Have We Softened Up On Torture?

It's a thoughtful premise: when uniformed thugs reduced the inmates at Abu Ghraib to caged animals (and occasionally to dead bodies), didn't they reduce us too into something less than we were before? Obviously, in a democracy, we're complicit in all violence done on our behalf, right? For an American military installation in Baghdad to go entirely Brownshirt (complete with dewy-eyed, plaintive Nuremberg defenses), something must have changed about us. Right?

I don't think so.

When we discovered what happened at Abu Ghraib or the proof of Khmer Rouge style torture at Guantanamo, we Americans, on the whole, couldn't be bothered to do much more than to be fascinated like we would by any other car crash and toss out a few canned platitudes. The question isn't whether or not we've become desensitized to atrocity; of *course* we've become desensitized to atrocity. It happened a long time ago. America didn't really have a problem with Reagan unzipping his fly and letting loose all over the constitutional separation of powers when his minions got into the drug-funded warlord business. To this day, it's still sort of rude to talk about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as if someone, somewhere might have been stretching the truth; and really, most of the nation didn't much care about Vietnam until it a) it looked like we might not win, and b) became an excuse to party.

In America, much the same way our "amps go to 11", our lowest common denominator goes all the way to the bottom. Nobody cares about the violence done for us or the violence done to us because the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have what it takes to participate in a democracy. If they did? Perish the thought. Better a dozen LA riots than face a world without KFC. Somewhere distant in the back of our minds is a hazy memory of someone reminding us of a malaise of the spirit in our country, and another memory of us throwing a half-empty beer can at the annoying voice on the TV, rolling over and hitting the snooze.

'American reaction was universal revulsion' - So say the press and the press is God on earth. Yet the press is often wrong about Americas feelings. They knowingly push opinions and spin with the drama of an after school special until us little people can only hear the voice of the press echoing in our heads. Oh such a world lovingly created to guide us less intelligent surfs.

American reaction was universal revulsion - So say the press and the press is God on earth. Yet the press is often wrong about Americas feelings. They knowingly push opinions and spin with the drama of an after school special until us little people can only hear the voice of the press echoing in our heads. Oh such a world lovingly created to guide us less inteligent surfs.

America has become a nation that refuses to realize the true danger that awaits us if we don't have a UNUFIED response to those people who would tear us apart, not just as a civilization, but as individuals. EVERYONE, please Google "fitna" and watch. It's not inflammatory, it is the true intention of our enemies...enemies we have not chosen but who have chosen us as enemies. We cannot fail to respond or we WILL fail to survive.

Perhaps the most sickening thing is that we have become so desensitized as to find it acceptable for a former vice president to argue that torture works and is a valid technique, which he could prove if only a few more documents were declassified. Sickening. ... So what's next? Once we've allowed our own government to torture, to tap our phones and emails, to indefinitely confine humans without charging them with a crime, to attack other countries without cause, and most importantly, to allow that to go uninvestigated and unpunished, what's next? Where does it lead? You'll think it absurd, but will we eventually accept government rape rooms like Saddam used to torment his captives? Will we accept police punishment of political dissidents? Will we accept limits on free speech so we can eliminate "un-American" comments? Sounds outlandish, but is it? Ten years ago, we were a country that didn't torture or let people rot in cells without being charged. Or maybe we did and just didn't know it. It would be interesting to know what our government has done in the name of freedom and democracy, to protect our "national security". Perhaps torture, illegal confinement and wiretapping are just what's publicly known about the Bush administration. I wonder what a full accounting of all actions would reveal.

Torture in any form for any reason goes against everything we stand for and is against the Geneva Convention. I am horrified and deeply embarrassed that our government committed such heinous acts, no matter what 'justification' is given, no matter what compromised information is sought. I believe that those who authorized such depraved actions should be brough to justice; including George W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. They are guilty of crimes against humanity and should face international law if we haven't the courage or fortitude to address these crimes as a nation.

