Torture "Debate"- Didn't We Just Leave This Party?

(warning: I can't bring myself to give credence to the opposing argument about torture, so throughout this post I put the torture "debate" in quotation marks. I consciously do this to emphasize the point that we shouldn't even have a debate about torture- even considering torture is an insult to our military history and our democratic society.)

With the passage of the McCain Amendment (by an overwhelming margin), the "debate" about torture should have resolved itself. Collectively, we decided that the United States should not and will not torture. Period.

Two troubling signs emerged showing this "debate" wasn't over. First, in his Signing Statement on the new anti-torture law, President Bush declared that he reserved the right to torture in the interests of national security. Once again, the President declared his right (and implicitly, his willingness) to break a law.

Second, when the Supreme Court declared President Bush's military tribunals illegal (and possibly a war crime) in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it unequivocally stated that (since abiding by the Geneva Conventions is US law) the United States must abide by the Geneva Conventions. Although the ruling itself does not directly deal with torture, the Geneva Conventions does, in Common Article III. The Bush Administration responded to this very clear ruling by doing...well, close to nothing.

President Bush received two orders from each of the other branches NOT to torture. Apparently a law forbidding torture and a Supreme Court ruling essentially banning torture does not "clarify" the issue for President Bush. More likely, though, President Bush believes he shouldn't have to take orders- from anyone.

When Congress passes a law, he says he doesn't have to obey it. When the Court tells him to stop, he turns a deaf ear. When journalist David Gregory asks an extremely relevant question about revising our "interpretation" of Common Article III, he angrily ducks the question, and blackmails Congress and the American people by saying there will be NO interrogation unless his Administration is allowed to torture. Keith Olbermann, once again, eloquently states the troubling aspects to the President's angry behavior. Specifically, he catches President Bush claiming that certain thoughts are unacceptable. WATCH THIS.

Although sad to realize our President believes himself a king, it should disturb even more watching him wield his perceived monarchical powers. With the alleged ability to ignore Congress and the Court, he aggressively tortures! At some point, an astute political observer should wonder why President Bush stakes out such an unpopular position on something as morally important as prisoner treatment.

I speculate that President Bush (and Vice President Cheney and other high level officials) push for the ability to torture because they want to torture. I'm not saying they feel it's necessary in a time of war, ticking time bomb, blah blah blah. They want to do it, and they don't want anyone stopping them- not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not anybody.

So here we are, once again "debating" torture, and once again we must collectively state that the United States should not and will not torture. There are four very big reasons:

1. Torture doesn't work. No reliable, actionable intelligence can be gained through various forms of torture (latest story here). When the North Vietnamese tortured John McCain, demanding the names of his commanding officers, he talked all right. He gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' starting offensive line. Every prisoner eventually talks, but as John McCain personally knows, what the prisoner talks about is generally not useful.

2. Torture harms innocent people. The United States detains approximately 14,000 people in Iraq, many on unknown and/or unspecified charges. Given that they haven't been charged with a crime, it is very likely that some are imprisoned and tortured for nothing. Not only does torture not work, but it eliminates our moral authority.

3. Torture invites reciprocity. Senator Graham agrees. It is shortsighted to think other nations won't feel within their rights to "interpret" the Geneva Conventions to allow some activities. Whatever we do to our prisoners, our enemies will do to American prisoners. Perhaps our enemies would have done it anyway- that is why we must NOT do it. Refusing to torture is one of the things that makes us different and better than our enemies. We should remember that if we advocate waterboarding somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then we have no standing to complain if our enemies waterboard somebody like Jessica Lynch. We need to ask ourselves: is what we want to do to prisoners acceptable to do to American soldiers? Chris Weigant extends this point.

4. It is truly deranged and psychologically disturbing to so strongly desire to hurt someone else. Morally speaking, inflicting pain and/or death on someone else (regardless of the reason) should be a last resort. It should never be a goal in and of itself, yet (because torture doesn't work) it obviously is for this Administration. That level of brutality, anger, and immorality present in our highest office should shock every single American. Marty Lederman attempts clarity.

...

Notice how President Bush and his "macho" tough guys express a desire to gain "clarity" on torture, without offering examples of murkiness in Common Article III. That's because the Bush Administration desires confusion and murkiness to rule the day, and will fight clarity to the death on this and other related issues.

This is where more principled, moderate Republicans have to catch up. I'm looking at you, Senator Lindsey Graham. Ok, fine, perhaps you realize this Administration is quietly but rapidly killing the soul and morality of this nation- welcome to the party, even if you're a few years late (the guacamole's pretty stale, sucks for you). Now, in order to fight them, you must recognize that this Administration is just trying to run out the clock.

This Administration realizes that the American people will be horrified if we ever find out what's been done in our name, so maintaining secrecy is the goal. By keeping standards murky and confused on things like interrogation, prisoner treatment by CIA and Guanatanamo personnel, cause for warrantless surveillance, cause for placing a filmmaker on a watch list, cause for arresting and imprisoning a journalist, or cause for barring reentry of an American citizen, the Bush Administration hopes to avoid accountability for all these horrors.

Enough. Impeach these f--kers.