit horrible acts of evil. That's why they set up a divided system of government: the President acts as a brake on Congress. Congress acts as a brake on the President. They both act as a brake on the Supreme Court, which in turn acts as a brake on them. This is supposed to prevent the worst excesses and the worst misjudgments.
For whatever reason, our current Congress has decided that it's more important to give our current President everything he asks for than it is to keep him within the bounds of the Constitution. They've recently given him the power to hold people, including American citizens, indefinitely -- even if they've never been convicted of any crime. They've given him the power to authorize "extreme interrogation techniques"; when these techniques were used by the Nazis, and by the Khmer Rouge, we rightly called them torture. They still are. Remember, the victims aren't all terrorists. John Yoo, a former administration lawyer, has argued that the President should have the right to order the torture of children if it would cause their parents to give up information.*
I don't want to owe my life to the pain of a three-year-old.
I don't want our honorable soldiers to be ordered to torture children, or anyone else for that matter. That's not the way I want myself protected.
And even if I did, it's been shown, time and time again, that torture doesn't work very well as an information-gathering tactic. People will confess to anything, say anything, to make it stop. And the things they say aren't necessarily true. Our government is selling our soul to the devil for nothing, for no benefit at all.
Maybe George Bush would never order such a terrible thing. Maybe it just comforts him to have the power to do so, knowing that he would never authorize it. But in giving him that power, Congress also gave it to every President who follows him. Do you want to place that much trust in whoever will be elected in 2008, or 2016, or 2032, without even knowing who that person will be?
This Congress has failed in its duty to make sure that the government obeys the strictures of the Constitution. The President is not supposed to be an absolute monarch, and Congress is supposed to make sure he isn't; this Congress hasn't. I want my children to grow up in a democracy. This Congress must be replaced with one that will do its job.
I'm voting Democratic tomorrow. This issue is too important for me to stay quiet.
*I'm editing to provide a citation for this. In a December 1, 2005 debate with Doug Cassel (a Notre Dame professor of law), John Yoo -- a former deputy assistant to the U.S. Attorney General, and an important architect of the administration's wartime policies, participated in this exchange:
Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
There is no excuse for that; none. Tomorrow's election is the best chance of the American people to send a clear message that this approach is unacceptable. This is our last chance to tell this government that this is not who we are.
I don't think your average Democrat is more moral than your average Republican. There are a lot of things about which I disagree with Democrats.
But I love the Constitution and I love the principles that the U.S. was founded on. We were very lucky in our founding fathers. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Morris, Hamilton, Adams -- they all understood that people who think they're doing the right thing all too often commit horrible acts of evil. That's why they set up a divided system of government: the President acts as a brake on Congress. Congress acts as a brake on the President. They both act as a brake on the Supreme Court, which in turn acts as a brake on them. This is supposed to prevent the worst excesses and the worst misjudgments.
For whatever reason, our current Congress has decided that it's more important to give our current President everything he asks for than it is to keep him within the bounds of the Constitution. They've recently given him the power to hold people, including American citizens, indefinitely -- even if they've never been convicted of any crime. They've given him the power to authorize "extreme interrogation techniques"; when these techniques were used by the Nazis, and by the Khmer Rouge, we rightly called them torture. They still are. Remember, the victims aren't all terrorists. John Yoo, a former administration lawyer, has argued that the President should have the right to order the torture of children if it would cause their parents to give up information.*
I don't want to owe my life to the pain of a three-year-old.
I don't want our honorable soldiers to be ordered to torture children, or anyone else for that matter. That's not the way I want myself protected.
And even if I did, it's been shown, time and time again, that torture doesn't work very well as an information-gathering tactic. People will confess to anything, say anything, to make it stop. And the things they say aren't necessarily true. Our government is selling our soul to the devil for nothing, for no benefit at all.
Maybe George Bush would never order such a terrible thing. Maybe it just comforts him to have the power to do so, knowing that he would never authorize it. But in giving him that power, Congress also gave it to every President who follows him. Do you want to place that much trust in whoever will be elected in 2008, or 2016, or 2032, without even knowing who that person will be?
This Congress has failed in its duty to make sure that the government obeys the strictures of the Constitution. The President is not supposed to be an absolute monarch, and Congress is supposed to make sure he isn't; this Congress hasn't. I want my children to grow up in a democracy. This Congress must be replaced with one that will do its job.
I'm voting Democratic tomorrow. This issue is too important for me to stay quiet.