As soon as we can convince the other side to quit showing an American being beheaded on the internet we could tone it down a bit. Why do we always have to be the guys wearing the white hat. Do you remember when you were a child struck you you were told to fight back. As long as the other side behaves like animals so should we.

Washington officials.....no matter how high up.... who sanctioned any torture should now be held responsible and brought to justice.....

The debate over whether or not this constituted torture is moot. As is the debate over whether or not we should prosecute the offenders. Please read the following:
President Reagan signed the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) Treaty. The U.N. treaty, which went into force on June 26th, 1987, and to which the U.S. is a partner along with more than 140 other countries, defines and outlaws torture clearly and concisely.

CAT Article 1 specifies that, for purposes of the Convention, torture refers to: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

And to quote Condoleezza Rice from 2005, "The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world." What was done was wrong.

And, if we don't do something about it, the UN, and the other 140 countries who signed the Treaty, will. Obama doesn't have a choice here.

The world is watching.

DiorioDallas - "We need to get back into the real world with this discussion and out of the political revenge these releases smack of."

This is the "real world"
The debate over whether or not this constituted torture is moot. As is the debate over whether or not we should prosecute the offenders. Please read the following:
President Reagan signed the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) Treaty. The U.N. treaty, which went into force on June 26th, 1987, and to which the U.S. is a partner along with more than 140 other countries, defines and outlaws torture clearly and concisely.

CAT Article 1 specifies that, for purposes of the Convention, torture refers to: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

And to quote Condoleezza Rice from 2005, "The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world." What was done was wrong.

And, if we don't do something about it, the UN, and the other 140 countries who signed the Treaty, will. Obama doesn't have a choice here.

The world is watching.

Um, where was the 'common sense' to invade Iraq in the first place?

Where was the the 'common sense' to torture people when it's know it doesn't provide useful information (much less be legal).

Republicans trying to defend Bush's torture as a valid way of protecting us is like burning down a house to get rid of dust in the carpets. Yep, burnt house also got rid of the dust but look where you get yourself.

We are LESS safe today because of Bush's bungled policies.

No, but maybe if we are not directly involved we tolerate the atrocities that were visited on other's families and friends and "adopt" a high road because it didn't happen to us or anyone we know. In the same way religious fanatics subvert the host culture by picking off one at a time.

lestin idiot . once the torture is legaled , it will be done to you or your kids,

If a tree is known by its fruit, we have many harvests we could examine if we are serious about our own responsibilities regarding torture. We might start by asking if what the US is engaged in in the Middle East is a "war" or an "occupation." The arguments the Bush administration used to convince us it is a "war" have been universally accepted as specious. It would seem that what we are engaged in is therefore and "occupation" and such engagements rarely go well for the aggressors. Even if we concede that 911 provided the impetus for the aggression, the question remains: aggression against whom? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Venezuela? The Galapagos? Where is the proof that any in that list attacked the US?
So now we have an opportunity, not to scapegoat a few "bad apples" as was so conveniently done to those at the bottom of the pecking order by the very architects of the policy, but to bring those who devised the policy and implemented it to justice. What a novel idea! If we don't, we can go through all manner of rationalization for flouting our own laws, our own values, our own constitution, and the treaties to which we are signatory. The inclination for outlaw regimes to resort to excusing their own crimes ex post facto is why the Geneva Conventions proscribed that practice and the US signed on.
The current President has said there is nothing to be gained in looking backwards. Unfortunately, crimes occur in the past. We can't convict people for what they may do, but we can hold them accountable for what they have done. Mr. bush once said, "Bring it on!" I say we should hold him to his word and bring on the special prosecutor???not the commission that will whitewash the record???but the independent prosecutor who will rigorously look at the best evidence and make a determination of possible guilt or ultimate innocence. If no one is above the law, that would include Geore W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Fienstien, and a lot of other Democratas who were privvy to what was being done on ???the dark side.???
Last January, President Obama said "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If he can???t find it within himself to do so, then add him to the list as well.