FLAIT

I wrote a Letter to the Editor and it was published with a few omissions. Here it is, in it's entirety. Below are additional comments.

When President Obama released the secret CIA memos detailing Bush administration "enhanced interrogation techniques" for suspected terrorists, Republicans blasted him by saying "terrorists will now know what to expect and be able to prepare for it." But there wasn't anything new in the memos. Waterboarding had been known for years. Besides, if we're no longer going to torture, as Mr. Obama has said, then there would be nothing to "prepare" for.

As far as waterboarding is concerned, Republicans try and show that it "isn't torture" by volunteering to undergo it themselves. But if waterboarding "isn't that bad" to the point they can withstand whatever is poured on them (fat chance as it is), how bad can it really be?

Why would hardened terrorists who are willing to die - unlike any Republican volunteer - give up information that waterboarding is supposed to elicit if they can "take it?" So waterboarding has to be torture for it to work (either that or they really don't know anything). If not, then it defeats its purpose and is nothing more then a dunk tank...without the tank.

I know we could send every terrorist we capture to Club Med, and American prisoners would still be treated horribly, probably tortured. But that's not why torture is wrong. It's wrong, and should be prosecuted as a war crime - regardless of which side is responsible for it - because two wrongs don't make a right. And anyone who doesn't understand that should go back to kindergarten and learn that lesson all over again.

Additional comments:

Israel's been under the threat of terrorism for forty years and they capture terrorists on regular basis. But they don't torture; the world would have gotten into a snit if they did (they do, however, have a checkered history. But in 1999 Israel's High Court of Justice declared that torture was illegal even under the Republican's favorite scenario seen in the TV show 24.). And England didn't torture IRA terrorists when a bomb could have been planted anywhere at any time (although during the early 1970s, Britain was guilty of "inhuman" and "degrading" treatment).

Today, Israel and the U.K. do not torture. But it's alright if we torture while telling the rest of the world it's wrong. And we wonder why the world thinks we're hypocrites.

But wait, there's more.

George Washington did not torture:

After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

Ronald Reagan not only opposed torture, but signed a treaty compelling the U.S. to prosecute it. The U.S., he said, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Winston Churchill did not torture (or did he?). And through the summer and fall of 1944, the Allies had captured thousands of German soldiers. They weren't tortured to find out when and where Hitler would start his offensive in Europe (the "Battle of the Bulge"). So the United States did not torture despite having a darn good reason to.

So the U.K., Israel, George Washington, Ronald Reagan and the United States ruled out torture, explicitly. And the Republican spin that "they didn't have to guard against a 9/11 type of attack" is, well, spin (which is only meant for their mindless and gullible followers who obviously can not think for themselves).

In regard to the Republican doomsday scenario portrayed in 24 "...an attack is about to take place and we just captured a terrorist who knows when an where it will happen..." As I pointed out, terrorists are willing to die for their cause. So why would they "give it up" and save themselves? Or they could easily give false information, sending the authorities on a wild goose chase (June, 2009 insert: like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did). Or - torture being what it is - confess to everything from instigating the Boston Massacre, to the Lindbergh kidnapping, or to a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda which is exactly what Dick Cheney was looking for (despite the fact there was no link since Iraq and al-Qaeda despised each other). So torture doesn't even work! If it did why are George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Republicans opposing a thorough investigation into their "enhanced interrogation" program? It would vindicate them. But contrary to the Nancy Pelosi smoke screen, they really don't want any part of it. Gee, I wonder why.

So unless the goal is to get unreliable information and recruit more terrorists (which is what the G.O.P. just might want), torture - other then a being a war crime - is terribly impractical. Therefore, the ends will never justify the means. So anyone who thinks torture's going to make us safer, even under the 24 scenario, couldn't be more wrong.

And it goes without saying; getting credible, useful and "actionable intelligence" out of these prisoners can be done without torture (assuming they know something, but most of them do not). Heck, with an estimated 100 deaths from torture "enhanced interrogation," that would be the pro-life way to handle them!

