Since the death of Osama Bin Laden on Sunday, the architects of the torture program have rushed to resurrect their claim that enhanced interrogation techniques protected our nation in the aftermath of 9/11. Disregarding the absence of clear facts and overeager to justify an illegal operation, Jonathan Yoo, Jose Rodriquez, Marc Thiessen, Donald Rumsfeld, and others have claimed credit for capturing bin Laden by the use of waterboarding and other acts of torture on high-level detainees during the Bush Administration. In their minds, their despicable acts have been vindicated.
But the truth is that torture did not help America find Osama bin Laden. And torture did not keep us safer. It created enemies, passionate enemies, who feel compelled to respond to the degradation and inflicted pain. It is well accepted that the pictures of Abu Ghraib were used as a recruiting tool by al Qaeda since they became public in 2004. News of the torture program has also cost us the good will of potential allies in the search for bin Laden, who could have helped us locate him years earlier.
Torture debases the persons tortured, as well as the torturers, and it violates the basic tenets of all major religions. It is illegal and it is immoral. As the Statement of Conscience of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture states, "Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear ... It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable."
There are two truths that are common to most people of faith: that every human being is created in God's image and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, the innumerable variations on the Golden Rule.
Being created in God's image is not trivial sentiment. If one takes God seriously, as Americans of faith do, then one has to take the image of God seriously, to recognize every person, even one's enemy, as sacred. Torture desecrates the image of God found in the victim. Not even our own survival permits us as a nation to torture, because if we desecrate the image of God to do so, then we have survived as monsters.
But the Golden Rule is also a powerful moral compass. We cannot do to our enemies what we would not want done to our own troops. Indeed, Americans of all religious backgrounds are less likely to support the use of torture when they understand that it permits those who would harm us to inflict these techniques on American soldiers.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written in response to the horrors of the Second World War. It begins with the sacredness and equality of all human beings, stating: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Article 5 prevents the use of torture and the Convention Against Torture, signed by 77 countries including the United States is a result of that Declaration. It prohibits the use of torture under all circumstances, without exception. Indeed, torture regarded in international law as so reprehensible that it is akin to genocide or slavery. But the proponents of torture now claiming success restricted the American legal understanding of torture to allow for a range of illegal interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.
In the days after 9/11, we were told that the world had changed and that the gloves needed to come off in dealing with our enemies. Appealing to moral values, to the values that have held in the United States since the Revolutionary War (when George Washington would not torture British prisoners) is painted as weak. But it is actually a sign of strength, a counterbalance of the impulse for revenge. Acting out of revenge is easy. Finding God in every human being is hard.
The proponents of the Bush torture program still do not understand that torture was not -- and is not -- the answer to keeping America safer. They cannot use bin Laden's death as a cover for having permitted the United States to break American and international law on the use of torture. This is the time to establish a government-sponsored Commission of Inquiry with full subpoena power to let the public know the full extent and consequences of the torture program. The vehemence of the proponents' support for the torture program and the lack of a complete record of what the United States government did in the secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Bagram demand a full accounting. The supporters of the Bush torture program should welcome a Commission of Inquiry. If they believe what they say, they should not be afraid of the facts. We all deserve to know the truth about torture.
Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster is Director of Education and Outreach for Rabbis for Human Rights-North America and a member of the board of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torture | American Civil Liberties Union
Torture | Law | guardian.co.uk
Bin Laden Raid Revives Debate on Value of Torture - NYTimes.com
News Desk: Bin Laden Dead, Torture Debate Lives On : The New Yorker
Michael Scheuer -- Osama, Obama and Torture - washingtonpost.com
Osama bin Laden's death may reignite torture debate - Political ...
CIA using torture in not something new or specific to operations in middle east or Bush administration thing. Yes it might have been in spot light due to frequency of cases and explosion of media and internet.
politcal killings, kidnappings, renditions, threats and arm twisting are a norm. Ex: Sister Dianna ortiz , a american nun in her book "Blindfolds Eyes" tells how even she was not spared and was repeated raped and tortured in Guatemala
Here's a caveat: A secret benefactor from PA donated enough money to erect a billboard supporting atheism in heavily conservative Orange County CA that reads: "DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD? Join the club". A non-believers convention is being held at the Irvine Hilton May 15 and I plan to attend. The vitriol in the local paper (OC Register) and subsequent postings regarding this sign is Christian exceptionalism & demonization on full display. If I didn't know better, I'd think we were on the brink of full-out war.
One for on is sketchy. But 1 to save 50 is a life saving slam dunk!
What is the definition of insanity again?
"But the truth is that torture did not help America find Osama bin Laden. And torture did not keep us safer. "
The guy who interrogated KSM says so.
Who is saying otherwise?
The testimony of the man who questioned KSM
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906
hold your heads very high fundamentalist christians as you promote torture and support your wars for corp profits and deny medical coverage to people in need of medical care. not!
Torture is ineffective, but more importantly, it's illegal. The latter is indisputable. Bush can't leave the country because he would be arrested in almost every civilized country (including, I believe, Switzerland).
As for being ineffective, the torture program ended 6 years before the killing of bin Laden, and the "link" to that method of obtaining information is tenuous at best. In fact, it seems that the tortured lied while being tortured. It was ordinary intelligence, technology, and dogged diligence that led to bin Laden.
It would be very difficult for any human being of goodwill to disagree with this quote. However, is it not a fact that the diverse religious "scriptures" available and used to "educate" our children are contaminated by allegoric references of violence, including torture and death? Shouldn't we--for the benefit of our children, and Humanity at large--revise these "scriptures" and rid them of any and all references to violence and torture?
