« Analysis of Russian Federation's Need for NATO | Mike7Woodson's Blog | Inching away from the abyss? More in US identify as pro-life »
First Things: The Mental Murder of Torture
That's the title, and it is here:
by Russell E. Saltzman
Saltzman assails the role of medical personnel monitoring detainees during interrogations. He also discusses the exception asserted by many, that water boarding, if it elicits life-saving intelligence and isn't lethal or crippling, is justified. His argument on this exception is not based on evidence, but suppositions about the scenario of life saving intelligence, which dodges the issue of whether life saving intelligence is justifying of water boarding. Read on.
I agree with Saltzman's belief about the evil of torture and why it must not be sanctioned, however, that reasoning also applies to those persons whose lives would be saved by water boarding (again, if evidence showed it produced life-saving information). That's a big IF, and if the IF had evidence to back it, we'd still need to have evidence ruling out the effectiveness of alternatives to torture or borderline torture to save mass life and perhaps torturous morbidity.
In another thread, I brought up the mass life saving justifications for the Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (fire, atomic, atomic), pointing out that in each case, planners knew that there would be burn victims, and that many of those could be civilians. I asked if this knowledge, with all the implications of burn injury treatment and 'recovery,' could be knowing torture to save many more lives calculated at-risk without the bombings. This could get into speculation about more humane alternatives available to the allies in WWII.
A point of information:
Time's Baer argued that water boarding was done by a CIA totally inexperienced in the technique last used in Vietnam. He did not say whether it worked in Vietnam. He did argue that no "verifiable" life-saving intelligence came from Guantanamo water boardings.
Advertisement
Thanks. I am feeling very disturbed about the situation we find ourselves in. We need an honest accounting of facts in order to hold people accountable. Our rule of law which is supposedly the foundation of our democracy is at stake here.
The OPR report about to be released was already watered down before Bush left office. One dept of the Bush DOJ investigating another dept of the Bush DOJ is a complete conflict of interest and they should not have done the report internally in the first place. I imagine it was done in order to prevent other investigations by outside entities.
Because every branch of our government is implicated in having some hand in criminal activity, we really need to appoint some independent outside truly serious person to run a thorough investigation. It won't happen unless we make it happen though. Obama is president because we made that happen. I hope that we can do this.
May 6, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree. There's a book on my bookshelf: Soul Murder.
I think that word is even more descriptive of torture's effects than just mental murder. Its purpose was to break down personalities.
May 6, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, there really is such a thing as nobility of life. We have no control over what the enemy does to us, but we do have control over ourselves. Living is about more than survival and leading a noble life means we make choices and take chances that others have made other choices that risk our very lives.
Over 200 years ago we made the choice to live the noble life based on our belief that all are created equal, that all have certain unalienable rights and over the last 200 years many have chosen to make the sacrifice to make that choice a reality for more and more people. People have given their lives for our pledge to make a more perfect union and in the words of Lincoln, "the last, best hope for earth."
Now, because of some, existential threat of terrorism that we have always had with us in one form or another, we made the choice to throw over that nobility of purpose for some nebulous feeling of safety, which when you live in a society of maximum freedom, you can never have. We willingly gave up our rights as citizens and our rights to representation and now we've willingly given up our rights to lead good and noble lives so that we can inflict pain, misery and suffering on other human beings.
Now we have another choice - do we allow over 200 years of sacrifice of lives, of honour and duty to be washed away by waterboarding and torturing others for a few minutes of feeling safe or do we make the choice that our beliefs and our nobility of purpose is more important to us and that those who committed these crimes against humanity be brought to justice and be compelled under our laws to make retribution to those victims.
What do we want? Do we want to live our principles or survive without principle and nobility of life?
May 6, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is torture subjectively determined, or objectively determined?
Is the definition a case-by-case? Does the sensitivity of the victim figure in as it does in certain areas of tort law? Or no.
May 6, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink