Torture is Treason

The human rights abuse in torture is inherent and obvious, but its implications to our society are ultimately worse. In the context of terror, when our country tortures those accused of terrorist crimes, we create a climate where others sympathize with the torture victim, taking the focus away from the victims of the terrorist act. Whether the tortured committed the crime or not becomes secondary to the sympathy felt for the torture victim. In addition, the fact alone that someone was tortured, even if the confession is coincidentally true, harms any reputation we have of democracy or rule of law and motivates others to retaliation. Worse, torture confounds the state's ability to prosecute those who have harmed it. If we end up freeing someone because they confessed to a crime under torture, it is possible we are allowing someone guilty, someone who genuinely sought to harm us, to go free. If we prosecute them based on the elicited confessions, we could be punishing the innocent. We never really know the truth. In the end, torture makes the original crime against us secondary.

I followed the Daniel Pearl case, then I watched the movie of his wife's story, A Mighty Heart. It was brilliantly done. The filmmakers managed to capture the complexity of the various agencies, organizations, and governments working to find Daniel Pearl. After Pearl's death, several people were arrested and one man, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, has been sentenced to death, although with his multiple appeals, it is questionable whether he will ever suffer his sentence. One aspect of his appeals has been the confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the actual killings. Seems a reasonable explanation.

Except what is true? Did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed really kill Daniel Pearl? How could we ever know considering we now have the torture memos released by the CIA detailing the atrocities against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, including his being waterboarded 183 times in one month? It leaves me wondering whether he really committed any of the crimes and whether his confessions were valid. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. We can't know because the confessions were tortured out of him.

Daniel Pearl's murder wasn't the only crime to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed. He also apparently oversaw the 9/11 attacks, the shoe bomb attack, the Bali nightclub attack, the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, as well as others. His under-torture confessions to such a long list of infamous crimes make the likelihood seem even more dubious. Yet the possibility is there -- it is the torture that causes interference. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case is a brilliant example of the dangers of torture to a free and just society. Not only does it call into question just how free and just we really are, it leaves us wondering who really did what. We can't trust anyone, least of all ourselves.

I have heard the primary arguments on both sides regarding whether or not to convict the agents and members of the Bush administration responsible for carrying out the torture. All of these arguments have centered on whether the actions were justified, as well as on the repugnance of the acts themselves. I would argue we need to take the discussion a step further. While torture clearly constitutes human rights abuse, I would argue that it is also a form of treason.

In the United States, treason is the giving of aid and comfort to our enemies. If torture keeps us from fully prosecuting those enemies, then the torturers themselves are in conspiracy with them, thereby giving them aid and comfort. Torture policies as a whole put our entire country in jeopardy. It is a form of disloyalty to us inasmuch as we are left even more unsafe, not only from those who would harm us, but also from our inability to discover the truth and prosecute the criminals. It creates a disintegration of our most fundamental values. If a person actually commits an act of terror and is then tortured to extract a confession, his guilt will be questioned because of the torture and he may be allowed free. This person is then free to terrorize us again, but this time he is likely angrier because of the torture he has suffered, leaving us in even greater danger. Torture, those who ordered it and those who carried it out, caused this. Allowing torture as an accepted policy of the United States and our failure to prosecute those responsible for it renders our democracy and our rule of law meaningless.

Comments

[Christopher Watson]

As a combat veteran of Iraq this policy will only serve to increase innocent lives lost in our "overseas contingency operations". The value of an Enemy combatant captured alive is ten-fold to one dead and bloating in the street. If there is no longer a method of gaining his information then for the purpose of our war effort the combatant is better off dead. This simple fact means that soldiers will take fewer prisoners. I have been faced with this very decision on the battlefield. As a Sniper do I shoot the bad guy from several hundred yards away? Or do I risk it and try to bag him alive so we could find out where he is building all of his roadside bombs? The end result was that he was captured and threatened to be made to feel uncomfortable for a short period of time. He told us where the bomb factory was. In less than 36 hours we mounted a raid and found several hundred IED's already wired and ready to be placed on the road. Untold American lives were spared. Without this option he would have died, because I would have shot him, so would have scores of American Soldiers and Marines.

[LeftRight]

As a combat veteran you are only partly correct. The fact that we are torturing means that there are fewer prisoners, that is a fact.

However, once we get a prisoner you are out of your league, because the best way to get that information out of him is NOT to torture him but rather to build a rapport with him, which, oddly enough, results in MUCH better information!!!

[Christopher Watson]

Imagine there is a 30kt Nuke inside a shipping container in New York Harbor. The timer is set to go off in say 36 hours. The CIA has in their custody a known Enemy of the State connected with the shipment but officials do not know exactly where it is and when it will detonate. When are you people going to realize that the Constitution only applies to Americans? How will you treat your great anointed one when millions of Americans are vaporized, when subjecting one person to a little discomfort would have saved millions? Will you continue to stand by your Morals when you are at your daughters funeral if it could have been prevented and the bad guys nabbed? How will you feel about your morals when your entire family is wiped out by a terrorist attack?

