McCain: Torture Ban Needed for U.S. Image
But as we all know, image isn’t everything.
AP reports: “Sen. John McCain argued Sunday that America’s image abroad could be ruined if Congress doesn’t ban the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.”
McCain, who was tortured during the Vietnam War, is the leading supporter of a provision banning such inhumane treatment.
White House officials, however, have threatened a presidential veto of any bill with restrictions on handling detainees, saying it would limit the president’s ability to protect Americans and prevent a terrorist attack.
Sen. McCain could be serving the nation better by paying more attention to the realities of dealing with fanatical terrorists and by being less concerned about America’s “image abroad.” Leave the PR to our corporations. Foreigners will continue to buy our products despite our war criminal policies.
Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that the White House was working with McCain and other lawmakers to “come up with an approach that both allows us to do what we need to do to defend the country against terrorist attack and, at the same time, make good on the president’s commitment that we will not torture and we will act within the bounds of law.”
Hadley went on to describe a hypothetical situation that imagined one of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists had been arrested a few days before the attacks.
For those who don’t actively follow politics and may never read NSA Hadley’s comments, we would recommend a vivid fictional example provided by Hollywood: the anti-terrorism action series, 24.
In last year’s concluding episode, hero Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland) was forced by circumstances to defy direct orders which prevented him from torturing a prisoner for information. He did so on his own accord, and thereby gathered critical information which resulted in saving millions of lives by preventing a nuclear warhead from detonating in Los Angeles.
Fiction, yes. A plausible scenario, absolutely.
“It’s a difficult dilemma to know what to do in that circumstance to both discharge our responsibility to protect the American people from terrorist attack and follow the president’s guidance of staying within the confines of law,” he said. “These are difficult issues.”
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, however, said it’s “unthinkable that the vice president of the United States continues to insist upon an exception for the CIA, saying they should not be bound by our torture policy.”
“Torture can’t be justified,” he told CNN.
Senator Levin, you can tell that to the relatives of victims and other Americans after a major terrorist attack which might’ve been avoided by gathering last-minute intelligence from a prisoner. Americans would demand to know why information wasn’t extracted by any means possible, if only in the hope of preventing the loss of lives.
Last week, we watched the television reports of the horrific terrorist bombing at a wedding party in Jordan.
On Sunday, the AP reports, “Al-Rishawi explained how her husband helped plan Wednesday’s attacks, fitted her suicide bomb belt and blew himself up with his own bomb at the Radisson SAS — one of three hotels attacked by three Iraqi men.”
She offered her confession on live television only “hours after she was arrested Sunday.”
Let’s just say this: If Al-Rishawi were captured and held in Guantanamo, she’d still be enjoying three square meals a day and getting calls from the ACLU. In Jordan, the authorities somehow made her sing like a bird. Very agreeable. We’ll call it a different approach to law enforcement.
Had she had been caught on a tip before the bombs went off, does anyone doubt the plan would’ve proceeded successfully? Not on her life.
Now imagine the scenario in America.
Mssrs. McCain and Levin, care to answer?
UPDATE: (11/22)
La Shawn Barber: Torture Is Good
November 14th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Senator McCain seems to forget that mistreatment of prisoners is already prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Why would another law be needed?
November 14th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
McCain says torture ban vital to U.S. image
Sen. John McCain said Sunday that America’s image abroad could be ruined if Congress doesn’t ban the
November 15th, 2005 at 5:24 am
In his speech on Friday and again last night Bush said that, in his opinion, people who questioned his use (or misuse) of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war were “deeply irresponsible.”
Perhaps if he had a better grip on reality he would understand, as you do, that 57% of Americans believe that he misused the Iraq intelligence for the purposes of justifying his decision to go to war.
I’m aware of your contention that Bush is not desperate, but what is it if not desperation that causes a president to accuse the 57% of Americans who disagree with him of being “deeply irresponsible?”
Do you agree with the president’s characterization of 57% of your fellow countrymen as irresponsible? Do you believe that it is appropriate for a president to characterize the clear majority of Americans who disagree with him in this way?
November 17th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Michael Ejercito asks why another law is needed since the provisions of McCain’s amendment simply confirm the standards set in the Uniform Code of Military justice (also the Army field manual). Basically the amendment extends the principles defined by and preferred by the military to all branches of government. The Army created a ban on torture because it has been their experience that torture is useless — tortured prisoners will offer any sort of confession and much meaningless information to appease their torturers. The information obtained is not reliable. \
Further, practicing torture increases the risk that US troops will be treated similarly. We are using the rationale that we can torture “insurgents” because they are criminals not soldiers. That is precisely the argument used by the North Vietnamese to justify torture of Americans. The argument made no more sense then than now.
Finally, practicing torture reduces the US to a base level further isolating us in the eyes of the world. In my youth just after WWII were jeered the despicable Nazi and Jap torturers in the Saturday matinees. Now we are becoming the bad guys. It is really worth further damage to the US international reputation for little or no gain? Ninety US senators, many of them conservative Republicans, thought not when they voted for the McCain amendment.
The torturers and those who support them know the shame of what they are doing. Why else would they hide their activities in a secret gulag? If they truly believed that they were defending America they should stand up and loudly proclaim their courage and patriotism as the publicly abuse a helpless prisoner. Where are the medals for these sick puppies? Do you get a colored ribbon when you waterboard your 10th prisoner? How about the Medal of Honor when you scare someone enough that they crap their pants. By any moral standard torturers are criminal. McCain’s amendment simply puts the principle on paper.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Craig,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. However, we must respectfully disagree.
“…practicing torture increases the risk that US troops will be treated similarly.”
You’ve heard of the old adage: Can’t play a straight hand in a crooked game. Well, does anyone really believe our enemies — those that find suicide bombings at a wedding (Muslim, regardless) acceptable — are going to play by rules, Geneva Convention or otherwise? That’s “California dreamin’”…
Let’s not talk in moral abstractions. Someone please address the “24″ scenario: How could it be handled without torture?
Pleading? Negotiating? What? While millions of lives are hanging on a prayer?
If anyone presents a workable SOLUTION — not a further criticism — than we’ll rethink our position.