In the hands of selfish, violent, extremist political manipulators, these references are frequently used as an excuse to incite acts of revenge and violence, the cause of pain and suffering to so many humans throughout History.
Is it not time for all secular and religious leaders to come together in a unified effort to promote a fresh narrative of high morality, and publicly denounce and condemn any act of violence--including torture--and disrespect of human life, dignity and intellectual freedom?
Your effort in this article is appreciated.
One of the main problems currently is that mainstream Islam does not allow for this type of revision and reform. Islamic scholars, on the whole, quibble over very minor points and any potential reformist is often pilloried and threatened with violence (see the example that occurred recently here in the UK of a man called Usama Hasan- can be found on Dawkins' website or, like, google or whatever).
It is possible to be a very patient, moderate, kind and intelligent citizen of a progressive European nation, whilst at the same time tacitly approving of the murder of your muslim neighbour for the 'crime' of apostasy.
You are right that scriptures often resist revision- however, some resist far harder (and more violently) than others!
Religious fanaticism thrives on answering while bypassing questioning. The same old, antiquated narratives, interpreted--with exclusivity and arrogance--by people intolerant of healthy questioning and reasoning, have failed to move us to a higher ground.
I am not so worried about how the body of "OBL" may have been buried, as to how we are going to bury his negative message of intolerance, violence and terror.
Maybe if we open our minds and change the narrative, we increase the chance for a better and more peaceful future.
2) The white house legal experts were asked to write a legal opinion justifying torture, not an opinion on whether torture is justified. There is a difference. As skilled lawyers they could just as effectively produced a legal opinion going the other way. That's what lawyers do.
3) If any means are acceptable, would you torture a person's children in front of them to get them to reveal the information. That's been done in the past with considerable success, but as I recall, it was disapproved of at both Nuremberg and Tokyo, with fatal consequences for the proponents.
I don't believe that our western values are so fragile that we have to destroy them in order to protect them. We don't have to burn down the village in order to save it.
If brutal interrogation is what it takes to make people talk BEFORE innocent people are blown apart. Yes!! What ever means necessary to protect YOUR family. The leaders of this country are surrounded by Cops and Agents from a dozen branches of service. Who is protecting your family? Make terrorists talk by whatever means necessary. If it includes torture and waterboarding YES YES YES. USN Ret.
7:23am
Washington, DC
I don't remember reading anything about torture in the Torah or the Bible. The leaders would consult their prophets for advice.
Still others might suggest that deliberate repression of homosexuality in a population that must have contained homosexuals is psychological torture, particularly when coupled with the threat of the above punishment.
I would argue that 'Thou shalt not torture' at least deserves to be one of the 10 Commandments!
1:07pm
Washington, DC
"Thou shalt not torture" would be a good one.
But yeah, to be fair to the Ancient Israelites, they did tend to kill everything before torture became an option. It was more of a logistical issue, than a moral scruple, I think.
Barack obviously appreciates that imagery can be used as propaganda, and acts to withhold such artifacts when he can. But for those instances where that power of suppression refuses to conform to his purview, there is another strategy he must master. Never allow it to occur in the first place.
“There are two truths that are common to most people of faith: that every human being is created in God's image and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves”,
And in addition. The moral high ground is not a plateau, perched at the very pinnacle of a pile of prostrate people. Only the true infidel, shows no fidelity to humankind.
“This is the time to establish a government-sponsored Commission of Inquiry with full subpoena power to let the public know the full extent and consequences of the torture program”.
Logic dictates that those who support it could offer no reasons. Why it should not be used upon them, in pursuance of the truth about torture.
George Bush also made a very tough call... he knew we were at war with terrorists... people willing to die to kill us.....He knew we needed a way to extract information to prevent future attacks so he asked his CIA & Justice Department to see what could be done. The came up with enhanced or harsh interrogation techniques including the now infamous water boarding.
First some facts:
1.we water boarded only three key al queda operatives including the 9/11 mastermind, KSM
IT WORKED - we go a whold bunch of important information and anyone who denies it is a LIAR - waterboarding was not used on everyone captured and was not routinely used outside three key operatives... it was used with discretion on high value suspects in the presence of a doctor who monitored the subjects and prevented any physical harm! All of our special ops guys including the SEALs who shot bin laden are water boarded in training
2. all these techniques were approved by very reputable lawyers within the Bush Administration and notwithstanding all the bombast from the Left about breaking the law... no laws were broken.. no indictments handed down.. nothing -PERIOD..
2. No reliable information was obtained. FBI Director Mueller, when asked whether any attacks had been disrupted by information obtained through torture, said, "I don't believe that has been the case."
3. In training, our SEALs do not believe they might be killed. We also train soldiers by putting them in gas-filled rooms with no gas masks. Are you suggesting we could do that to prisoners?
4. The "very reputable lawyers" were harshly critcized by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsiblity, and their legal opinions were withdrawn by the Bush Justice Department. Their "advice" was at the far fringe of any accepted legal theory, and they could not have possibly believed any courts would uphold their reading of the law. The more likely view is that their "advice" was merely providing legal cover for already decided -- and maybe already engaged in -- illegal practices.
5. Multiple laws were broken. By refusing to investigate allegaltions of torture, by blocking all attempts at civil remedies, by rendering prisoners to countries that systematically engage in torture, by having secret prisons, the Obama administration is also failing to comply with treaty requirements.