[alansky]

Torture: Not even the fiercest jungle predators engage in such savage cruelty, which makes torture both uniquely human and spectacularly unworthy of the ideals we profess as civilized human beings. I say forget the nationalistic mumbo jumbo and face the simple, sobering fact that this shocking taste for brutality is embedded in our genes. Either we find a way, as a species, to transcend the dog-eat-dog mentality that has gotten us this far or it may be us, the human race, whose survival is threatened.

[CommonSenseRules]

Except that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to non-combat­ants....or terrorists. Why is it so hard for the left to understand that these were not uniformed soldiers that fight wars with laws, like we do?

It is amazing how easily the left is on the side of our enemies and terrorists, rather than with those who are trying to protect us. It's mindboggling and really annoying to have a loud minority given a voice through the MSM.

[DullKnife]

Um --

You're the minority now. We aka Liberals won the election.

I love your projection "It's mindboggling and really annoying to have a loud minority given a voice through the MSM." Don't you mean Fox News? Oh wait, the biggest and baddest news network isn't Mainstream, they're just lookin' out for the folks.

Keep 'em coming.

[Appleton]

First, we have domestic laws prohibiting torture, so your reference to treaty law is immaterial. Second, my obligation to comply with the laws of my country is not contingent upon your agreement to do the same. The common sense you profess to believe in should tell you that, even if your fifth grade civics teacher didn't. Hang it up. You're on the losing side on this issue.

[LeftRight]

You're right, the Geneva Conventions DON'T apply to them. However, that makes them (drummroll please....­.) SUSPECTED CRIMINALS, which means that since they are arrested by US forces for suspicion of breaking US laws (drumroll again please....­.) Subject to US Law, which ALSO forbids torture!!!!

[CommonSenseRules]

Atrocious acts? Really? Slapping someone? Making them stand for long periods of time? Temperature change? Bad music? A non-poisonous bug? Really? You really consider these torture? Wow. And we did these "horrible' things to terrorists­...oh my! The one thing you conveniently forgot to say in your piece is that Daniel Pearl was BEHEADED,on camera, for all to see. Now, THAT is torture, not what we did to those bastards.

But I know liberals are more concerned about terrorists than Americans and so you will continue to sing your swan song for terrorists and how bad Bush/America are. Only you will be preaching to the choir, since most Americans outside of NYC/LA/DC feel that what the CIA did was NOT torture and was necessary and do not think that it weakens our image in the world.

I know, I know....at least the terrorists BEHEADED Pearl quickly and with dignity...­.sarcasm. He was tortured, humiliated, beaten and then BEHEADED.

[DullKnife]

This is your response? "most Americans outside of NYC/LA/DC feel that what the CIA did was NOT torture and was necessary "? You mean like Palin's "Real America"? No fancy legal reading for y'all. How ironic that the citizens of two of those citiesuffered the most from the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 would be terrorist sympathizers. Maybe they had it coming? Do tell.

Do you have anything other than Conservative=tough Liberal=wimp?

How does that set with St. Ronnie's cut-and-run from Lebanon?
Or Bush I not going all the way and taking out Saddam when we were already in country?
Or Bush II caving to Osama's demands and withdrawing our bases from Saudi Arabia?
Or Bush II getting Osama Bin Laden "Dead or Alive"?

Try refuting the authors facts and well though out arguments.

BTW Go get wet and stand in an air conditioned room at 56 degrees for a few hours. Tell us how fun it is...

[Dohiyi]

Mr. CommonSenseRules: Have you no common sense? The torture of prisoners is a serious crime under the law of the United States. The law defines torture, and acts such as waterboarding clearly qualify. The President of the United States is sworn to uphold and to faithfully execute the law and the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers provided for the impeachment -- removal from office -- of presidents who commit "high crimes and misdemeano­rs." If the president is not required to obey the law, then there is no rule of law. Once a president has left office, there is no longer any need for impeachment. He is subject to indictment and trial like any other citizen if there is probable cause to believe he violated the law. If proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is subject to the penalties provided by law including fines, imprisonment, and in some cases, the death penalty.

So, my question to you is: Do you believe that the law of the United States should be enforced? If not, please explain why. If you do not approve of the law against torture, you have the right to petition the Congress to change the law. Of course, if the president is legally authorized to order the torture of a prisoner, how can you be sure that at some time in the future you or someone you love will not become that prisoner?

[LeftRight]

I would add in one more point. Treason is also acting against the Constitution of the United States. While no where in that document does it specify torture, it DOES say this in Article Six:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta­nding."

Let me point out my specific point: "...and all Treaties made....sh­all be the supreme Law of the Land..."

The Geneva Conventions and other treaties against torture are all TREATIES..­... That the USA signed....­. Which brings them up to the level of the Constitution!!! Torturing a prisoner is treason for THAT reason too!