Fighting terror with terror is bad policy (duh)
(posted by Paige)
In his op-ed column for the New York Times today, Nicholas D. Kristof gives his take on the torture debate. What seems like common sense is lost on the Bush administration, and, sadly, we will be dealing with the consequences of its errors for a long time to come, particularly in terms of foreign relations. The fact is, our government holds prisoners in secretive conditions, without legal recourse, and uses torture to extract desperate admissions which can then be used against them. And all this at the same time as condemning other countries for their human rights abuses and holding up our own political system up as the model that other countries should mimic. How we reconcile the disparities between our values and our practices is not a private process. In fact, it’s embarrassingly public, and does not go unnoticed by the rest of the world. Kristof gives as an example Al Jazeera cameraman, Sami al-Hajj, who has gone on hunger strike after being subjected to six years of inhumane treatment in Guantanamo, despite admissions from military officials that he is not considered a real threat to the our national security. Here’s some of what Kristof has to say on the matter:
If the Bush administration appointed an Under Secretary of State for Antagonizing the Islamic World, with advice from a Blue Ribbon Commission for Sullying America’s Image, it couldn’t have done a more systematic job of discrediting our reputation around the globe. Instead of using American political capital to push for peace in the Middle East or Darfur, it is using it to force-feed Mr. Hajj.
Hopefully, our next president will care a bit more about human rights abuses at home and about strengthening our relationships with other countries rather than shirking diplomacy, cooperation, and accountability. It could happen.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Great post, and I agree, except for the bolded part. To my knowledge no victim of U.S. torture has had evidence extracted thereby used against him in a criminal or military trial.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I came across an article on the six detainees in this week’s Economist and I think it sums things up well.
Here’s a passage: “Beginning in 2006, a ‘clean team’ worked to re-extract the relevant information, without torture. But it is rather hard to un-coerce anybody.” In addition, Congress’ Military Commissions Act “allows statements ‘in which the degree of coercion is disputed’ to be admitted in some cases.” Considering detainees will probably not be present at their own trials to testify on how much ‘coercion’ was used for any given statement, I’m thinking most admissions will be fair game.
http:www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697113
February 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Paige:
Well, yes, the MCA is an abomination. My point was only that, so far, evidence extracted by torture has not been permitted. Certainly not in criminal trials.
How military tribunals will now handle “coerced” interrogations is likely revolting, in light of the MCA. A statute which needs to be repealed, if the Democrats only had any guts.