Torture is never OK

I’m not surprised to read a letter to the editor advocating crimes against humanity (11/21, “Limited use of torture”), given the tortured parsing of the present U.S. attorney general at his confirmation hearing. I shouldn’t be surprised since it’s apparent that, as a nation, we appear to base our morality, ethics and legal knowledge on the superficial content of television melodramas.

The prohibition of torture is a non-derogable human right — an absolute under federal law, international treaty obligations and the peremptory norms of international law. That is, no executive order, no law and no treaty (even if “the life of the nation is threatened”) can remove that prohibition under any circumstances. To do so is a crime against humanity.

There are several other non-derogable human rights. The analogy of police deadly force presented by the letter writer is a false one. If he wanted to provide a proper analogy in his justification of torture, he should have written about “limited use of murder (extra judicial death)” or “limited use of slavery.” Now, that would convince everyone that it’s all OK, don’t you think?

Michael Bersin
Warrensburg, Mo.

Comments

[Old Drum]

I thought our country was supposed to be the "bright shining city on the hill." I thought we were better than our enemies.

As a consequence, it is appalling to read a defense of waterboarding and that major candidates for President don't know whether it is torture. It is important to remember that waterboarding is a method of torture that goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.

Finally, it is amazing to read a defense of torture based on a television show.

9/11 clearly has changed our country: it has made some of us stupid.

[solomon]

BuddyT,
You are preaching to the chior,

I went out of my way not to accuse our guys of being any worse or better than anybody else. And we are much better than many. My point is, and I think you agree, that a child that grew up tearing the wings off of a butterfly and child who grew up just enjoynig it , excited and happy when one flew through his back yard, are going to be totally different in a conflict with death and mayhem all around. I know what you mean about the 10%. But the ones I'm talking about are the ones that aren't in a classification. Whether drafted like in our days or the one volunteering now, there is no true test to see if someone is a sick and twisted SOB. They are in all wars on both sides. Always have been and always will. As I said earlier, end all wars and you'll end all torture in war. In other words, it exists and will continue to exist.

[BuddyT]

You paint with to broad a brush Solly when you say Armys do or don't know something. When it comes to bad acts, at least in our Army, it usually boils down to that infamous 10% we always talked about. You know the 10% that never gets the word. I served with all kinds of soldiers from the great to the godawful.......and the godawful ones were the ones who could get you killed, nine times out ten committed the bad acts.

[solomon]

I don't think we should excuse any crime against another individual. My comments go to the point that every army commits the acts and to say one army is superior to another because they have "moral standards" is not the reality.

[eukaryote]

So, I guess my question is should we excuse those guilty of torture because torture will always exist? How is torture different from other crimes that we will be unable to eliminate because of human nature? We can't eliminate murder either, but doesn't it make a difference that we have laws against it, and that we punish those found guilty of it?

[solomon]

HC Brando,
I never said torture was ok and we just need to look away. I said other than paying lip service you, me, the government, the world court, geneva convention and whoever else you want to include will never eliminate it as it is human nature in some individuals in times of war. End all wars and you'll stop torture in times of war.

[solomon]

One last thing Engineer,
Rulers like Ibn Saud have been a staple of our Western history, a leader carving out a kingdom. Usually we don't put them in a bad light, from Caeser to William the Conqueror to Napoleon to our own leades and our manifest destiny. You say the government in Iran is in no way a product of our policies in the region, but the Shahs secret police who our CIA backed and helped develop murdered 10s of thousand of Iranians while we toasted him as our greatest ally in the east. Iran, whose Shah was put on the throne by the US gov't murdered all these people while we turned a blind eye, and we never told him to stop or exercised any control. So the young intellectuals and hard core religionist developed a hatred of America where there was no hatred before. So it would be difficult to argue that we played no role in the rise to power of the current regime after they overthrew the Shah.

[solomon]

My apologies for being off topic, just wanted to complete a discussion with the Engineer

[solomon]

Constantantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman empire was not always the capital of Rome. At some point it was a Greek town that was conquered by the Romans. Does that mean they had a right to be there forever because they claimed it. Makes every other conquest hypocritical doesn't it, considering the Roman empire was built on taking other peoples territory. Your point that Constantinople was looted and sacked by the Turks leaves out a bit event conveniently. The 4th Crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople and carried off most of the gold, artwork and other riches a couple of centuries before the Turks got there. The beautiful caste horse in front of ST Marks cathedral once sat in front of the Hippodrome.

