Thomas Scott (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} thomascott) wrote,@ 2008-12-18 22:10:00 |
|
The torture doctrine.
The U.S. self-appointed role as a world policeman was always given a degree of public relations saleability by it's particular condemnation of torture.
If you must wage wars of interventionism, then stating an opposition to torture grants a moral supremacy, a legitimacy of purpose.
Whatever shred of legitimacy, this stated opposition to torture, granted the U.S. in other conflicts - the swift, sanitised Gulf War comes to mind - the decision to permit the use of torture in the War On Terror has caused irrevocable damage to public perception of the U.S. amongst the international community.
For a time the Bush administration seemed almost proud of it's advocacy of torture.
The presentation of the idea, that slow-drowning a human being or keeping them awake for days
is not quite torture is an abomination and an insult to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence.
Deprive someone of sleep and they will confess to anything, you don't need thumb-screws or red-hot pincers to torture someone...
Additionally the obvious inference is that information obtained by these techniques is completely unreliable and any case brought about by these means, including that of Sheikh Muhammed, should be immediately dismissed.
This article -http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opin
in today's New York Times, does give one the sense that U.S. democracy may at last be beginning to correct itself, to find equilibrium after what has been the most venal presidency within living memory.
I personally think it unlikely that Rumsfield could ever be indicted on any of the inferred charges.
More important is the necessity that Obama should follow those election promises to review the executive orders implemented by President Bush and to immediately re-commit the U.S. fully to the ordinances of the Geneva Convention.
The U.S. self-appointed role as a world policeman was always given a degree of public relations saleability by it's particular condemnation of torture.
If you must wage wars of interventionism, then stating an opposition to torture grants a moral supremacy, a legitimacy of purpose.
Whatever shred of legitimacy, this stated opposition to torture, granted the U.S. in other conflicts - the swift, sanitised Gulf War comes to mind - the decision to permit the use of torture in the War On Terror has caused irrevocable damage to public perception of the U.S. amongst the international community.
For a time the Bush administration seemed almost proud of it's advocacy of torture.
The presentation of the idea, that slow-drowning a human being or keeping them awake for days
is not quite torture is an abomination and an insult to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence.
Deprive someone of sleep and they will confess to anything, you don't need thumb-screws or red-hot pincers to torture someone...
Additionally the obvious inference is that information obtained by these techniques is completely unreliable and any case brought about by these means, including that of Sheikh Muhammed, should be immediately dismissed.
This article -http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opin
in today's New York Times, does give one the sense that U.S. democracy may at last be beginning to correct itself, to find equilibrium after what has been the most venal presidency within living memory.
I personally think it unlikely that Rumsfield could ever be indicted on any of the inferred charges.
More important is the necessity that Obama should follow those election promises to review the executive orders implemented by President Bush and to immediately re-commit the U.S. fully to the ordinances of the Geneva Convention.
