On Turture

I thought I'd combine the various sections on torture into one post. The question at hand is whether or not torture can ever be justified or tolerated for the greater good, or at least the good of the many. My response is simple: No and never. It is not even a matter of whether or not such techniques work: the strawman argument that it has occasionally worked throughout history shouldn't even be considered. We obtained information from our most brutal and illogical enemies (Nazi Germany) both during and after the war by treating them like human beings, the least we could do with our current enemies is recognize that they are still human even if we dislike them.

It Is What Differentiates Us From the Barbarians

The United States throughout its short history has done some horrible things but one line that until recently it wasn't willing to cross was the use of torture as an interrogation tool. The British were world renowned for their innovations in torture. When we broke away from them it was one of the many grievances brought against the King along with imprisonment without trial. The "soft" torture techniques we officially have on the books differ but the principle is the same. Whether you are destroying a person's mind or their body, both leave lasting lifelong effects. Some may argue that we face a new type of enemy in dangerous times which necessitate a new policy and new techniques in interrogation.

I wholeheartedly disagree. We have faced tyrants, traitors, and terrorists before, putting one after another in their place without stooping to their level in treatment of prisoners. By accepting that torture is inevitable and necessary we forfeit the moral high ground, becoming something as bad (or worse). Which leads into a direct reference to Taxi to the Dark Side. The treatment of prisoners in detainment camps can be directly compared to the way Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Nationalists treat Americans that they have captured. What is the difference between beating a recognized innocent prisoner to death over the course of several days and beheading a civilian contractor? I would make the argument that their is none. I'm only going to post a photo(a link to the photo) and not the video because the thing made me hurl when I watched it. I'd suggest looking only if you have a high tolerance for such things.

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nickberg.jpg

The extremes of physical abuse are not typically argued for in the case for torture but its often times a byproduct of a society tolerant in the use of torture. This Republic was founded on the rule of law and the unalienable rights of the citizenry. To have had any U.S. citizen in Gitmo violates the very principles the nation was founded on. Foreigners are a different discussion topic altogether, especially those that are not agents of another country. Which is the next point that should be brought up: The difference between can and should. We can imprison foreign terrorists without trial and torture them, but that doesn't mean we ever should. They are not citizens so any liberty given to a U.S. citizen in the Bill of Rights does not apply to them. Historically however we've given that privilege to foreigners, and for good reason.

International and U.N. law is in direct violation of U.S. national sovereignty. Theres no way to reconcile it with either our constitution (the supreme law of the land) or the wishes of our founding fathers. Instead we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the U.N. Some of the greatest terrorist and human rights violators in the world are a part of the organization and international crime like human trafficking is a common practice. The United States should be able to develop policy far superior and humane to anything the UN can.