President Bush is transferring 14 detainees from the secret prisons, where they were hidden and presumably tortured, to Gitmo to be tried. The form of the trials is not yet determined, since Bush's previous plans were tossed by the courts. Now he'll try to persuade Congress to pass legislation to accomplish that which the courts wouldn't let him: use evidence obtained by torture and not reveal any information to the defense because of national security. In other words, no due process. Might as well just shoot 'em now.
In his speech announcing this, Bush once again stated that we don't torture, we use "alternative interrogation techniques." If those techniques aren't torture, then why has the administration worked so hard to keep these detainees far away from any protections of law or treaty? If we're not violating Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, then why have we been so careful not to call these people prisoners of war?
There are all sorts of practical reasons to oppose torture. First is, it doesn't work. If you want a bogus confession, then torture's your instrument, but if you want actual useful information, forget it. In his speech, Bush claimed that torturing one of these detainees, Abu Zubaydah, gave us vital information: the name of Ramzi bin al Shibh. Sounds good, huh? The problem with this story is, it's a lie. We already had that name; in fact, an FBI agent testified to Congress about him before Zubaydah was captured.
The other practical reason to avoid torture is that what goes around, comes around. If another country treated one of our soldiers this way, we'd be launching air strikes. Oh, but these people are evil; of course, they think we're evil, too.
But practicalities aside, I just can't fathom how someone who claims that his Christian faith is a fundamental part of his life and drives his decisions can justify torturing another person. Is that person not also a child of God? Doesn't the sanctity of human life matter here, too?
There's only one thing that drives this administration, and it's not faith in God, conservative principles, or freedom and democracy; it's lust for power.
In his speech announcing this, Bush once again stated that we don't torture, we use "alternative interrogation techniques." If those techniques aren't torture, then why has the administration worked so hard to keep these detainees far away from any protections of law or treaty? If we're not violating Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, then why have we been so careful not to call these people prisoners of war?
There are all sorts of practical reasons to oppose torture. First is, it doesn't work. If you want a bogus confession, then torture's your instrument, but if you want actual useful information, forget it. In his speech, Bush claimed that torturing one of these detainees, Abu Zubaydah, gave us vital information: the name of Ramzi bin al Shibh. Sounds good, huh? The problem with this story is, it's a lie. We already had that name; in fact, an FBI agent testified to Congress about him before Zubaydah was captured.
The other practical reason to avoid torture is that what goes around, comes around. If another country treated one of our soldiers this way, we'd be launching air strikes. Oh, but these people are evil; of course, they think we're evil, too.
But practicalities aside, I just can't fathom how someone who claims that his Christian faith is a fundamental part of his life and drives his decisions can justify torturing another person. Is that person not also a child of God? Doesn't the sanctity of human life matter here, too?
There's only one thing that drives this administration, and it's not faith in God, conservative principles, or freedom and democracy; it's lust for power.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home