Folks like Durbin think we are. I'm not sure. It's never been conclusive as to whether our detainment and interrogation policy (excluding some events at Abu Ghraib) regarding captured AQ or other terrorists represents actual torture. Depends on the definition, I reckon.
Recently the Senate passed a measure condemning "torture" by a large margin. VP Cheney lobbied against it, suggesting the CIA should be exempt under certain circumstances. Is the VP just an evil old man who likes to see brown skinned people getting waterboarded, or does he know something he can't say? Bush, in his typical blunt style, denied that America is torturin' anybody.
This is a very sticky issue on both sides of the aisle. I agree with Hagel and McCain that we don't want America to be seen as the 'Republic of Torture' in the eyes of the world. Otherwise, what values are we fighting for? Then again, I see the practical aspects from the administration's side, who believe they are protecting the public from another 9/11. As we've seen, the world is full of some very bad people who carry no remorse for the killing of innocents. That is the modern day difference between what constitutes torture in 2005 versus other conventional wars.
In the end, the American people might have to decide. If they believe Bush/Cheney are too paranoid and are willing to take the chance that we can effectively deal with terrorism with a World War II type detention strategy, we'll see them replaced (perhaps sooner than term). Interestingly, the adminstration is left to make their case by declassifying specific threats, which in itself might imperil innocents.
No comments:
Post a Comment