creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
22 May 2012
Rational People Fear Big Government, Not Big Business

You cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some Left-… Read More.

15 May 2012
Romney Understands America

On Saturday, Mitt Romney delivered a speech to the 6,000 Liberty College graduates. It was an important speech,… Read More.

8 May 2012
Conservatives and Gays

In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans "anti-woman" (for opposing government-… Read More.

9 Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

Share Comment

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 more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept.

11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

If you fail to address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
THANKS DENNIS.
Comment: #1
Posted by: gary
Mon May 4, 2009 4:27 AM
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.


Comment: #2
Posted by: Rob
Mon May 4, 2009 6:54 PM
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.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Mon May 11, 2009 1:31 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Dennis Prager
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

15 Apr 2008 How Liberals Lost a Liberal

5 Apr 2011 Why God Isn't Doing Well These Days

27 Sep 2011 The Palestinians Want Peace -- Just Not With a Jewish State