Two Obvious Truths About the Torture Scandal

Obvious Truth #1: Let's say there's this terrorist, and he has plans to blow up a major US landmark, killing lots of people (maybe even your son or daughter!). I'm walking past his house, ten minutes before the bomb is set to go off, and I see the folder with his plans right there on his kitchen table! (He's perhaps not the most organized or secretive of terrorists.)

I can get the plans and save all those people's lives (maybe even your son's or daughter's!), but I have to break into his house to do it, and that's a crime. The answer should now be obvious to you: stealing should not be a crime! Still not convinced by my logic? This could really, really happen! I saw it on an old episode of SWAT (or was it Get Smart?). Why are you still opposing me? Why are you willing to put innocent American lives in danger? Tough guys (especially tough guys who got out of fighting real wars when they had a chance) rob houses.

(Back to reality.) There's lots of good debunking of ticking-time-bomb scenarios out there, but I have yet to see the simple point made that even if such a situation did arise (which in real life might happen once every decade or two), and even if torture would work in such a case (no real-life examples of that yet, outside of 24), that wouldn't justify a regime that makes torture legal. Torture is wrong, hideous, and abhorrent, and if you needed it for a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, you could get the equivalent of a judicial bypass, or warrant, from the President for that one occasion. But it makes no sense at all to torture what are likely innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, sold to US forces by their neighbors looking to make a buck, and justify it under the ticking-time-bomb scenario.

Obvious Truth #2: Torture is to the Iraq War what the internment of Japanese-Americans was to WWII. In both cases the exigencies of war created a special kind of hysteria that let us brand certain human beings as "others" and do unspeakable things to them, to our lasting national shame. Of course, even by these standards what we've done now is dastardly: at least the forces we fought in WWII posed much more of an existential threat to our country than Al Qaeda ever will, and even then we merely forcibly relocated innocent people rather than torture them.

It also follows that in 50 years (or maybe sooner), the US will officially apologize for what it's done here, just like we apologized to those interned during the Second World War. And I hope Condi Rice realizes that future school children will watch tapes of her, like others from the Bush Administration, still make the claim that "we didn't torture" and be told that yes, it's unbelievable that she could say something like that, but that's just an object lesson in what bad people do.

Comments

[follow the money]

I got one
with bush and his famous speeches..­.

check these out......r­emember
mushroom cloud, and weapons of mass destruction?
the Fear card...

here you are..
http://www.leadingtowar.com/mechanism_war_manfacture.php#fear_stories

[GraceNeeded]

No one wants to believe that their country would have currently committed some of the most grievous crimes of the past centuries. No one wants to believe that our former Vice President would willing encourage an illegal program of torture by using illegal means and illegally restricting opinions opposed. No one wants to believe our former Secretary of Defense would utilize scripture to 'soften up' our former President in his reactions to bad news that was a direct response to their war strategies and covert operations that, hopefully, this same President was unaware of. No one wants to think that our Secretary of State would not research and review these stated proposals and plans for their illegalities against our Constitution and international laws. No one wants to have to go through another series of truth commissions, investigations and/or subpoenas for trials of our government leaders for wrong doing. Yet, the way I see it is we have no choice. If we don't do it the international community will, so we cannot shun or run from our responsiblities in facing the ugly truth about another administration of our American government gone bad. Besides, how can we expect the masses to respect and uphold our laws if our leaders that took an oath to preserve, protect and defend are NOT held accountable?

[jhNY]

Sorry, but "we" didn't all go crazy after 9/11. My government did, and there was nothing I could do to stop them, besides vote, whenever and wherever that counted.

[Tulka2]

I share you frustration. In the months before the war in Iraq was launched, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people marched and demonstrated all over American. These were really creative demonstrations. If they would've occurred anywhere else in the world, the U.S. press would've been all over them.

One of the most amazing acts of theater was on the Feb. 14, march in S.F. In that huge march, every once in a awhile there would be one lone young man after another. Each man was dressed perfectly in a suit and tie. Each young man's shirt was covered in blood. There was blood on their faces and hands. They walked against the crowd and repeated over and over, "Everything is just fine, folks. Go home. Do not be disturbed. Go home. Be quiet. Everything will be just fine."

I never found out whose amazing idea this was, but it was so chilling. So many creative people did their best. So many ordinary people knew just exactly where all this would go. Torture? I am not surprised. Not a bit. It is all of a piece with these guys. Cheney used to say after the Vietnam war, "If they just would've let us take the gloves off, we would've won in Vietnam". No surprise. We knew who they were.

