Hardly A "Happy" Topic For A Happy Day
I do apologize for being so morose on this day, but this particular subject has come up in the last couple of weeks, thanks to Sen. McCain. The subject is torture. Over at Stephen Green's great site, VodkaPundit, he jumps on Jeff Goldstein's debate, at Protein Wisdom, about the subject.
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008293.php
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19401/
Now, the problem with this debate is that torture is not precisely defined. Indeed, Wikipedia defines torture as follows:
Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain or grief as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent, revenge or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.
That is pretty broad. It does have some specifics within it, but it is broad. What exactly is "psychological pain or grief?" We know what severe physical pain is, but where do we draw the line? Stephen Green offers up this definition of torture in his post (linked above).
Torture is the infliction of lasting physical injury, or the infliction of equivalent physical pain.
A shade better, and I trust Stephen's knowledge. He is a lawyer, and I am not even a law student, yet. However, still pretty broad. As a matter of fact, on Jeff's site, where the comments served as the "debate forum" one commenter points out that one man's gruel is another man's hot morning meal. In other words, we all have different definitions of this act. But Jeff also does post up an excerpt from Thomas Sowell's recent column regarding this topic.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_22_05_TS.html
Some people seem to see nothing between zero and infinity. Things are either categorically all right or they are categorically off-limits. This kind of reasoning -- if it can be called reasoning -- is reflected in the stampede to ban torture by Congressional legislation.
As far as a general policy is concerned, there is no torture to ban. Isolated individuals here and there may abuse their authority and violate existing laws and policies by their treatment of prisoners but the point is that these are in fact violations.
This is the key to the whole argument that makes Sen. McCain's concerns a moot point; there is no widespread "torture" being committed by our forces in this war. Yes, we have had incidents (clearly blown WAY out of proportion by the media) where individuals have been left to their own devices, and have committed abuses to prisoners. To state that this never happens should research the partice of such abuses by the nations of the world, and realize that these hypocritical nations, while signatories of the Geneva Convention, commit far graver abuses than we ever have. (And please, no mention of My Lai here. That was an isolated incident in the Vietnam War, and concerned civilians, not prisoners.) But that is the point of Mr. Sowell's brilliant dissertation; these incidents thus far have been isolated. Those involved in Abu Ghraib have been prosecuted and are enduring their punishment. The alledged prisoner abuse at Gitmo was a creation of the Washington Post, and Left-wing advocacy groups that have been unable to prove them to be true. At this point, their burden is to prove such abuses.
But "abuse" does not exactly mean "torture." What one person deems abuse could simply be humiliation. Panties on the heads of enemy combatants. Naked men piled on top of one another. This is humiliation that may or may not break the resolve of a prisoner. We are trying to root out a silent, stealthy enemy in a foreign land. This enemy may attack us one moment, and blend in with a civilian crowd the next. In such an environment, intelligence is key, and the only way to truly obtain it is through accounts of those interrogated.
Now, an argument has been provided that torture or abuse will only lead those subjected to it to say anything to end the actions against them. To be honest, I can believe that for some instances, but for others that may not be true. Sen. McCain and other Vietnam POWs claim that they would have said anything to end the torture by their captors. Ah, but what was their punishment if they lied? More torture. More abuse. Would we stoop to those levels? Of course not, and anyone who does should face formal charges. We are America, not Vietnam, not China, and not Russia.
If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are necessary?
What a price to pay for moral exhibitionism or political grandstanding!
Even in less extreme circumstances, and even if we don't intend to torture the captured terrorist, does that mean that we need to reduce our leverage by informing all terrorists around the world in advance that they can stonewall indefinitely when captured, without fear of that fate?
Again, Mr. Sowel''s sharp mind cuts right to the heart of the debate. If such a scenario did indeed occur, is anyone blind enough to think that we would not use more forceful techniques to extract the necessary intelligence? If your answer is no, we would not, then no offense, but you are blind. Sue us later, but we are not going to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands just to protect one measily terrorist who may have the absolutely necessary information where such a weapon is, and when it is set to go off.
Further, he is correct in stating that should we rule this out completely. Should the ban go through that Sen. McCain wants, there is nothing to prevent these animals from clamming up permanently without fear of any repercussions. Fear is an interesting weapon in this war. Much like fear was a tool used by Special Forces in Vietnam (the Vietcong did call Navy SEALs the "devils with green faces" because of their clandestine tactics and initiative to accomplish their missions) it is a tool that should be used in this war. These are terrorists, and they thrive on fear. They eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and it is the driving force in their life. So, may it is time that we send the fear right back at them.
As I stated earlier, and Stephen and Jeff agree, the problem comes with the definition of torture. Sen. McCain's definition is foolish, at best, and is likely coming from his own time as a POW. This is not Vietnam. This war resembles little of that war as it is. We need to adapt to the 21st Century, not base what we do today on tactics from thirty years ago. This war is one that if we lose, we lose more than those killed on the battlefield.
The Bunny ;)
I do apologize for being so morose on this day, but this particular subject has come up in the last couple of weeks, thanks to Sen. McCain. The subject is torture. Over at Stephen Green's great site, VodkaPundit, he jumps on Jeff Goldstein's debate, at Protein Wisdom, about the subject.
