On the soapbox

This is an issue that I think I have brought up before, but since it has been in the news a lot lately I want to say more. The U.S. has a new Attorney General, Michall Mukasey, who was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole despite his dodging the question about the U.S. using torture. Several Democrats, including California Senator Dianne Feinstein, voted in his favor.

First, why did he dodge the question? Simply put, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he had answered that waterboarding was not torture, then he would likely not have been approved because he allowed torture. If he said that it was torture then he would have essentially been convicting the administration of torturing. So what did he answer? He said he did not know what waterboarding really was. Really? Really?!?!? I am a high school social studies teacher and I know what waterboarding is. He was a federal judge.

OK, so you may not really know what waterboarding is. I could explain my view of how it works, but I think this video may be better. In the video, Kaj Larsen - a former Navy Seal - agrees to go through a waterboarding demonstration. Now, this video is actually the second time this was done to him, the first time being part of his training. The video is about 10 minutes in its entirety and is sometimes split into two screens with one screen being the demo and the other interviews. Just a little warning. Its not really a pleasant thing to watch. There is nothing gory or bloody, but the people doing the demonstration are not being friendly with him.



Having seen that, here is my view on the issue of waterboarding specifically and torture in general. Waterboarding is torture. We will likely never get valuable information from torture that we could not get from other means of intelligence. We do not want the U.S. to be known worldwide as a country that tortures people.

First, I feel that the U.S. should not torture anybody for any reason. Waterboarding is, without a doubt, torture. If the video did not convince you of this, maybe this article will (check out the video as well). Daniel Levin, who at the time was acting Assistant Attorney General, volunteered to go through waterboarding to really see what it was like. His conclusion? Its torture. He said that even though he knew that no harm would come his way and that these were essentially his colleagues that he was very distressed. The result of his report? He was fired.

What could we possibly gain from using torture? At a Republican debate in May, the moderator proposed a hypothetical situation: there were several suicide attacks on U.S. cities and then some terrorists were captured off the coast of Florida who knew where further attacks would take place. He asked each candidate how aggressively they would interrogate. (In other words, would you torture?) This is the hypothetical situation that many in favor of using torture will turn to for their argument - we have to protect ourselves against terrorism at all costs. John McCain answered that hypothetical exactly as I would want a President to answer. "I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility... We could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion."

How is torture really considered an effective means of intelligence gathering? The hypothetical situation above is just that - hypothetical. It has not happened before and it will not likely happen ever. People, this is reality - not 24. The chances of that happening are probably the same as Jack Bauer jumping out of the TV to save us. If, by that point, we have not discovered the secret plans of the terrorists then we aren't going to figure it out by torturing them. In the CurrentTV video, Kaj says that, even knowing that it was a controlled situation and that he was in no danger, he would have said anything to get them to stop. I think this is what McCain was trying to say - what a torture victim says it not necessarily the truth. They are saying what you want to hear in order to get you to stop. For Christ's sake, in less than 30 seconds I can have a picture of my apartment taken from a satellite in outer space on my screen. We have that technology and we can't figure out terrorists without wiretapping our own citizens and torturing people? You've got to be kidding.

Finally, at some point we need to think about what our standing in the world is. Do we really want to be considered a country that violates human rights? I hope the answer is no. We are already hated all over the world for our policies - and rightfully so in my view. However, we could do a lot to improve that. Even facing dangers such as terrorism, we should take the moral high ground. This may take a great deal of sacrifice on our behalf, but what is ever worth getting without some sacrifice? We lost just over 2,700 on 9-11. We are approaching 4,000 dead in the war in Iraq. We are already making that sacrifice with nothing in return but the continuing death of our troops and the people of Iraq, the loss of credibility in the world, and over $400 billion of our dollars wasted at a time when they are losing value. Also consider this. Former Navy Seal instructor Malcolm Nance testified before Congress that, not only is waterboarding torture, but that if we subject our prisoners to torture we can be assured that our troops that are captured will find the same fate. Makes sense. If we say that it is OK to torture then we are saying that it is OK to torture our people as well.

I know that this is a long post and I thank you if you made it this far. If this issue bothers you as much as it bothers me then I hope you can write to your representatives (especially Feinstein) and make it clear to them that your vote depends on their decision to make human rights a priority again for the United States.