Most of the American media continue to duck the most important revelation from the ACLU's lawsuit against the government: that the incidents of torture were deliberate and systemic policy, rather than the actions of a sadistic few. However, I noted watching PBS's Newshour that the New York Times' Neil Lewis did describe it as a systemic problem, although he was very gentle in the terms he used, and moderator Terence Smith didn't pursue the point. (I'll post some quotes once they have the transcript up.)
Today, however, there is an editorial by William Pfaff, writing for the International Herald-Tribune, which is quite disturbing. The torture policy was not accidental, and began very early in the Bush administration. Pfaff writes:
Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration made it known that the United States was no longer bound by international treaties, or by American law and established U.S. military standards, concerning torture and the treatment of prisoners. By the end of 2001, the Justice Department had drafted memos on how to protect military and intelligence officers from eventual prosecution under existing U.S. law for their treatment of Afghan and other prisoners.
This resonates with something Neil Lewis said to the effect that the interrogators felt their harsh techniques were justified by the fact that the detainees were terrorists, that they had attacked us, that they were likely to strike again, etc. This is a line of reasoning that you sometimes see in the right-wing blogosphere: the enemy doesn't observe the Geneva Conventions, so why should we?
But this argument amounts to saying that the enemy is subhuman, so inhumane treatment is not only justifiable but necessary. But if we treat another as less than human, we give up some of our humanity in the bargain. (I'd like to recommend a reading of Hannah Arendt, particularly Eichmann in Jerusalem, on this point. One of these days I'll get around to a post drawing that work together with what we know about Abu Ghraib et al.)
By adopting torture as policy, we reduce ourselves to the level our enemy allegedly lives on. At the same time, we dissolve our credibility and renounce our moral standing. Here's Pfaff:
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism. It originally was intended to be a form of what later, in the attack on Iraq, came to be called "shock and awe." It was meant as intimidation. ... Destroying cities and torturing prisoners are things you do when you are losing the real war, the war your enemies are fighting. They are signals of moral bankruptcy. They destroy the confidence and respect of your friends, and reinforce the credibility of the enemy.Posted by Chris at December 22, 2004 11:17 AM | TrackBack