9 Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture
by Dennis Prager
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:
1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times mo ...
( Back to Article )
Join the Discussion
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
Posted by: Matt
Comment: #1
Mon May 11, 2009 1:31 AM
Re: Rob. Prager asked you a simple question in #1. If you hate torture so much, why did you oppose our efforts to put a stop to it in Saddam's Iraq? The rest of your prattle I will simply ignore. It's a bunch of incoherent blathering that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the topic at hand.
|
Posted by: gary
Comment: #2
Mon May 4, 2009 4:27 AM
THANKS DENNIS.
|
Posted by: Rob
Comment: #3
Mon May 4, 2009 6:54 PM
1. Your first question presupposes that opposition to torture implies opposition to the removal of Hussein from power; this presumption is flawed on its face. The severity of one crime does not in any case absolve another.
2. No, all forms of painful pressure are not equally objectionable andin some cases compulsion is mandated by circumstance, for example a resisting prisoner may be forced to comply with the lawful orders of his captor and this would likely not be torture; any pain inflicted likely being incidental to the application of lawful sanctions. Yet even in that case there are bounds. Any painful treatment beyond that necessary to enforce compliance with a lawful sanction could be considered tortuous. If a prisoner is not resisting, yet is beaten by his guards, those guards have committed both a criminal assault and a tort. I didn't draw the line, we all did; see US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340.
3. Yes. It is always wrong and it also is a crime. If you ever personally find yourself in this situation you better be damned sure you document everything so that you may prove the necessity of your actions before a jury of your peers.
4. I am unsure how you think lawyers may be prosecuted here for giving advice, but if they tendered unethical opinions or in bad faith they could possibly be disbarred. Any prosecutions for conspiracy will likely be directed towards those in actual authority rather than towards lawyers they relied upon to paint their misdeeds with the color of law.
5. I am once again doubtful of your presumptions. If we are to live in a free society then we all must face there are going to be dangers. We should neither live in fear nor in an environment of state secrecy but instead be brave and resolute in pursuit of justice. In your given example it is not the release of classified reports which is the problem. Criminal acts perpetrated under the color of law are the problem. I am my brothers keeper, as are we all so yes we share a moral responsibility and that implies sensitivity to the presentation of these reports you mention, it would be a damned shame to see a repeat of the Abu Graib fiasco, better by far were these to be handled with some decorum, preferably in court. In that context I believe the prosecution of any offenders would mitigate your concern to some extent.
6. The intelligence community subscribes to the same legal code as the rest of us and must exercise their mandate within that framework. If any are currently "paralyzed by fear" it is probably they should seek gainful employment elsewhere.
6 . Certainly if they directly authorized or approved of specific crimes then they should be prosecuted, but I doubt that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- 
- 
- 
