![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last night I watched parts of the Condoleezza Rice confirmation hearings on C-SPAN. The talk about Iraq got all the press, and there was a great exchange with Kerry about Iran, but what really struck me (other than that Rice apparently doesn't read any more than her boss does) was what she said -- and didn't say -- about torture.
In response to questioning from both Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rice insisted that the Geneva Conventions "don't apply to terrorists," and that "we're in a war like no other before," so apparently the old rules shouldn't apply. She refused, however, to say whether she'd consider some specific acts (waterboarding?) to be torture or not. She also passed up numerous opportunities to simply state that torture is wrong -- which she obvious doesn't believe, given her other statements.
Let me get this straight. Anyone our government captures, that it thinks may have terrorist ties or just knowledge of terrorists, may be tortured. No matter whether we later discover that they had no involvement with terrorism and no idea what the terrorists are up to. And our next head diplomat (presumably also speaking for the president) sees nothing wrong with that.
This scares me.
The assumption that a person under torture will say anything more truthful than whatever the torturer wants to hear is of course foolish. The hubris of thinking that today's situations are like no other before amazes me, but every generation does it. The ignorance of what others think of you when you condone torture is absurd, especially when we justify our military follies based on the torture policies of other regimes. But most of all, the moral emptiness of condoning the torture of another human being is simply repulsive.
This from an administration that claims to be explicitly Christian, and was re-elected in large part due to support from people claiming to want a government with good Christian moral values. It's been a while since I went to church, so I must have missed the part about Jesus teaching, "Do good to them that hate you, unless you decide its legal for you to cause them pain until they answer your questions."
I also wonder whether the depiction of torture on shows such as Alias and 24 makes people accept it more. If people see Jack Bristow or Jack Bauer torturing someone to get information that helps save others, they might not think torture is such a universally bad thing. What they don't see is when the person under torture gives bad information because they don't have the real information, possibly because they were simply misindentifed and caught in the dragnet.
If only more people were exposed to shows such as the Bablyon 5 episode "Intersections In Real Time" instead. Or even just read George Orwell's 1984. All the way to the end. (Though this administration probably considers it to have a happy ending.)
Oh yeah, read more about Rice and torture in this Daily Kos diary.
In response to questioning from both Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rice insisted that the Geneva Conventions "don't apply to terrorists," and that "we're in a war like no other before," so apparently the old rules shouldn't apply. She refused, however, to say whether she'd consider some specific acts (waterboarding?) to be torture or not. She also passed up numerous opportunities to simply state that torture is wrong -- which she obvious doesn't believe, given her other statements.
Let me get this straight. Anyone our government captures, that it thinks may have terrorist ties or just knowledge of terrorists, may be tortured. No matter whether we later discover that they had no involvement with terrorism and no idea what the terrorists are up to. And our next head diplomat (presumably also speaking for the president) sees nothing wrong with that.
This scares me.
The assumption that a person under torture will say anything more truthful than whatever the torturer wants to hear is of course foolish. The hubris of thinking that today's situations are like no other before amazes me, but every generation does it. The ignorance of what others think of you when you condone torture is absurd, especially when we justify our military follies based on the torture policies of other regimes. But most of all, the moral emptiness of condoning the torture of another human being is simply repulsive.
This from an administration that claims to be explicitly Christian, and was re-elected in large part due to support from people claiming to want a government with good Christian moral values. It's been a while since I went to church, so I must have missed the part about Jesus teaching, "Do good to them that hate you, unless you decide its legal for you to cause them pain until they answer your questions."
I also wonder whether the depiction of torture on shows such as Alias and 24 makes people accept it more. If people see Jack Bristow or Jack Bauer torturing someone to get information that helps save others, they might not think torture is such a universally bad thing. What they don't see is when the person under torture gives bad information because they don't have the real information, possibly because they were simply misindentifed and caught in the dragnet.
If only more people were exposed to shows such as the Bablyon 5 episode "Intersections In Real Time" instead. Or even just read George Orwell's 1984. All the way to the end. (Though this administration probably considers it to have a happy ending.)