*I'm editing to provide a citation for this. In a December 1, 2005 debate with Doug Cassel (a Notre Dame professor of law), John Yoo -- a former deputy assistant to the U.S. Attorney General, and an important architect of the administration's wartime policies, participated in this exchange:
Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
There is no excuse for that; none. Tomorrow's election is the best chance of the American people to send a clear message that this approach is unacceptable. This is our last chance to tell this government that this is not who we are.
8 Comments:
Assume there is a nuclear bomb hidden in your home city, set to go off in 1 hour.
You have apprehended the individual who you know has hidden it. When it goes off, it will instantly kill 500,000 people, including your friends and your entire family.
You're saying that you would not condone torturing this individual, even if you thought that the chances were good of getting him to tell you where the bomb is hidden?
Sure, I "oppose" torture. But I can think of some circumstances where it would be the lesser of two evils.
What's more important? The civil rights of an individual, or the civil rights of 500,000? To me, it's pretty clear which has precendence.
By Terry, Nov 06 06 1:35 PM
I'm saying that this is a hypothetical situation that is pretty unlikely to happen in the real world.
How do I know that this individual has hidden it?
How do I know that there's a nuclear bomb?
How do I know that he won't lie to me when I torture him? What if he tells me that it's hidden in a place that's on the opposite side of the city from where it is? Then all the bomb squads go to the wrong place; they may have had a small chance of finding it before, but they have a zero chance of finding it now.
What if I haven't apprehended the individual who did it -- but I know where his kindergarteners go to school. Is it okay for me to kidnap them and announce on TV, radio, whatever, that I will be torturing them until their parent gives up the information? They're only two kids; if this were a nuclear bomb in my hometown on a workday, it would easily kill a million people.
The situation you describe is a horrible situation to be in; I can't honestly say how I as a human being would act. But hypothetical situations like that are being used to justify torture NOW, in situations that are not a thousandth as clear-cut as that one.
Yoo, and people who think like him, are arguing that torture shouldn't be a last resort; that no law, no constitution, no treaty places any constraints on the treatment people the president has decided are threats. How does he decide? We aren't supposed to know; that's a national security issue.
I'm not worried about the "ticking-bomb" scenario: it is exceedingly unlikely to happen. I AM worried about a situation where one man gets to decide, without courts, without checks and balances, that he is able to torture anybody he wants. He doesn't have to persuade a court. He just has to decide that there is a clear and present danger. I refuse to accept this as a model for my government.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to uphold the Constitution. I wouldn't like it if the bomb were going off in my hometown, but I'd be dying for my Constitution too. That's not meaningless.
By CellarDoor, Nov 06 06 2:15 PM
I agree CellarDoor. Torture would sure be "cruel and unusual punishment".
By toadsworth65, Nov 07 06 5:50 PM
Torture does not belong in a civilised society, I cannot think of any scenario where the torturing of a human being would be justified. I am aware that we live amongst terrorists who are less then civilised, but if we sink to their level of depravity then we are no better then them.
Aside from the brutality and nastiness of torture, I cannot see how it can possibly achieve the desired outcome? Threaten to torture me or my family and I would willingly confess to absolutely anything that would prevent it happening. Have we not learned anything from all the false confessions that have arisen from police brutality?
By 50ftqueenie, Nov 07 06 6:50 PM
I don't think there's any true comparison between Nazis torturing and murdering innocent people and the U.S. interrogating terror suspects. What we do is a tea-party compared with what Nazis, Russians, Japanese etc... have done. Having said that, there are studies that show torture in any form usually does not work and I agree wholly that refusing to torture anyone except under extreme conditions such as the one proposed by Terry, keeps us where we have been and where we belong...on a much higher moral ground than the aforementioned maniacs as well as the terrorists.
By malcolmsex, Nov 19 06 6:32 PM
John McCain has led the campaign attempting to ban torture and he's most definitely not a Democrat.
By MercurySoul, Dec 24 06 4:30 PM
Torture is necessary. Sad but true.I have been there and I know what its about! The Islamo fascists cut our troops heads off but it is wrong for us to waterboard them? You people are NUTS!!Just join thier side and stop be dumbasses.You should be ashamed of what you are.
By Spacebisquit, Jul 11 08 8:39 PM
Oh and our troops do not torture children. You need to get over your I hate GW Mindset. Our troop are winning in Iraq. They are wonderful young men and women. They are kicking the terrorists asses in Iraq.You lefties should be ashamed of your selves. You are willing to lose this war just to get back at GW.God help you all!!!
By Spacebisquit, Jul 11 08 8:49 PM