This is what I don't get about your arguement. You seem to have no problem with the fact that Alexander the Great was a conquerer, that the Roman Empire was built on blood, the Eastern Roman Empire was expansionist and warlike, the Britsh, Spanish, French, Russian powers were all ruthless and warlike in their conquest, that the Reformation sparked centuries of religious bloodshed. that the conquest and near extermination and ruin of the cultures of the western hemisphere were built on war, forced religious conversions and slavery(well at least we got rid of slavery after 400 years)...all of these things that go on in every place on earth and you see islam as evil in comparison.

[solomon]

Engineer,
Most of Europe was under autocratic rule until the last century. Are you saying that somehow Western civilization has a right to tell others they should govern themselves? As for the Christians and Jews being second class citizens and taxed heavily, well some would say that a portion of our population here in the US are second class citizens and taxed heavily in comparison to our "ruling class".

Your belief that we need to be there to protect ourselves is a bit hard to swallow, considering we had to Arab enemies before we started to meddle in the region. That fight them there before they bring the fight to us here thing doesn't hold much credence since we went over there long before we were ever attacked.

[Engineer]

Solomon
In essence I am saying that we do not have full responsiilities for the conditions in the Mid East. You are saying that we do have some responsibility but I had the impression that you were saying that we (Western Civilization and the US) were largely responsible for conditions there. On analysis our views do not seem to be that far apart. However, in my opinion, there has never been a time since the rise of Islam that the area has not been under autocratic control. You cite Christian and Jewish enclaves living in Islamic areas, but these people were second class citizens and were being exploited and used by the rulers. They were, at least to an extent, slaves. The culmination was the Ottoman Empire, but the type of ruler rising has not changed. Until the tools of modern warefare were developed in the West, Islam remained an ever present physical threat to the West. After all, the Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was sacked, annexed and its name changed. One of the first despots to arise during the aftermath of WWI was Ibn Saud. With his heavy hand he carved out Saudi Arabia, much to the consternation of the English. Whatever he was he was not a Western creation. The current government in Iran is another example.
As to our right to be in the Mid East, to me it is the right of self protection.

[solomon]

I was afraid to fall victim to the dreaded "registration is required" page...

Once again someone (in this case you) says that for me to imply that we are in part responsible for the climate of hatred that exist there I am saying we are totally to blame. That is never what I've contended. The support of corrupt leaders by western nations and the Soviets, the conditions caused by that, the poverty level, the Nation of Israel, the attitude of the Arab people using the Palestinians as pawns, there are many contributing factors.

Let me ask you this, By what right do we, the United States, have any right to be involved right now in the Middle East? Then tell me we have no responsibilty for the political and religious climate there. You can not claim the right to involve yourself in other nations business and then absolve yourself of what troubles are there.

[solomon]

Engineer,
I start work at about 3am and stop about 10pm so I'm at this darn screen on and off all that time. This thread is like a drug.

I made the comment that Africa was not the middle east because at the time of early Christianity it was considered what it really is, Africa. It is only after the Arab conquest that it became part of that sphere of influence, and thats the period you mentioned.

You are correct that when I say we I am meaning the West. It was the backstabbing British and French who were responsible for the deception of the tribal leaders in the destabilization of the region. The people in the region had long been subjects of the Ottoman Empire and Europe had lusted after its provinces since the time of Napoleon. The Triumvirate led by Enver Pasha led Turkey into ruin, playing right into the hans of the French and English victors. Wilson did play a major role though before his stroke, and at one point it was suggested that Constantinople become a US protectorate.

As far as Islam being born in blood I have to say the Christianization of Europe and then the new world was much more bloody and savage than the conquest of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries. Western historians tell of the murderous heathens who killed in the name of Islam, but these stories are easily disputed by one simple fact. Christian and Jewish communities and religious freedom were alloed to exist throughout most of the Muslim empires over the years. (With the exceoption of Timur's short lived conquests) How can we know this is tru? Because they were there, simply put, under the first Caliphs, under the Persians, under the Ottomans, The under the Malmuts, in the Muslim regions in India etc. Throughout these Empires there were Christian and Jewish citizens and communities. When the Spanish kicked all the Jews out of Spain they were invited into the Ottoman region by the Sultan himself.