The media so carefully chooses who they put in front of cameras.

[cobraxus]

It should be noted that rightwinger Michelle Malkin defends the internment of japanese americans during WWII.Somet­hings never change.50 years from now historical revisionists(which all neocons are)will still be supporting the use of torture by Bush Inc.and denouncing anyone who disagrees with them by stating "You Don't Understand!You Weren't There!"

[Tom Joad]

I've often wondered why someone as intellectually bankrupt as M. Malkin is 'notable'?

[Dredd]

David,

Exactly. Both involve the imprisonment of innocents. But torturing innocent people is a Bush II creation. Obama just released one such innocent from Guantanamo ...

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/innocent-tortured-human-being-freed.html

[Tom Joad]

Dear Dr. Epstein:

Perhaps in the coming weeks, you will entertain us with essays declaring that we 'merely forcibly relocated Native Americans', 'merely forcibly overthrew the legitimate monarchy of Hawai'i and stole the islands from the people', 'merely let loose police dogs and fire hoses on African American teenagers', 'merely enslaved migrant farm workers'..­.you may be a professor of political science, but you don't seem to have much appreciation for your nation's disgraceful history.

[David Epstein - Huffpost Blogger]

Tom --

I hope that my article made it clear how abhorrent I found the Japanese-American internment camps, and I'm not one to play the which-wron­g-to-manki­nd-was-wor­se game. But, without minimizing what happened during WWII, and with recognition of the harm done to all those involved, I do think that throwing innocent people in jail for five, six, seven years and more, never charging them, and torturing them for political rather than national defense reasons really is just about the worst thing our government has done, ever.

[Tom Joad]

OK, here is our common ground: without Our continuous vigilance, our nation's long and sorry history of 'worsts' can (and does) get worse.

[S1m0n]

"Unspeakable"? Internment inland away from the coasts for the duration of the war seems pretty speakable to me.

[Tulka2]

Dude, you need a session with that ethics guy... Randy Cohen.

All ethics are situational. Even my Catholic nuns told little children we must lie and hide the neighbors when the Nazis come knocking.

It is terrible to write law specifically to cover the asses of people who might have to make a choice and end up doing a really wrong thing. That is a prescription for bad, bad law. If it fell on someone to somehow need to sacrifice their own ethics for the good of all and he saves everyone? Well, i am sure we would all be grateful. But if it was a wrong impulse...­? And innocents suffer as a consequence of your bad decision? Well. There won't be a law to cover that and you will go to jail. We will write operas about you.

[Tom Joad]

If there was a point to this essay, I'm at a loss to recognize it. Your scenarios are both silly and incomparable to the historical facts. Scenario #2 is especially absurd:

"...at least the forces we fought in WWII posed much more of an existential threat to our country...­" I assume the 'forces' of which you speak are the military forces of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy? Of course, we all know now (and knew then), there was no connection between these forces and the American citizens who were illegally stripped of their Constitutional freedoms. Yet, you are dismissive of this history:

"...merely forcibly relocated innocent people ..."

Your ability to blithely dismiss unlawful incarceration and seizure of personal property not to mention the wholesale revocation of Constitutional freedoms from 10's of thousands of American citizens during WWII indicates a mindset that is easily exploited by the type of government officials who deemed our torture policies legal. Indeed, it is people like you who make their work to undermine our precious freedoms so effortless. I grew up next door to Japanese Americans who had been imprisoned at Rowher, Arkansas after being 'relocated' from their home in California's central valley. When they first told me their story (I was 10 years old), I was ashamed and remain so today over this episode of our nation's history. It appears you, somehow, are "over it". Shame!

[jadeba]

Agree. My family were all interned (Poston, Heart Mountain) and let me say that it took my mother decades to come to grips with her childhood (she was 10 when interned). They were allowed just what they could carry and lost everything else. The FBI regularly "raided" their home and stole anything they could find of value. They had no defense, and no legal recourse. My grandfather was taken from the family before the war began and throughout their internment they didn't know if he was alive or dead. He was a farmer growing strawberries who happened also to enjoy a sport called "kendo". While my family didn't know where Grandpa was, my oldest uncle was serving in the Army in Europe. Everyone was forced to sign a loyalty oath - funny, isn't it - and the young men were drafted out of the camps. My other uncle was the first (and I hope only) baby born at the Santa Anita Racetrack. So, "merely forcibly relocated innocent people" just doesn't cut it for me either.