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008293.php
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19401/
Now, the problem with this debate is that torture is not precisely defined. Indeed, Wikipedia defines torture as follows:
Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain or grief as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent, revenge or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.
That is pretty broad. It does have some specifics within it, but it is broad. What exactly is "psychological pain or grief?" We know what severe physical pain is, but where do we draw the line? Stephen Green offers up this definition of torture in his post (linked above).
Torture is the infliction of lasting physical injury, or the infliction of equivalent physical pain.
A shade better, and I trust Stephen's knowledge. He is a lawyer, and I am not even a law student, yet. However, still pretty broad. As a matter of fact, on Jeff's site, where the comments served as the "debate forum" one commenter points out that one man's gruel is another man's hot morning meal. In other words, we all have different definitions of this act. But Jeff also does post up an excerpt from Thomas Sowell's recent column regarding this topic.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_22_05_TS.html
Some people seem to see nothing between zero and infinity. Things are either categorically all right or they are categorically off-limits. This kind of reasoning -- if it can be called reasoning -- is reflected in the stampede to ban torture by Congressional legislation.
As far as a general policy is concerned, there is no torture to ban. Isolated individuals here and there may abuse their authority and violate existing laws and policies by their treatment of prisoners but the point is that these are in fact violations.
This is the key to the whole argument that makes Sen. McCain's concerns a moot point; there is no widespread "torture" being committed by our forces in this war. Yes, we have had incidents (clearly blown WAY out of proportion by the media) where individuals have been left to their own devices, and have committed abuses to prisoners. To state that this never happens should research the partice of such abuses by the nations of the world, and realize that these hypocritical nations, while signatories of the Geneva Convention, commit far graver abuses than we ever have. (And please, no mention of My Lai here. That was an isolated incident in the Vietnam War, and concerned civilians, not prisoners.) But that is the point of Mr. Sowell's brilliant dissertation; these incidents thus far have been isolated. Those involved in Abu Ghraib have been prosecuted and are enduring their punishment. The alledged prisoner abuse at Gitmo was a creation of the Washington Post, and Left-wing advocacy groups that have been unable to prove them to be true. At this point, their burden is to prove such abuses.
But "abuse" does not exactly mean "torture." What one person deems abuse could simply be humiliation. Panties on the heads of enemy combatants. Naked men piled on top of one another. This is humiliation that may or may not break the resolve of a prisoner. We are trying to root out a silent, stealthy enemy in a foreign land. This enemy may attack us one moment, and blend in with a civilian crowd the next. In such an environment, intelligence is key, and the only way to truly obtain it is through accounts of those interrogated.
Now, an argument has been provided that torture or abuse will only lead those subjected to it to say anything to end the actions against them. To be honest, I can believe that for some instances, but for others that may not be true. Sen. McCain and other Vietnam POWs claim that they would have said anything to end the torture by their captors. Ah, but what was their punishment if they lied? More torture. More abuse. Would we stoop to those levels? Of course not, and anyone who does should face formal charges. We are America, not Vietnam, not China, and not Russia.
If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are necessary?
What a price to pay for moral exhibitionism or political grandstanding!
Even in less extreme circumstances, and even if we don't intend to torture the captured terrorist, does that mean that we need to reduce our leverage by informing all terrorists around the world in advance that they can stonewall indefinitely when captured, without fear of that fate?
Again, Mr. Sowel''s sharp mind cuts right to the heart of the debate. If such a scenario did indeed occur, is anyone blind enough to think that we would not use more forceful techniques to extract the necessary intelligence? If your answer is no, we would not, then no offense, but you are blind. Sue us later, but we are not going to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands just to protect one measily terrorist who may have the absolutely necessary information where such a weapon is, and when it is set to go off.
Further, he is correct in stating that should we rule this out completely. Should the ban go through that Sen. McCain wants, there is nothing to prevent these animals from clamming up permanently without fear of any repercussions. Fear is an interesting weapon in this war. Much like fear was a tool used by Special Forces in Vietnam (the Vietcong did call Navy SEALs the "devils with green faces" because of their clandestine tactics and initiative to accomplish their missions) it is a tool that should be used in this war. These are terrorists, and they thrive on fear. They eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and it is the driving force in their life. So, may it is time that we send the fear right back at them.
As I stated earlier, and Stephen and Jeff agree, the problem comes with the definition of torture. Sen. McCain's definition is foolish, at best, and is likely coming from his own time as a POW. This is not Vietnam. This war resembles little of that war as it is. We need to adapt to the 21st Century, not base what we do today on tactics from thirty years ago. This war is one that if we lose, we lose more than those killed on the battlefield.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:43 PM
1 Comments:
Raw,
I do believe that Marcie highlights that part of Thomas Sowell's column.
If the terrorists know we will not go there, if they even think that they will be given the slightest quarter in this war, then they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by keeping their mouths shut.
That is a proposition I'd rather not see. I agree with Marcie: Fear is as much a weapon for us as it is for them.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home