Consider What's Changed

Elijah Nodd

Can we all, as US citizens — neither red nor blue tinted — take a moment, here, and acknowledge just how much this country has changed in the last six years ? What have we become? Our representatives are openly discussing whether the government should be allowed to continue to use torture on both its own citizens and citizens of any country that may be considered dangerous and knowledgeable of terrorist attacks. Our representatives are considering whether they should grant immunity to corporations who were complicit in the violation of citizens’ civil rights and liberties. Our representatives are considering whether they should grant immunity to mercenaries that our government hired who have committed war crimes in our country’s name.

This country has changed radically since that fateful day.

Just after the attacks of Sept. 11, one of the credos being espoused was that we should not let the terrorists change they way we live our life. The government urged and reassured US citizens, saying that we should continue living our lives as we had before. If we changed or lifestyles or gave up our freedoms then the terrorists would have won the war… The terrorists’ goal was to cause a breakdown of and departure from our core values. Their goal was to expose our country as the monster they believed it to be. If that is accepted to be the context in which we consider the “War on Terror” then, it seems to me, that we are losing that war.

The purpose of terrorism is to do exactly what has occurred.

The basic human rights afforded to US citizens in the face of authoritative power are what made the US a moral and justified authority in the world. When our government is allowed to bypass the rights of US citizens and the rights of any other country’s citizens, we lose a vital element of our freedom, our liberty and our essence.

Our country has been fundamentally changed.

As a country founded on the ideals of human rights, we need torture to be illegal. We need accountability to combat the rampant overuse of executive privilege. There need to be stringent requirements on detentions and interrogations so that this torture will not occur without severe consequences for those who perpetrate the act.

The argument against this legislated restraint of torture is that, in times of war and threats to national security, extreme methods are needed to combat extreme dangers. This is a valid concern. However, considering who is in favor of torture versus who is not, the credibility seems to lean for those against.

On one side you have veterans who have been POW’s and tortured. On the other side you have those who haven’t been in war at all; let alone be captured, held against their will and tortured at the hands of those with no regard for human rights. Those who have been tortured speak of how, at some point, a break of will occurs and the detainee will say or do anything they perceive as a possible way to make the pain or distress stop. Those against torture cite the practice as inhumane and ineffective. Those in favor of torture always frame the debate in the “ticking time bomb” context

If this country is going do consider torture as a viable and effective option, we should do so only in an informed and non-fear-laden manner, if that is possible. As of now, torture is illegal, under both US and International Law. The burden of proof should be on those who want to change the definitions. For those in favor of torture, they should have to prove to the courts that torture is both justified and effective. They should be prepared to display evidence of such things. For that to occur, US citizens need to know a few facts.

• How many attacks has it stopped?
• How many people have been taken?
• How many people have been tortured?
• How many have known something?
• How many haven’t?
• How many of that person’s friends and family know that they were taken?
• How many of that person’s friends and family know that they were tortured?
• How many more enemies do we want?

I am not so naïve to believe that this behavior could be corrected completely or otherwise stopped. I know it was done thru the whole of the Cold War. Yet, during that era, it seemed our leaders were more cognizant of the power of perception. They seemed aware that we had to put forth the pretense that we were a morally superior world power. Publicly, they held themselves to the Geneva Convention. Publicly, they maintained that torture was illegal. This forced the authorities to keep the torture well hidden and underground. For such an abhorrent practice, the best way to keep it minimized is to keep it illegal.

US citizens need to make sure that if the government is going to go that far to obtain information, if they are willing compromise the core values that made the US a good country; they should be willing to compromise some of their people to do it. Let the individuals who make those decisions come forth and explain the why and the wherefore of those decisions. Let the individuals who make those decisions come forth and accept consequences for breaking the law. There are accommodations in Law for things like justifiable homicide. I am sure something could be developed for alleged torturers. The important part is that the practice is not encouraged and is considered only as the act of desperation and futility that it is.

The very fact that we are discussing this is significant. The latest nominee for attorney general is being asked to declare the act illegal. His responses are evasive, saying he needs to review the processes. What else does he need to know? Torture is torture. Water boarding is not simulated drowning. It is drowning that may or may not be interrupted in time to save the life of the victim.

This administration has not come out and said clearly, one way or another, whether they have employed this process or not. This administration will not allow the attorney general nominee to declare it torture and therefore illegal; and therefore retroactively calling for the convictions of past administration officials.

So will this be the closest we get to accountability from the GWB era?

Probably.