Oh yeah, read more about Rice and torture in this Daily Kos diary.
nauseated
(no subject)
"Whatever we do is good, because we're the good guys."
"The ends justify the means."
"I'm pro-life, and that's what's important."
It may not make anything any better, but it will quiet those questioning voices in the back of your brain, which will almost certainly make you a better American.
mantras
If this is what the good guys think, the bad guys are sounding better all the time. So much for our top diplomat winning people over.
The first mantra reminds me of that famous tautology I do remember from my early churchgoing years, "God is good."
Oh, and is it pro-life, or just pro-birth?
Ah well, I'm just not so good at this cognitive dissonance thing. How do they do it? I guess it's just a matter of heavy practice.
Re: cognitive dissonance
(I'll be undergoing a brief procedure to extract my tongue from my cheek later today - everything will be fine.)
Thought criminal
(no subject)
Traditionally, the real reason for torture has almost nothing to do with the victim. The goal is usually to frighten the rest of the citizenry. "Keep your mouth shut, or you'll end up like torture victim X, who lives down the hall." This is why Abu Graib (sp?) was so effective from the Bush point of view. He wants the U.S. military to be feared world-wide; now the rest of the world realizes, "If the U.S. invades, not only will the women and children be killed, but men captured in battle will be dishonored." For some, the fear of dishonor is worse than death. The very limited outrage in the current administration is largely, in my opinion, just for show. It serves their purpose for the world to know what went on.
Of course, for those of us who want a safer world (not to mention a more just one), this is a bad thing. First, it creates constituencies for revenge where there weren't any before (it's a great recruitment video for terrorists.) Second, if Bush ever does decide to invade a country with weapons of mass destruction led by a madman, such as North Korea, they have nothing to lose. They know if they're captured they'll be tortured, and that the U.S. will win the war (though not the peace). What's to stop them from destroying themselves and anyone else their weapons can reach?
Condoleeza Rice doesn't scare me as much as Alberto Gonzales. She's just a mouthpiece for Bush; I'd prefer an attorney general who actually wants to uphold the U.S. constitution.
new perspective
Just a perspective from another view. You can say whatever you want about this administation and torture, but during the Clinton administration the first WTC bombing, the 2 african embacy bobmings occured, the Cole bombing all occured and who got tortured. That's right me several thousand other WTC workers. I might have survived from the 80th floor, but many people I know didn't as well as my brain is well, slightly off since.
So let's see about torture... Are we supposed to sit by and wait or agressively take a stance. That's right the war was against the east coast and not the rest of the country directly so you might not feel the bomb threats, security levels and continual feeling out here every time a report comes in wondering when the next attack may be.
So if our goverment needs to torture or take strong means to get information that might save me and others I say go for it!!!!
Did you miss me Rob???
Re: new perspective
The problem of torture is three-fold:
1) It generally does not reveal useful information. I think there is a window of about three days, and then whatever the captive knows becomes outdated.
2)Who gets tortured? There is no guarantee that only bona fide terrorists will suffer. Remember, the whole premise here is guilty until proven innocent. More likely it will be an innocent Iraqi farmer minding his own business, in his own country; or random American citizens. Are you willing to be tortured by our government on the off chance that you might be a terrorist who is planning something within the next 24 hours? I'm not; but I'm afraid that's the direction this country is heading.
3) Torture creates a desire for vengeance. Innocent people who are tortured, or their parents or children, may then become terrorists, because of how they or their families have suffered.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to keep safe; we just need to do something that works, not that makes things worse.
As for the Clinton administration, it tried to go after Al Quaida, but the
Republicans spearheading the impeachment said that Al Quaida was no threat, and that Clinton was just trying to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky by starting a war in Africa and the Middle East. If they had been less partisan, perhaps Al Quaida would have been stopped in its tracks a long time ago. You can read more about it here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
As I said, it's just my opinion.