As Andrew Sullivan points out, to the The New York Times, torture is torture, that is, those "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "harsh interrogations" being labeled "torture," when another country does it. The hypocrisy in this whole torture debate is disgusting: It's torture when "they" do it, but it's not torture when "we" do it.
The torture debate has now moved to finger-pointing about who knew what and when. Was Nancy Pelosi briefed on how interrogation techniques were being used? She seems to have been present for one briefing in September 2002. Pelosi says that she was not told that waterboarding was being used, and, anyway, there wasn't anything she could do. However, Zachary Roth, on Talking Points Memo, points out that "Jane Harman, who succeeded Pelosi as the ranking Democrat on the intel committee," sent an official letter of protest (classified) to the CIA in 2003.
I'm with Roth on this: the argument over who knew what and when, the partisan finger-pointing, is a dead-ender. An investigation into our government's using torture to interrogate prisoners should be authorized and commenced, with no regard to party involvement:
Here's the larger point: Whatever we end up finding out about the specifics of what was and wasn't said in that briefing, it already seems clear that Pelosi didn't do all that she could have. Of course, that's not an argument -- as some Republican torture supporters seem to think -- against a full investigation into how these techniques were developed and approved. In fact, it's yet another good reason why such a probe is exactly what we need.(Zachary Roth, "Record Suggests Pelosi Did Little In Response To Torture Briefing," TPM Muckraker, posted May 8, 2009)
So often our political leaders in Congress remind me of children. This particular finger-pointing is reminiscent of the Alpha kid who is caught beating up a little kid and is threatened with punishment. The bully kid then whines, "There were witnesses. In fact, Beta-kid was watching and did nothing to stop me." Beta-kid then says, "Hey, I didn't see the actual kick to the face and kidney."
Is there no adult in this country who can get these children to take responsibility for their actions?
3 comments:
I'm with you on the disgusting hypocrisy of the torture debate...and the feeling in this country that when we do it it's for the good of all...when they do it they are bad guys terrorizing the world. The finger pointing is childish and dangerous...but what bothers me the most is how quiet the American public is on the topic..It's clear that we torture..rather it's on US soil or somewhere else, America now has a policy on torture...where is the uproar?
Yes, I've been bothered by that, as well. I would like to think that people are at least quietly busy writing, calling, and e-mailing their senators, representatives, and the president, but I suspect that's not the case. Many are, I'm sure, but not enough.
What has particularly bothered me is the silence from Christian Evangelicals. Although I left the Southern Baptist Church, I still hold on to what I see as truths I was taught in that church, those universal truths of loving one's neighbor, doing good to those who would "despitefully use you," helping the stranger in need--even the stranger one's culture considers "pagan" or "outcast" (the story of the Good Samaritan). And I was always proud that the founders of the Baptist church in America were for religious toleration, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with Native Americans.
But, as far as I can tell, the Southern Baptist Church has not made any public statement expressing outrage over the government's use of torture.
Added note: Of course, I admit that my expectations may be too high for the Southern Baptist Convention. Southern Baptists did split with northern Baptists over slavery. Over 100 years since the Civil War, the Southern Baptist Convention has only just recently (1995) apologized for that evil choice.
Post a Comment