Funk Babblings

The problem with torture on television is that it is almost invariably depicted as extracting needed information from a dehumanized scumbag, which bears almost no relation to reality. As sources of information, captives become useless fairly quickly. Even IF a captive is an Al Quaida terrorist, as soon as his organization realizes he has been captured, it will move at lightning speed to render what he knows obsolete, moving terrorist cells and whatnot. Holding people for years because they might know information makes no sense.

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.