Backing the baby up on torture

We've already gotten some letters from some very disgruntled readers re: Quentin Hardy's profile of Boalt professor and torture advocate John Yoo.

Okay, I didn't really mean to be that to be quite such a low blow -- and you all tell me if I'm way off base. But much as I'm perplexed by the fundamental argument that a little torture is the price everyone else pays for our freedom, I think the article does raise some really fascinating questions. I can't help but acknowledge that own lefty feelings about, say, gun control (namely that the term "right to bear arms" was born before automatic weapons were a twinkle in anyone's eye and is completely inappropriate in today's context) are not in principle so different from Yoo's -- that the Geneva Conventions were not written with an enemy like al-Qaeda in mind. And it would be pretty dense of me to not see that parallel.

And I also sit back and wonder about comparisons with Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the argument being that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved from a land war by forcing a quick end to the war in the Pacific. In effect that's Yoo's argument, that torture of a few will save more lives in the end. According to the article, Yoo believes that "violent interrogation...is far less violent than the killing of as many as 50,000 innocents in Iraq." (Is that a tip of the hat to political correctness? That he says innocents in Iraq?)

But when I get going thinking about torture, here's where my naive little brain gets stuck: How can one person deliberately cause pain -- extreme pain -- to another, no matter what the circumstances? And what sort of person does that? I find myself posing the question: If I had the choice between killing someone quickly and torturing them, which would I find easier to do? Killing quickly. Not that this is something I stay awake dreaming about, but all other things being equal (!), the idea of inflicting immense physical pain over on someone over the course of hours/days/weeks/years somehow bothers me more than the idea of killing them in five seconds. And that fundamental issue -- what in us, or in some people, is able to torture -- seems to me to be lost in the debate.

I found myself wondering the other night (with the utmost respect, really, I don't mean to pick on John Yoo): Would Yoo recant his beliefs if he were tortured? Could he himself inflict torture just because he believes it's an appropriate policy? Can only certain people be the bad guys, or can anyone in the right circumstances?

On that note, I leave you.

Fire away.

--Meghan aka "Pollyanna"

Comments

[Anthony St. John]

hedera, the fact is that the 16 to 25 year old Generation Next is already at grave risk for far too many reasons.

Generation Next must be skeptical of and question everything older generations tell them more than ever before because our education system has failed to educate enough of them properly, our government has failed to protect their future, science and religion have failed to protect humanity, older generations have consumed everything in sight leaving a legacy of lost opportunities and wasted resources that can never be replaced, and pollution of earth as documented in the Sep/Oct 2006 CALIFORNIA will give them an outrageously unacceptable quality of life.

If Generation Next doesn’t fight back aggressively today to take control of their own future, then their future is in grave jeopardy.

[hedera]

I learned an interesting thing about President Bush over the weekend. He was a star in one thing while he was at Yale: he was the strongest, most competitive player of Risk on the campus. Think about the game of Risk. Now think about the people running this country - the neoconservatives of the Project for a New American Century. These people are trying to play Risk with our lives.

There are two things wrong with the neocon point of view. One is that they believe hard power is all-important (Goekhan is right about that), and that America has more hard power than anybody and therefore SHOULD rule the world. They believe America SHOULD be "the world's policeman." The other is that they never admit they're wrong, and they never listen to anyone who disagrees with them, so they never have to confront conflicting evidence. If this sounds like some kind of mental disorder to you, you're right.

In 1650, Oliver Cromwell wrote to the synod of the Church of Scotland, saying, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider it possible that you are mistaken." The Scottish Church declined, and so, unfortunately, do the neocons.

[Goekhan]

What amazes me most is the fact that a very important diplomacy tool is extremely overlooked by the Warmongers in Washinton. That is the undeniable and irresistable American softpower, which arguably enabled us to win the cold war against Warsaw Pact. A better employment of public affairs measures would have been much more instrumental than this ongoing chauvinistic display of manhood, that we have been taught to call Global War on Terrorism. US should have come up with wiser policies regarding the islamic world and should have paid more attention to the real needs of those peoples.
I am afraid Bush and his Co. created an athmosphere of hatred, which will continue to cause American lives.
Prof. Yoo is only an eloquent justifier of these low policies in my opinion. That he attributes some successes in combatting terrorism to torture and other harsh techniques is just funny, because we all sure know this level of success could have been reached without torturing many individuals, most of whom turned out to be innocent at the end and were released form Guantanamo silently.
Everybody needs a soulsearching regarding this topic. Try please to visualize that it is you sitting in a cell, tortured at will and worstly without even the smallest piece of information, why you are being kept in there.

[Anthony St. John '63]

Well stated posts hedera. Actually, the Bush administration is full of people who range from feckless and naïve (Bush obviously started out this way) to deranged (Cheney is obviously the Ventriloquist-in-Chief).

The saddest fact is that the root cause of America’s problems today is that far too many of our political, economic, social and education leaders are no longer willing to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” as our founding fathers did.