[Engineer]

Solomon
Had not read your comments on race and Islam, guess I went off to bed before I got to them. In general our thinking is not too different on those matters, or on the subject of this thread. Perhaps most of our differences are concerned with the thinking on the Mid
East. And in thinking of the Mid East I do include Egypt in that sphere hence the remark on the Coptics. When you say we have been involved in the Mid East for 90 years, I can agree only if by “we” you mean Western Civilization. The United States had very little to do with the decisions on the Mid East made after WWI. Our really active interest dates from around the time of WWII, IMO. But I can see no substantial basis for thinking that the presence of the US or any other representative of Western Civilization can be assigned the total blame for the region's intransigence. Islam was born in blood and spread by the sword. The blood was both internal and external. The internal blood, the murder of Caliphs such as Ali, left scars that persist to this day. The expansion was stopped by force and we may have returned to a time when force is once again required. Pardon me for going "off thread".

[solomon]

No it doesn't. The murder of millions of people is not just "stuff happens". It was not the first attempted extermination of a people and several have occured since. To me they all weigh the same.

Are you suggesting that what happened to the Jews is somehow more important than any of the other incidents of mass murder?

[HC Brando]

The ones who argue that "torture has existed in every war" (therefore it's okay now; we just need to look the other way) seem to be proving Mr. Bersin's point. I wonder if solomon's blase "stuff happens" attitude applies to the Holocaust as well.

[BuddyT]

I love reading the opinions of such learned individuals as Solly and the Engineer...

I would enjoy an evening with both sipping good scotch, and smoking good cigars...I would not speak, just listen..

I am not being a smart a$$ now as is my thing, I am being serious. I have the utmost respect for both of them.

My only contribution would be to bring the "real world" of kill or be killed to the conversation, and then only if asked.

The worlds of theory and fact collide most violently in war....I am not sure either whether one can survive the other...

It is not London novels, nor classics that will tell the tale of men's hearts and souls...it is far beyond that. Thank God, most will never know.

[solomon]

Your Ivanhoe was my Jack London. When I was 6 or 7 I received for Christmas a book titled"Wild Animals I have known". It was a compilation of short stories and just the thing for a kid who thought the veterinarian had the greatest job in the world.(my world)

Well we all know now what kind of person Jack London really was, and the values he had in the heroes of his writings were nothing like his own.

[solomon]

Good evening Engineer,

Hope you read the answers to your questions from me on race and Islam.

Michael saying the analogy of police using deadly force was false is the only thing in the letter i agreed with. Torture exists in all war and is conducted by all sides. It is nice that in theory man should be able to uphold some code of conduct prohibiting torture but it is an impractical theory when put to the test. There are some commanders and soldiers who'll uphold it and there are some who won't. Not all people are capable of torturing another, some are. Doesn't really matter if there is information to be gained, some people in times of war will and do torture others. Its another one of those rules of war that are selective in its application. I once took the time here to copy from an old book A record from a congressional hearing during the Phillipine conquest, right after the Spanish American War. Testimony was very descriptive on how the American soldiers brutally beating water filled natives in their bloated stomachs and even worse.(these were American soldiers testifying) It went on to quote Teddy Roosevelt congratulating Gen Leonard Wood for his massacre of 600 Moro men women and chidren. Oh what a lashing I took here that day. By reading a congressional record and quoting Teddy Roosevelt I was an America basher.

Torture and these atrocities exist in wars, no matter who the good guys or bad guys are. They are mirror images. We are just supposed to deny it.

[Engineer]

Solomon
How far do you go with Michael? Do you agree with the prohibition "even if “the life of the nation is threatened”? If Michael is indeed a Professor he may be inflicting a lifelong handicap on his students. My Dad read Ivanhoe to me when I was 5 and I am still struggling with the problems created by belief in the concepts presented in that novel.

[kcstar_is_one_sided]

The gray group, just became black and white.

[BuddyT]

The naivete of Professor Bersin knows no bounds. He concludes that wars are fought according to rules written by the Marquis of Queensberry.

Good intel often determines the course of the battle, and the war. It is best if the Prof. just continues to attempt to influence some teenagers, and stays the hell away war.

[solomon]

I agree with Michael that the police analogy fell short but the truth is that torture has existed in every war, (and many police staions) around the world by all sides. Whether by command decisions or spur of the moment decisions it has always been used, and no law, federal or universal will stop it. Just another thing the average person can voice his opinion on but have no effect on reality.