Obama’s Torture Dilemma

The whole reason we are involved in this conflict is to defend American ideals. One of those ideals is that torturing is prohibited; there are no circumstances that justify torture, and there are no classes of people upon which torture is permissible; and if you have to define any activity with complicated scenarios and carefully-chosen weasel words to ask a hypthetical, "is it torture?" then it is quite likely torture.

Americans do not torture, even if may appear to put them at a tactical disadvantage in a given situation. If, in defense of our ideals, we give up our ideals, then we are in effect adopting an "end justifies the means" mentality, and we have already lost. Similarly, if we justify torture because "Al Qaeda does it" then that is essentially measuring our moral position against Al Qaeda's; if we claim to be morally superior, then we must behave that way. If not, then we are frauds and hypocrites.

Has there ever been a real case where a ticking bomb scenario played out like on television, because whenever the defenders of torture have used this argument, they have yet to provide an example.

What complicates the discussion is the definition of torture. Guess like pornography, it's hard to define but we all think we know it when we see it. I would pose some hypothetical questions: is torture (whatever it is) always wrong under all circumstances? Would you torture a bad guy to save an innocent child? How about thousands or millions of people?

How would we feel about American soldiers being treated in such ways? I have truly been amazed at the extent to which our highest national officials have so easily manipulated others to commit crimes against our fellow Americans, as well as the international community, and without anyone downtown (DC) really throwing too much of a fit about it until recently. Have Americans become such sheep that we never question authority? Or maybe the interrogators really enjoy injuring people in such ways. Everyone is so afraid to speak out for what is right, and this makes me deeply sad to know we've fallen so far. If we perform torture and go against the things we know are right (and I will not believe interrogators really felt it was the right thing to do, and they've admitted it by changing their manuals), then we are no better than those who did the dasterdly deed on 9/11. Our lack of backbone to maintain our high values in hard times has revved up our enemies' anger, and we have way more enemies now than before the Bushites came to town. We now have an obligation to the international community to go after those (our own) who have committed these crimes if we want any respect in this world. And for those like me who clearly see the injustice of all of this, that's the only way we can get any sense of self respect back.

So two wrongs make a right? They have done horrible things, so now we should too? Ignoring our better judgement and giving into our primal and savage urges is not what I think of as American. Using "the ends justify the means" argument is a slippery slope in a country where most legal decisions are based on precedent.

"Conyers and a handful of other House Democrats have introduced legislation to set up a tribunal, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to investigate alleged Bush administration abuses of power."

They should be modeling the tribunal after the one that conducted the trials at Nuremburg... the 9/11 Commission was a stupendous waste of time, that never even looked at the most important matters pertaining to the 9/11 attacks, merely beginning with accurate identification of the perpetrators.

As to WI-veteran's argument that: " 'they' are slowly sawing people's heads off with machetes and we worry about torturing 'them'..." Rubbish. WI-veteran has ZERO evidence of any kind that ANY of the people we have in custody at Guantanamo... even those we THINK might have been associated in some way with al Qaeda... ever perpetrated any such act as he describes. The crime WI_vet refers to (presumably, the murder of Daniel Pearl) certainly was committed, but not by the Guantanamo detainees... in fact, as it turned out, many of the Guantanamo detainees had done NOTHING illegal to punish them for, and were released. We don't know how many were tortured first.

Perhaps WI_vet's real argument is: "Muslim radicals cut off Daniel Pearls head. Therefore, it is acceptable to torture or kill anyone we THINK MIGHT BE a Muslim radical"....or maybe it is "All Muslims are terrorists". There presumably ARE some Muslim radicals who, as he puts it, would like to "kill all infidels", but they are very few... MOST Muslims (even most who could be described as politically 'radical' in one way or another) have never killed anyone, don't want to, and never will.

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, their attitudes toward the hostile government of Israel are no different than the attitudes of that government toward them...and Israel has ALWAYS killed and injured far more Arabs (many of whom are Christians, WI_vet, not Muslims), than the number of Israelis similarly harmed by Arabs. The history is what it is, no matter how pro-Zionist spinmeisters cast it... Israel (and the Zionist movement before Israel was declared to be a state) have been the primary aggressors in the conflict since at least 1947. During this time they have taken over the entire territory of Palestine, driven most of its indeigenous population into exile or into refugee camps, and have attacked every nation on their borders repeatedly...and there they remain. It is the worst sort of hypocrisy to ignore the violent crimes of the aggressor, and criticize the violent response of the victims as "terrorism".

There is no dilemma. This crap needs to be dragged out into the light of day, and IF torture DID occur, then the responsible parties, top to bottom, need to be tried accordingly. We are supposed to be a nation under the rule of law, and it's time we started acting that way.

Interesting. Where does human rights start and end?? Most of those quartered (for want of a better word) in Guantanamo bay werte captured in 'war' areas or in operations and investigations that, under the law, seemed appropriate. If torture did take place, then it is certainly not the correct thing to do and those who authorised it should be investigated and, if appropriate, dealt with under law.
In realiity however, in war, one operates under military justice under existing accepted conventions as to the conduct of war. These are conventions and, as such, should fairly be promulgated.
I wonder if John Howard, Tony blair, Bush, et al will ever really be investigated.
I hope not as I believe that what they did was right.
Let those who threaten and peractice terrorism (murder by cowardly acts) against those of different beliefs or race forfeit their right to life.
In doing so however, justice should prevail

Sorry about all the typo's, but this interface REALLY REALLY sucks. It's really hard to see exactly what you are writing. Tiny grey type.... It's like Newsweek really doesn't want our thoughts cluttering their web site.

no bubbak, it has nothing to do with obama theoretically... he's a president not a policeman. But of course it means something iin spirit if he gives support to prosecution or not. But it doesnt matter if the US prosecutes, ANY nation can prosecute because it is international law. I rather agree with obama, and I feel that the negative backlash of the bush administration has become a little exageratted and it feels to me a bit like witch hunting. But still, we should not try to act as if US politicians are above international law....it just looks bad. I think there should be an invewstigation, and a trial, I just really, really hope it doesnt result in lynching or something like that. Given the events and the spirit of the times, it was an understandable mistake, imho.

Hey raghead, I care what happens to them. Get the facts! It is not a crime in any country to be raped unwillingly, torture is illegal in the United States and US Territories (like GTMO), you have no idea what the mentalities of "some of these people" are, and some of their treatments (if not all) are torture.

By the way, your name means "A person of Middle Eastern or North African decent" - did you know?

Hey raghead, I care what happens to them.