It's Quite Simple, Really

We ought not to be torturing people. It really comes down to just that simple notion: We ought not to be torturing people.

We're a freedom-loving people, trying to convince an occupied country that they should value freedom as well. Torture is antithetical to freedom. How can we do our job in Iraq if we have concentration camps there, where torture is commonplace?

I'm hearing arguments coming out of the mouths of people in the administration and those who support them. These arguments are utter bilge and they serve to undermine the basic moral tenet here: We ought not to be torturing people.

Argument #1 - What we're doing pales in comparison to what Saddam Hussein did.

I refuse to accept this argument. It allows Saddam Hussein to set the moral standard. Should we let one of the most brutal dictators in history set that standard? I think not. There isn't some invisible line set by Hussein that we can approach but not cross. We set our own standards for what is acceptable and what is not.

Argument #2 - Where were the complaints about torture when Saddam Hussein was torturing people? Why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

Again, this puts Saddam Hussein in the ethical driver's seat. More importantly, I refuse to accept the notion that if someone fails to protest behavior in the past, they waive their right to protest such behavior in the future. Using this argument attacks the person who is protesting torture by attempting to suggest hypocrisy on the part of the protestor. It does not address the torture itself or the moral implications of torturing people. Try again.

Argument #3 - The issue is being inflated for the sake of partisan gain.

This isn't an issue of which party captures the presidency in November. It's an issue of whether our behavior is consistent with our principles. I'll say it again: We ought not to be torturing people

I don't mean to imply that supporters of the current administration are the only ones who seem to have lost focus here. I hear this coming out of liberal mouths these days: Our reputation is shattered. We've lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Our reputation, while quite important, is a secondary concern here. Our primary concern should be that people are being tortured. I'm not saying that our reputation is unimportant, but in terms of importance, it's secondary to the fact that people are suffering torture. Outlawing torture is an end in and of itself. If we stand against torture, our reputation will change accordingly. We should be doing this not solely because we're afraid of what everyone else thinks about the torture incidents. We should be doing it because people are suffering and because we ought not to be torturing people.

This is as close to black-and-white as it gets in this world of shades of grey. We must stop the torture now and make sure it never happens again because torture is wrong.

Screw Semantics. It's a Concentration Camp

xray.jpg
Prisoners at Camp X-Ray

I don't know how I missed this story. I might very well be the last blogger in the Western world to learn about this, but if what this British detainee says is true, then Americans have a moral duty to see to it that George Bush cannot continue to establish law-free zones around the world in order to torture and abuse detainees.

This Guantanamo Bay prisoner claims he was physically assaulted on a regular basis, shackled for 15 hours a day in a hunched-over position with the schackles cutting into his skin, forced to live in a wire cage with no protection from the elements, given contaminated food and water and denied access to toilet or washing facilities. According to his story, this only just scratches the surface of the abuse endured by other prisoners at Camp X-Ray.

Now that instances of torture and abuse have been, and continue to be, revealed at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it makes me wonder how we can justify this systematic lawlessness and failure to abide by our own rules. We see photographic evidence of torture and mistreatment of prisoners, confront the administration and hear back nonsense about it being appropriate for the U.S. armed forces to "set the conditions" necessary to extract information from prisoners.

The semantic game that our administration has been playing is insulting. We ask whether people are being tortured and the administration responds with, 'Well, what do you mean by torture?' This is insulting. It's time to avoid playing the semantic game and call a spade a spade.

Camp X-Ray is a concentration camp. The Abu Ghraib prison is a concentration camp. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.

Buried Again

While the papers salivate overTortureGate, we seem to be forgetting about two other important things: The Oil for Food scandal and that $700 million Bush illegally diverted from the Afghanistan effort to the Iraq effort.

I hate to be the guy who cries "conspiracy!" whenever something isn't getting the attention it deserves, but I'd like to remind everyone that we're talking about 1) The biggest financial scandal in the history of the world, and 2) A flagrantly illegal action taken by our president.

Remember what happened the last time a president illegally diverted funds to a military effort? It was called "The Iran-Contra Affair" and it dominated headlines for months. Sometimes, I wonder to myself what it's going to take for the American people to really start demanding accountability. Even the national mood on TortureGate seems to be "Big deal, Saddam did worse."

One thing that I think would help would be if the press stopped burying UNSCAM stories on page A34 and if they would point out the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of a president taking funds earmarked for one military effort and spending it on another.