You mean torture and murder are BAD things?
It seems to me that some people are upset by the possibility that American prestige might be harmed by torture and murder.
But that can't actually be, since such a condition would suggest that people think torture and murder are either irrelevant, or ought to increase American prestige. After all, defending the world from the effects of our own doing is such a thankless job.
What it comes down to is that the torture advocates can't find a reasonable argument to support their position. While some would simply say that they do not support rulling it completely out as a method of interrogation, that's a weak answer. Expert witnesses before a Congressional committee
could not establish a pretext under which torture would be useful. Of course, those were
mostly critics; the supporters of torture policy—namely those in the Bush administration—generally don't seem to want to even try.
I think there are some people here who need, for the greater safety of the world, to take a brief hiatus from Sciforums in order to write their torture theses and send them to misguided American officials, such as Gen. David Petraeus, and let him know how grossly incorrect he is:
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone 'talk;' however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.
We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also human beings ....
(
Petraeus)
One of the problems with having lofty principles, such as those the United States traditionally espouses, is that from time to time, you actually have to live up to them. If we choose to dispense with the myth of noble America and celebrate our tyranny, then let us do so honestly and publicly. In the meantime, as long as we continue to teach our children such noble myths, we should expect that some Americans will occasionally fall for the ruse. Frankly, I
like the myth. Seemed to me, when I learned it, pretty cool. I keep hoping that we'll make good on it, but more and more it seems we're verging toward the confession that it was pure bullshit all along.
• • •
One other note, and perhaps
James R might be able to help me out on this one. I'm curious how many complaints people make about pictures of American atrocities compared to those by, say, Iran.
For instance, I haven't heard a
peep about
off-topic digressions including images of Iranian offenses.
So I'm just curious, as a
general question, what did I miss?
____________________
Notes:
Petraeus, Gen. David. Memorandum. May 10, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/petraeus_values_051007.pdf
See Also:
"Putting a Myth to Rest: Ticking Time Bomb/One Hour". Sciforums.com. May 12, 2008. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80910
