I find it ironic that the people who claim to be for a strong military and have friends and family in the armed forces tend to be the ones who are most in favor of the use of torture to get information from terrorists and other state enemies. Here's why it seems so strange to me:
It is a no-brainer that torturing a member of any group will make everyone who is a part of that group very, very angry. (Which is why the US executed Japanese individuals who water-boarded American troops during World War II.) When that group includes people who happen to plan out the mass murder of innocent people, you can be sure that they will retaliate in only the most bloody way possible. They will either target our troops (because they are so conveniently located in such proximate locations as Iraq and Afghanistan), or they will attack an American target, thus forcing us to deal with the situation by putting our troops on the ground in situations that are potentially life-threatening.
It is also a no-brainer that torturing members of terrorist groups will encourage those groups to torture - in retaliation - American soldiers captured in the line of duty.
Those of us who think highly of our troops for putting their lives on the line to protect American lives should return the favor, in whatever small way we can. If our soldiers can intentionally put themselves in harm's way for the sake of our safety, can we not accept the very small amount of risk involved in NOT torturing captured terrorists, as a gesture that would lessen the risk of their being killed or tortured, and that would show our troops that we are doing everything we can to keep them from having to make the very sacrifice that they are so willing to make for us?
Those who insist that we must have torture available as an option seem singularly unaware of how cowardly a position that is, for I am sure that if they did understand they would seriously reconsider it. Torture is nothing more than an extreme form of bullying, and all bullys are, at heart, cowards. It is a cowardly mind that would want to use such heinous techniques to stave off an attack when other, less harsh interrogation tactics are available. And it is someone with a cowardly mind who would speak out of both sides of his mouth, saying on one side that he loves and supports our troops, but out of the other defending a practice that puts those same troops in harm's way for a little bit of a "safe" feeling - and not just a little bit of satisfaction in really giving it to those who hurt us.
This is why the new administration's decision to ban "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not only the most pragmatic decision, but it is also the most ethical, honorable, and moral decision, as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment