From an editorial by Frank Rich in the Times
Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war.
...
That sums up the editorial, but the very bland summation, if it is correct, should have America outraged.
Torture confessions are highly unreliable because the tortured person confabulates to end the pain. They are the weakest form of testimony one could imagine. For very obvious reasons, torture confessions cannot be used in a court of law.
So why would the evidence one wished to build a case for WAR from require a lesser standard than what could be used in a court of law? It's WAR. Maybe just maybe the pro-torture lobby can construct a hypothetical (e.g. Jack Bauer interrogating bin Laden) that might induce the otherwise rational public to break their resolve on an issue as fundamental as a torture free America so that a handful of marines could swoop down on a terrorist cell. (I'm not conceeding that this scenario should break the rational public; I'm just entertaining a hypothetical.) But when the country is being asked to commit blood and treasure to go to WAR, to put 200K boots on the ground in another country, then the evidence ought to be beyond reproach.
Shame on Bush. Shame on Cheney.
1 comment:
For a long time I had mixed feelings about going after the past admin because I could not come up with a reason in which they approached torture in bad faith. Not that it meant what they were doing was right, but motive matters. For another example, I don't like spying, but I only think Bush should be in cuffs if he deliberately pursued it to spy on internal, personal enemies.
However, this theory of backfilling an Iraq-9/11 comparison story is gaining momentum and should be investigated.
Post a Comment