When torture is warranted...

---

Scarborough Country Interviews, 1-6-2005
WARNING!! Potentially offensive personal opine here!

With the nomination of Gonzales comes two givens: his head goes on the platter, and the nation and pundits turn their attentions to the issue of "torture".

This has been a subject I've remained silent on in the past. Not that I'm without opinions, mind you. Rather with the world and their determination to parse words instead of comprehending perspectives, it is a dicey subject at best. There's no question I'm going to offend. So be it... amen.

I was mesmerized with Scarborough's interviews with two progressives, Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law professor and author), Dave Pollak (founder for the Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century of New York), and Jack Burkman, Republican strategist. The transcript, above, is referenced in full.

The most fascinating exchange for me was between the progressives. I 'fess, the platform I hold bears semblence to that of Mr. Dershowitz:

Everybody is against torture, but then everybody has their own definition of torture. Torture is what they do to our people. What we do to their people, that is something short of torture.

And nobody is prepared to sit down and say, precisely what are we prepared to do? If there were ticking-bomb terrorist who was about to set off a nuclear weapon, would we be prepared to put a sterilized needle underneath his fingernails for 30 minutes, cause him excruciating pain, so that he would reveal the information?

Would we be prepared to put him on a board and have his head dip in the water until he felt he was drowning, so that he would reveal the information?

We are not prepared to debate what precisely we are permitted to do, [or] who is prepared to authorize it. We just want to be satisfied, say, oh, torture, that‘s terrible. We are against torture. We are all against torture, even though we all know we would use it if it ever came down to crunch and it required torture to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Indeed, say "torture" in the 21st century and immediately following comes the words, Abu Ghraib. Interesting how our minds do not leap to beheadings or maimings from suicide bombs, yes? That is the effect on the media's onslaught coverage of the detainees... maximizing their "pain" and minimizing that of true victims.

Take Mr. Dershowitz's (and my own) perspectives a step further.... "their own definition of torture". This is the key phrase in the debate.

The dictionary's version of torture is:

1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b : something that causes agony or pain

2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

Personally, #3 is what this entire discussion nationally is doing to me...

When framing the different definitions of torture, it becomes apparent to anyone not blind to today's permissive society that torture, Abu Ghairab style, also translates to pleasure and entertainment for more than a few others. Factoid... the multi-billion dollar S'n'M porn industry.

It is logical to conclude that, for as offensive as the pictures were on one hand, it's more than likely that a huge segment of the world were not the least bit offended with such explicit photos since obviously many in the world indulge in websites, magazines and movies depicting the same behavior. I'm sure those in Amsterdam's Red Light district found it tame at best.

This is not to equate willing participation with force. That would be like comparing a couple that makes love to a rape.

But what one can say about Abu Ghairab torture is that, unlike hostages, soldiers and victims of terrorists bombs, the detainees are left with their limbs and heads. The physical damage is nil, zip.

This leaves us with only psychological damage as residue for the detainees. And I wager any long term mental disorders suffered by the "tortured" detainees *may* equal that suffered by innocents and soldiers, coming to grips with loss of limbs, loss of loved ones, and an end to normal lifestyles.

But I doubt it.

Truthfully, I find it tough to believe that embarrassment and humiliation, which is the foundation for the sexual torture in Abu Ghraib, is likely to cause as much psychological damage as the nightmares innocents and soldiers alike must come to grips with in their daily lives.

So the war of words comes down to this. When is torture warranted? Afterall, the purpose of torture is to elicit information, and terrorists have already demonstrated that physical pain or death yields no results.

Scarborough managed to elicit an opinion from the anti-torture Pollak when he asked the question:

Do you support—let‘s say, for instance, there is a nuclear device? And he was talking about the ticking bomb situation. There‘s a nuclear device in southern Manhattan. We have got somebody there that has information on it. Should the United States government be able to torture that detainee to find out where the nuclear device is?

Mr. Pollak, perfunctorily insisting that Abu Ghraib was not in the least similar to the question, first answered with a "perhaps", and deftly put the responsibility on to whomever was the Commander in Chief.

That answer not only provides him desired moral immunity, but allows latitude for placing blame on another.

Scarborough and Burkman pressured Pollak for an answer... which finally came as:

Well, if I got to be president and I could torture somebody to keep them from blowing up a million Americans, I suppose I would do it.

While Scarborough was content to leave it at that, and the panel turned it's focus back to Gonzales, I was shouting back my instinctive retort.

Just how many lives must be involved before anyone sanctions torture?

Obviously, for Pollak, a million Americans is his number. Not thousands, not hundreds. And apparently not even one. Just millions.

Which begs me to ask, where is the pacifist left's value for the lives of our troops? Are we content to take the moral high ground for "feel good" appearances in the eyes of a critical world community in exchange for the loss of "only" 7 soldiers in a Bradley fighting vehicle?

I will stand up today and say that one of our soldiers lives is worth more than all of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib's terrorist prison population any day. And frankly, since we know they do not respond to pain and physical discomfort, if humiliation and embarrassment works.... go for it. Just stop taking pictures so the "high moral ground" types don't have ammo for their less than honest protests. Like Pollak's answer - under duress - shows, if the loss of lives is above their "magic number", torture is A-OK.

As far as the Geneva Convention goes? Identified terrorists (those plucked off the battleground with weapons... pretty obvious...) are not members of a State's army. They wear no uniforms, have no country to defend, and target more innocents than military opposition. I agree with Gonzales' assessment of the law. It is questionable, at best, that it is relevant to such a low form of human existance.

I not only think they have lost any right to Geneva Convention bennies, they have forfeited their right to walk amongst others on this planet. They are beyond "winning hearts and minds", and beyond any form of civil redemption. Period.