Of course, the difference between 24 and reality is that Jack always has the right suspect, always knows when that suspect is holding back and is always able to quickly elicit the necessary info through torture. The reality is much different. Even is less severe instances of persuasive interrogation, such as denying the suspect bathroom access or sleep, innocent people are known to confess to crimes just to make the treatment stop. (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2005)
Of course, Bush's attempted (and probably to be successful) rejection of the Geneva Conventions is so much more frightening than the prospect of obtaining misinformation whether the suspect is guilty or innocent. And spare me your "gotta get the bad guys at any cost" doomsday exceptions to the rule: there are already concessions in place that allow torture in extreme situations such as the ones presented on 24. If a bomb is about to go off in our country and we don't know where, torture is permissible by law.
What is really at risk here is not our safety as a country but the safety of our armed forces. If we reject the Geneva convention, there is no reason for other countries to treat our captured soldiers with any sort of humanitarian concern - we will have cut off our own soldiers' rights to fair treatment.
It continues to amaze me that this administration which claims such patriotism and concern for our troops would subject them to that kind of treatment, and this in addition to ineffective kevlar and other safety equipment, the rejection of Israel's anti-RPG technology, and increasingly cut funding for post-service care.
Likewise, it disappoints me (though that's not nearly a strong enough word) that my own party would support this torture bill - people who allow evil to happen are no better than people who actually perpetrate that evil. As Cenk Uygur says:
Any Democrat who votes for this is the worst kind of coward.Read more about the word mincing that makes this bill so shameful at The New York Times and TruthDig.
No comments:
Post a Comment