Knowing that information revealed under torture is worthless - and one still continues with the torture of the suspect - what does it reveal about the torturer?
Knowing that the more a suspect was tortured, the more they tended to freeze-up and not divulge anything - what does it say about the torturer?
Knowing that - in order to stop the torturer, a suspect will say anything - even whatever the torturer wants to hear - and the torturer still continues with the treatment, what would you call such a torturer?
KNOWING THAT THE PERSON BEING TORTURED MAY ACTUALLY BE COMPLETELY INNOCENT - and HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM - AND ONE STILL PERSISTS WITH THEIR 'Harsh Interrogation' - WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE Torturer?
To me - this has to be a serious sign of a mental illness - when you are willing to a) Torture innocent people without giving them an opportunity to prove their guilt/innocence
b) Continue torturing them - knowing that they will say anything to stop from being tortured - even give meaningless garbage as information.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Senator Lindsey Graham - Batting for the torture team
I watched with disgust the proceedings of the House SubCommittee
where Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina), shamelessly defended the torturers.
Here are a couple of points he made:
1) He kept referring - with a smirk on his face - to countries that routinely torture prisoners. He kept asking whether any prisoner of war being interrogated anywhere - was done so under the appropriate laws.
His point being that because they do it - it should be ok for us to do it.
Well Senator - firstly - just because others do it - does not make it ok for us to do it. Secondly, several innocent people - who had nothing to do with the war on terror - got tortured along with the captured terrorists. Of the 800 plus prisoners who went through Guantanamo's hell holes, only 10 were actually charged with anything. How many were just people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - but got tortured ANYWAY - under Bush's 'harsh interrogation' policies?
If Senator Graham doesn't understand that others doing something deplorable is not a justification for our doing it - then I fear for South Carolina's future.
2) He kept insisting that the CIA and FBI officials who carried out the torture orders (from Director Robert Mukasey) were all good men serving their country. He kept repeating the question - 'Are they unethical?', 'Are they criminals?'
The simple answer is 'Yes!' They are criminals because they broke the law of the land. Just because the President approved the breaking of the law does not make it any less of a crime.
They are unethical because even conceiving of torture of anyone - even a hardened criminal - makes us inhuman. It does not make us any safer (as every study has shown time after time). And even if it does - does the end justify the means?
Not only are those people unethical - it would be hard for anyone to conceive of them as being American - for they share none of America's cherished values.
So - to answer the Senator's reiterated question - are those torturers unethical - did they do something illegal?
Yes and Yes!
And it is a shame that people such as Senator Graham - who have the power to bring about change can do nothing better than protect these law breakers!
where Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina), shamelessly defended the torturers.
Here are a couple of points he made:
1) He kept referring - with a smirk on his face - to countries that routinely torture prisoners. He kept asking whether any prisoner of war being interrogated anywhere - was done so under the appropriate laws.
His point being that because they do it - it should be ok for us to do it.
Well Senator - firstly - just because others do it - does not make it ok for us to do it. Secondly, several innocent people - who had nothing to do with the war on terror - got tortured along with the captured terrorists. Of the 800 plus prisoners who went through Guantanamo's hell holes, only 10 were actually charged with anything. How many were just people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - but got tortured ANYWAY - under Bush's 'harsh interrogation' policies?
If Senator Graham doesn't understand that others doing something deplorable is not a justification for our doing it - then I fear for South Carolina's future.
2) He kept insisting that the CIA and FBI officials who carried out the torture orders (from Director Robert Mukasey) were all good men serving their country. He kept repeating the question - 'Are they unethical?', 'Are they criminals?'
The simple answer is 'Yes!' They are criminals because they broke the law of the land. Just because the President approved the breaking of the law does not make it any less of a crime.
They are unethical because even conceiving of torture of anyone - even a hardened criminal - makes us inhuman. It does not make us any safer (as every study has shown time after time). And even if it does - does the end justify the means?
Not only are those people unethical - it would be hard for anyone to conceive of them as being American - for they share none of America's cherished values.
So - to answer the Senator's reiterated question - are those torturers unethical - did they do something illegal?
Yes and Yes!
And it is a shame that people such as Senator Graham - who have the power to bring about change can do nothing better than protect these law breakers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)