In all practicality, I stand behind my previous opinions. I believe that torture should not be made illegal because it is a somewhat necessary evil in rare circumstances, and when it is made illegal, it evolves to be something much worse than it has to be. So, logically, I see why my argument needs to stay strong. Soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, and in Bagram and Abu Ghraib quite obviuosly received little instruction and little training, which resulted in horrible atrocities being committed against poor innocents like Dilawar. Had there been regulation in place, Dilawar would most likely have been released or at
minimum treated better while staying at Bagram. It is ludicrous that our Department of Defense offers little support to desperate soldiers and field commanders in order to keep up clean appearances. Rumsfeld not only ruined the lives of the punished, but also those of the soldiers working under his command. Those soldiers will remember and regret their actions for the rest of their lives. They can argue that they were "just following orders" but that will only work to convince others, not themselves.
Emotionally it is a lot harder to say that I'm still for torture. It was difficult to watch those people and see and know what they were suffering through. I have always known that torture is unpleasant (duh), but being exposed to these photographs, specific examples, and stories is painful. The suffering, loneliness, pain, and humiliation of these people was unacceptable. How can we inflict this savagery on other humans? We are a ridiculous species.
I know that I must go with logic, and stick to my guns. Things will not get better while our torturous interrogation techniques are conducted by the undertrained and shrouded by lies. We just SERIOUSLY need to check our facts before we start trying to get information out of these people. There are too many cases where there is little or no evidence to support accusations of their guilt.
I think the problem therein lies with the pressure to present evidence or clues towards what is happening. Nobody likes to be left in the dark in situations which involve even one death, thus it is in the nature of the system to provide information. I am not trying to justify this random torturing of Middle Eastern persons, but would you rather the government lie to us straight out, tell the truth, or try to get something out of a large batch of people?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to get across is that the government does not like to admit defeat, no one does when it comes down to it. The actions that the United States Government took after 9/11 were simply childish. We went around pointing fingers and bullying people until we found a reason to get revenge. Revenge is merely forced empathy, and that is what we set out to do, to harm, to torture, to make the heart of every middle eastern citizen sink to the level of pain that the United States had felt after 9/11.
Using the same mentality as above, which, if I am not mistaken you disagree with, it is better to catch some rather than none. Thus, by making torture illegal, it is better to deter some from practicing it, than it is to deter none?
When you said, "Had there been regulation in place, Dilawar would most likely have been released or at minimum treated better while staying at Bagram. It is ludicrous that our Department of Defense offers little support to desperate soldiers and field commanders in order to keep up clean appearances. Rumsfeld not only ruined the lives of the punished, but also those of the soldiers working under his command. Those soldiers will remember and regret their actions for the rest of their lives. They can argue that they were "just following orders" but that will only work to convince others, not themselves." I can feel for all the people involved, including the soldiers that were ordered to get the information at all costs, they had to feel some kind of emotion when they did what they did. I know that I could never do something like this to anyone else, even if I was ordered to, (probably why I'm not in the military). These soliders most certainly are scarred for the rest of their lives, and will most likely suffer from post traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives. Look at all the Vietnam vets that still struggle from what they endured 30 - 50 years ago. I see the same thing happening with these guys. You do make a compelling argument though that these soldiers were doing what they were told, but I still think they should be held accountable in some fashion for their actions.
ReplyDeleteIts difficult to say whether or not the official use of torture would prevent incidents like Dilawar from happening. In countries where torture is legal the trend is that legalized torture leads to more torture. Certainly skilled interrogators are necessary in obtaining information,and should be used rather than military personnel. However, "skilled" torturers is somewhat of an oxymoron. Torture may very well be useful but we've never been given quantitative results to show that it is effective or desirable over interrogation. A skilled interrogator disorients his subject while systematically gleaning information from his line of questioning.
ReplyDeleteThe use of military personnel for jobs outside of what they are trained and qualified to do is the shame of our nation. Soldiers are not interrogators, policemen, or administrators and to force them to assume those roles is almost criminal. The military has a set purpose and any deviation from that is abusing our military. The soldiers that will have to deal with their actions for the rest of their lives should have never been forced to make those decisions in the first place. Not only that but the administration actively cultivated and encouraged... even demanded... that our soldiers take action outside their official military roles. Since the first bomb dropped on Iraq I've had the naive fantasy that the Bush administration would be held accountable for their actions. If we can light up spies like Christmas trees, we can at least imprison our leaders for openly breaking the law. The torture issue is not as clearcut but if the common soldier can be held accountable, then so can the administration that demanded the action be taken.