American “leaders” from Washington to Berkeley have been recreating the same conditions that produced the Declaration of Independence: “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury” even though “We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”

This explains the culture of the Powers That Be (PTB) in Washington and Berkeley that enable the likes of Yoo. They choose to ignore lessons learned from immigrants who came to America in the first place to get away from the PTBs in Europe who now appear to be role modes for Washington and Berkeley PTBs today.

[hedera]

I don't agree that the president has mental health problems; I think he's just stupid, and stubborn.

The issue with torture is its effect on the torturers. If we use the enemy's tools, we become the enemy.

The power junkies behind the Project for a New American Century believe that America should run the world; should establish an empire (which they, of course, are best suited to run). And you can't do that in a democracy; democracy is messy and inefficient. That's why they're trying to eliminate it. They can't have read any history: anyone with the smallest knowledge of the history of Rome knows this course is self-defeating.

It's perfectly true that there is a (growing) group of Islamic jihadists who hate us and all we stand for. The torture, and all the infringements of civil liberties, are supposed to help make us "safe" from these people. This is a complete delusion: there is no defense against a man who is willing to die in order to kill you. Furthermore, we're all going to die eventually: the probability of death is one. Is it worth betraying the principles that make this country different from the empires, from the dictatorships, to escape a fate that we will all meet eventually anyway? I'll end here with Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

[cw]

What do government officials who are responsible for checks and balances do when their president is dysfunctional, has a mental health issue, clouding his ability to represent ALL citizens, the Constitution which he swore to protect and uphold; a leader who is a habitual pathological liar; a leader who goes against advice from professional military leaders on the ground who tell him his Vietnam strategy will not work; a leader who replaces all who disagree with him, military leaders who should know the path president chooses is illogical and US military is broken down and must be, should be pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

If WE are still delusional about what the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq want, trust this: they do not like US business privatization its not their way; they do not want US military bases, Starbucks, BurgerKings, Hertz and so on, on their soil; they will fight until the last child, woman, grandmother/father, man are dead, they are the indigenous people of their lands, their resources belong to ALL their people not private American, United Kingdom, German, or Japanese industries.

The real problem with Dr. Yoo theory is his belief power belongs to a single person, in this case an executive who may not be mentally capable of making a rational decision; a man who can not sit down to discuss issues. If you have not figured it out by now, Your leader has mental health problems, should not be in the office of the Presidency. Just an opinion from a citizen in a democratic free society if it still exist here in the United States.

[Richard Steinhardt]

Much of this misses the real legal issue with Yoo.
His radical doctrine has two prongs.

1. The President can unilaterally declare any situation a "War".

2. The President can then suspend the protections of the Consitution for American citizens.

If accepted this doctrine ends our system of government and the legal protections the founding fathers put in place for very good reasons.

I don't find Yoo's thinking scholarly or profound. It is not treason to suggest a simple legal route exists for an American President to become a dictator, but it is wrong to a degree that suggests Yoo has profoundly misunderstood our history and values.

[cw]

There is no justification for torture. Great logic, new type of terrorists.

Prehaps Dr Yoo should study US history in regards to the treatment of Native Americans, Africans and Mexicans Americans in this country who have been terrorized throughout American history; read Howard Zinn People History of United States. Perhaps Dr. Yoo should study the new US slavery system of torture, prisons.

I grew up in the forties Alabama I know who the terrorists truly are, then and today, they wear uniforms.

I am not threatened by Afghans or Iraqi people they have not harmed me nor has it been proven they have harmed US citizens.

Does Dr. Yoo think US CIA covert operations around the world since WWII or Truman's establishment of their organization are interviewing their targeted citizens.

WE do not know what happened 911 so please do not think all US citizens are soooo dumb believing in the 911 Commission Report. There was never an investigation of 911, read David Ray Griffin research. There has been a grand scale crime covered up by US government, military and those supporting Empire.

Is Dr. Yoo saying because indigenous citizens around the world are raising up to fight for their land, resources against US and UK aggressions, which is nothing more than same ole, same old imperialism formerly colonialism, terrorists or those who fight are different? No, they are the same people, indigenous people fighting to keep their land, resources.

Should indigenous people purchase uniforms to fight to keep their land? It would be nice so US military or those doing the slaughtering of indeginous people can be looked upon as a military unit rather than what they are civilians fighting to keep their land.

No justification for the Project for a New American Century action plan against humanity. Dr. Yoo has fully support this PNAC doctrine by his action.

He support the theories taught at the School of the Americas (now renamed) who use torture and murder against citizens, families, and the educated, indigenous populations.

[james marvel]

Torture in any form is immoral. John Yoo will pay for his sinful teaching in the afterlife.

[Gloria Law]

It's interesting to me that Prof. Yoo's face and arguments continue to turn up. Is the maligned struggling to convince others or just himself?

To use legal arguments and academic rhetoric just masks the simple truth.

No matter who the enemy is, if you succumb to atrocities you are no better than those you fight.

I recommend to you the story of the two pilots who chose to rescue Vietnamese women, childen and elderly during the My Lai massacre. War is a horrible thing and it is still possible to hold on to some semblance of humanity and morality.