Hopfully, the last word on torture

The recent release of the OPR report over the torture memos and accompanying commentary, the debate over the underwear bomber and completely bogus criticism from the right that Obama is putting America at risk because he’s killing too many terrorists (the very bizarro world assertion for which the letters ‘WTF?!’ were designed) has reopened the debate over torture.  I have to admit I think the whole thing is really disheartening.  I mean, the fact that we even have to debate weather it’s ok to drown, electrocute or beat prisoners (or massacre civilians) absolutely leaves me stupefied.  And let’s face it, the discussion has now fully become absorbed in the culture wars and so short of  torturing conducting an enhanced interrogation in front of a live audience where people can see the brutality of it you just aren’t going to change opinions.  So, I’ve just kind of resolved that discussing this issue is a waste of time.

But…before I consign this issue to the dustbin on TwS history, allow me to provide you with this link I picked up in the comments section of the Tom Ricks blog.

At What Cost Intelligence?  A Case Study of the Consequences of Ethical (and Unethical) Leadership‘ by Major Douglas Pryer is an examination of events at several locations in Iraq in 2003 and what made some of them adopt the practice of torture and prisoner abuse and what made others refrain from it.

I really recommend you read the whole thing.  There’s some really engaging writing here and while the unprofessionalism and just plain stupidity of some soldiers (officers -senior officers- and enlisted) will get you frustrated you’ll also find some of the most inspiring arguments for why we shouldn’t debase ourselves by resorting to inhumane tactics and betraying our core principles.

Allow me to quote, at length, from Maj. Nathan Hoepner, the S3 from the 501 MI Battalion in response to an assertion that, detainees needed to be ‘broken’ and that the ‘gloves needed to come off’.

As for ‘the gloves need to come off…we need to take a deep breath and remember who we are…Those gloves are…based on clearly established standards of international law to which we are signatories and in part the originators…something we cannot just put aside when we find it inconvenient…We have taken casualties in every war we have ever fought–that is part of the very nature of war. We also inflict casualties, generally many more than we take. That in no way justifies letting go of our standards. We have NEVER considered our enemies justified in doing such things to us. Casualties are part of war–if you cannot take casualties then you cannot engage in war. Period. BOTTOM LINE: We are American soldiers, heirs of a long tradition of staying on the high ground. We need to stay there.

It’s when I read things like that by one of our officers that I’m really proud to be an American soldier.

Advertisements

5 responses to “Hopfully, the last word on torture

  1. I’m surprised that you quoted “DrudgeRetort” regarding too many terrorists being killed. DR tends to comment vs actually quoting the source. No where was Marc Theissen complaining that too many terrorists were being killed. He stated the result of killing vs capturing was less intelligence gleaned. Because of Gitmo, Obama is less reluctant to capture enemy combatants….and understandably so. But it’s far from a complaint on Theissen’s part.

  2. You seem to forget that we no longer “torture”, as you put it, prisoners. That ceased under the Bush administration in 2008
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/terrorism.usa

  3. The Drudge article links to a Foreign Policy article authored by Theissen where he makes the case that:

    “Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them.”

    First, I don’t believe this is a simple either/or proposition and Theissen is being disingenuous if he’s implying (as he seems to be) that if we didn’t kill these guys we could have just slapped the cuffs on them. So, he asks:

    “…why not try to capture and interrogate its senior leaders alive instead of killing them? ”

    Of course he has no idea if we did try to capture them. He just makes the assumption since it fits his preconceived notion.

    Perhaps we read Theissen’s critique differently but I see quite clearly as a hypocritical political attack. If a republican was in office, there’s no way we’d see this same, bizarre line of argument.

    Finally, yes, we may no longer torture and that’s a good thing. My frustration is that there are still quite a few people who a) are upset about that and b) are arguing for its reinstatement as legal and legitimate.

  4. Haven’t read the full Pryer paper yet (sun is shining and best I do some work outdoors before I get in trouble) but I think, from a personal POV, that the quote from Nathan Hoepner says it all…

  5. Pingback: The plot thickens « The World According to Me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s