[gaebolgaes]

surely tom joad you don't expect the same people that drove bulldozers through your little sod shack in the middle of the dust bowl..and ran over granny to care a whit about torturing little skinny brown men wearing pajamas and flip flops. oh jeepers i forgot..th­ats why they are called enemy combatants­..and not entitled to jury trials... they can't afford uniforms. don't you realize that all the good nazis..er.­.er i mean americans are going along with the lie that there is a war on terrorism? these little brown men..chene­y and bush and condi waterboarded with relish can't be considered soldiers by any stretch of anyones imaginatio­n.neither.­.can this highly technological drive by bombing in iraq and afghanista­n..and now pakistan be considered a war. they don't have kevlar helments..­boots..bod­y armor or m4 s. they don't march and they don't know what a salute is.the crips and bloods are better armed. those old soviet mosin nagants most of them carry go for 50 bucks on the internet.n­ow..we are all allowing cheney and nuts like kit bond and newt gingrich to blame the torturing on nancy pelosi instead of bush..chen­ey and the CIA thugs who did it.the CIA lied about iran contra..th­e tonkin gulf...wea­pons of mass destruction and everything else. what else is new.chriss­akes..just rub pork fat all over em..they'l­l talk..then let em go home.

[jmpurser]

I'm afraid I haven't gotten around to an "historical" point of view on this. But you're right. This is yet another case where America, pleading the "special case" exception excuse, has committed an historically significant error that will haunt us until we begin to correct it.

[LeftRight]

I partly agree with your logic, that perhaps every so often it would be justified and that the President could make a special exception. However, rather than a special exception made by the President, why not just make it illegal all the time, and if someone decides that they needed to do it, they can man up and stand for trial when it's all said and done.

After my daughter was raped, I spent the next two days driving through the alley where it happened, hoping to see the sons-of-b**ches! Had I found them, I would have done my level best to kill them. Had that succeeded, I would have then driven straight to the police station to turn myself in.

[jmpurser]

That's called being a citizen in a free nation.

[LewDan]

When we ratified our anti-torture treaties we made it clear that they did NOT trump the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution requires the President to defend the nation, there is no torture exception. Soldiers have an obligation to refuse ILLEGAL orders. IF there were an actual "ticking time-bomb" and torture was the only way to defend against it, the President ordering torture in our defense WOULD be legal.

We didn't outlaw torture because its morally repugnant, everything about war is morally repugnant. Yes "the law is the law" and "the law" is that we reserve the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary, just like everyone else. But we outlawed torture for the simple reason its always abused. In the history of man you'd be hard pressed to find a time when torture wasn't employed for political purposes or sadism or both.

So, yes, any torture regime, torture to "prep" interrogation subjects, torture as policy, is illegal and a war crime. We tortured, not for defense, but for the same reasons as everyone else before us: to elicit false confessions and gain political advantage.

And as usual, the truth is that neither side of the debate is being truthful.

[jmpurser]

1) Yes, if the president ordered torture in any situation it would be against the law.

2) There was no ticking time bomb anywhere except on 24. If there were it wouldn't change point 1 above.

3) We did outlaw torture because it was morally repugnant.

4) Torture can't be "abused" because there is no legitimate use. It would be like "abusing" child molesting.

5) I agree that we did indeed torture not to get the truth but to here what we wanted to. Just like everyone else in the long sad history of torture.

6) The only side of this "debate" being untruthful is President Obama. He was untruthful when he said he'd release the documents and he is (IMHO) being untruthful about WHY he won't release them now.

[Tom Joad]

It's appalling the number of people who think the President can't break the law. How did such ridiculous notion arise?

Presidents are merely men. Men who must also obey laws. Just like the rest of us. That was the entire premise behind our nation's revolution in 1776.

[dexxjones]

what is obvious to me is that there were two manias working hand in hand.

mania 1: the bushies trying to torture a fake link between 911 and iraq to justify the war

mania 2: perverts. sorry but people have to start facing the obvious. when this all comes out there is going to be a few powerful chesters in the mix with private collections.

much like the religious right and the corporations, one perverse the other craven (or maybe both both) they have a marriage of convenience (or made in hell)

but it is all going to come out. :)

[wheresthebeef]

If, in the unlikely event that government agents felt that a) torture would work and b) that there existed a "ticking time bomb" scenario which called for its effective use, then the agent or agency which decided to employ illegal torture toward a "justifiable" end ought to have the cojones to man up and confess to what they did. Given the circumstance, one would assume that their transgression would be forgiven. Today's reality, however, is that these nimrods are claiming that a) torture works, b) it was effectively employed, and c) nobody "tortured" anyone. Brilliant.

[tedbear]

Great - I only wish everyone reading this was able to understand.