How Did We Get Here?

Remind me again why we’re still debating torture – whether it was actually torture, whether it was a good idea or not, and whether to prosecute those involved in instituting torture as a regular policy.  Let’s take this one point at a time:

• Was it torture?

I’m pretty sure there’s something in our Constitution about “cruel and unusual punishment”.  I’m also pretty sure that waterboarding, beating, and putting prisoners’ heads in boxes with insects is pretty cruel.  And naked pyramids are pretty unusual.  And then there’s the Geneva Conventions, which state that “no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”  Putting aside the distractionary argument of “prisoner of war” versus “enemy combatant”, I think we can all agree that the restriction against “physical or mental” torture pretty much covers it.

• Was it a good idea?

In a word – no.  Not only have studies repeatedly proved that torture results in unreliable information (supported by none other than John McCain), thereby disproving the argument that it “kept us safe”, but it also has provided plenty of recruiting fodder for anti-American extremists.  George W always told us that the terrorists “hate us for our freedom”.  This was always a bunch of bullshit.  They hate us because we meddle in their affairs, and because we’re infidels.  Now we can add to the list the fact that we wrongfully imprisoned and tortured thousands of Muslims.  And now we’re publicly trying to justify it.

On the other end of delusional spectrum, we repeatedly hear right-wing hacks like Hannity say that these torture methods are no worse than frat pranks.  If that were true, then how were they effective?  And why do it at all?  Is this all just for some sick kicks?  On some level, that would be even more twisted.

• Should we prosecute?

Yes.  Not only should Bush, Cheney, and all their cronies be prosecuted, but most certainly Jay Bybee should be impeached from his current position as federal appellate judge for his involvement in justifying torture of prisoners.  The fact that he is still in a position of power in our judicial system is truly frightening.

Also, it’s worth noting that a precedent was set in A Few Good Men to not just prosecute Colonel Jessup, but also the Marines that carried out the orders.  Anyone involved in any torture while representing the United States should, and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Now, before you accuse me of being a bleeding-heart liberal who is naively in favor of weakening our nation’s defenses, let me add a footnote to all of this.  I realize that the extraordinary times we are in (or more specifically, were in immediately after 9/11) called for some extreme measures.  However, the fact that the past administration so arrogantly and publicly defends torture as a legitimate interrogation tactic has brought us to this point.  To make matters worse, we are now learning that torture was used specifically to link Al Qaeda to Iraq to justify the war, creating a criminal conspiracy of historic proportions.  If you’re going to rough up a few terrorists, no one would really mind.  But they wrongfully imprisoned thousands of people, murdered hundreds while holding them in Guantanamo and other secret prisons, and encouraged other nations to do the same.  A line must be drawn and an example must be made that America will no longer be the land of ignorance, arrogance, violence, and abuse.  Otherwise, anyone trying to paint us as the bad guy has a pretty easy job.

And since you brought it up, let me quickly comment on Wanda Sykes (I never thought I’d write that sentence in this blog).  How are her comments somehow more offensive (and getting more press) than the following:

• “We’re going to murder a million babies a year”
• “Obama is terrorist attack number 2; Obama is the follow-up to 9-11″
• “We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black”
• “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”
• “The NAACP should have riot rehearsals”
• “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease.  He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”
• “The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down”

These are all actual quotes from Douche Limbaugh himself.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find them particularly offensive (except for the one about trees), but they’re certainly more offensive than anything Wanda Sykes had to say.  Unlike the millions of “ditto-heads” across the country, I understand that Limbaugh is nothing more than a shock jock, and take his comments for what they’re worth (which is nothing).  So why can’t people treat Wanda Sykes, an actual comedian (not a political commentator), with the same view?  If this isn’t proof that the so-called liberal media boogeyman we always hear about doesn’t really exist, I don’t know what is.

And for the record, I agree with Wanda – I hope Limbaugh’s kidneys fail from all that oxycontin, too.  In the meantime, I support his right to repeatedly make ignorant and offensive comments on the radio, even if he and his overly sensitive conservative cohorts refuse that same right of anyone who disagrees with them.

KP Silverman