June, 2009 insert: More proof that 1) torture doesn't work 2) forces prisoners to make stuff up and 3) useful information could be solicited with nothing more then sugarless cookies is here. Dick Cheney's lies on torture are here, and a terrific summary of the Bush/Cheney administration lies, spin and "fear" policies is here.

If we need torture - which is "so 15th century" by the way - to defend the country against nothing but a global "street gang" that is "trained" by running through a set of monkey bars, then we really are in trouble because that's exactly what an ignorant, ruthless, bullying and woefully feckless government or dictatorial regime would do (Saddam Hussein's for instance). I'd like to think America's a lot smarter then that. Then again...

Deepak Chopra, in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The more the right wing tries to justify the torture policy, the worse they look. Using national security to justify torture is just a bald-faced attempt to hide the truth. What really went on was simple. The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America stands for.

Since the "pro-torture" side can play the "what if" game, then I can play it too.

"A terrorist attack is about to take place and we just captured a terrorist who knows when an where it will take place..." What if he's a 16 year old boy? We're going to torture children? (June, 2009 insert: We already did.) If not, why not? What if he's 14 years old? What if the terrorist is a 73 year old woman who had been shot during her capture and barely conscious? We're going to waterboard her? If not, why not? What if it's a 15 year old girl, who had been shot and barely conscious?

What's the difference between torturing a child or a barely conscious grandmother, and a strong twenty-something man portrayed in a TV show? If you're going to torture him "to save lives" then you have to torture children and grandmothers too.

Criminals are arrested every day all over the country. Why aren't we torturing them to see if they know about any "imminent crimes" that will take place? If it'll "save lives" how is that any different?

Is torturing children, semi-conscious grandmothers and everyday criminals a precedent America should be setting? Ironically, that's what they do in Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- a.k.a. "the axis of evil" (and we really do have WMDs! So we're lucky George Bush still isn't President or else he'd invade us next!)!

Over the last few years, what if an American solider in Iraq was captured and tortured so they can find out when George Bush was going to bomb Iran? What if an American solider on Korea's DMZ is captured and tortured to determine when Barack Obama's going to bomb Pyongyang?

Those two scenarios would be wrong. But it's "legal," "constitutional," "justified" and "right" when we torture our enemies. I see (I also see that invading Iraq was "justified," but had Iran or Iraq invaded Israel, which really does have WMDs...).

Naturally, our soldiers wouldn't have any information about attacks on Iran or North Korea. But the terrorists we've been capturing (some at home or off the street, and not on the "battlefield"), holding and torturing for years - without charges being filed or access to a lawyer - didn't know about any "imminent attacks" either. And they were tortured anyway, including those who were totally innocent and not terrorists at all (June, 2009 insert: More here).

If an American soldier was tortured, I'm sure we'd be outrage and would want those responsible up and down the line to be prosecuted as war criminals (just like we did to Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American and Allied prisoners during WWII). So it's a war crime when someone else does it. I see.

But what would we do when their government or regime responded with:

"We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards...this is a time for reflection, not retribution...with the difficult economic times and all the domestic issues we face...the political capital that would have to be spent, and since this investigation would be a partisan witch hunt..."

...and didn't hold anyone accountable?

Being grossly hypocritical has its consequences (Republican hypocrisy on prosecuting torture is here).

As an American it's embarrassing that our former President and Vice President are war criminals. And it's alarming that President Obama is not only covering up their crimes, but continuing many of Bush and Cheney's detainee policies. We should all be ashamed.

October, 2009 insert: Also see this, this and this (Update III).

January, 2010 insert: Glenn Greenwald on the murders and cover up at Guantanamo Bay; Obama's continuation of indefinite detention (and Democratic hypocrisy); innocent Yemeni detainees that have been wrongly held for years (gee, I wonder why they hate us); and that we're doing al-Qaeda a big favor by treating them this way.

February, 2010 insert: More Greenwald here, here and here.

February, 2010 insert: Here's Greenwald at his best.

April, 2010 insert: More proof that torture is unnecessary, doesn't work, wastes time and resources, accomplishes nothing (except make Republicans look "tough on terrorism," proving they are thugs and bullies) and the right rewriting history, is here.

October, 2010 insert: New blatant Obama hypocrisy is here and here. You see? It's okay when we do it.