And Now, From the 'Hard Left': Ronald Reagan
05/02/2009 by Gabriel VoilesIn his latest Salon blog entry (5/1/09, ad-viewing required), Glenn Greenwald displays his find of "a perfect illustration of how severely our political spectrum has shifted in the last two decades and how depraved and extremist our political and media classes have become"--one quote of the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer rebutting those who "believe you never torture. Ever":
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . .
as compared to the text from Article II/IV of the "Convention Against Torture, signed and championed" by none other than Ronald Reagan:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law.
That Ronald Reagan's ideas "are ones that are now--in the view of our dominant media narrative--the hallmarks of The Hard Left" is clearly demonstrated by the fact that
Reagan's explicit view that the concept of "universal jurisdiction" permits signatory nations (such as Spain) to prosecute torturers from other countries (such as the U.S.) is now considered so fringe that it's almost impossible to find someone in mainstream American debates willing to advocate it.
Tags: Charles Krauthammer, Convention Against Torture, Glenn Greenwald, Ronald Reagan, Salon, torture
Diggit
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo
Facebook
StumbleUpon
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
So our gummint's moved from signing treaties saying we didn't torture … even though we did (and have for the whole of our history) … to the Shrubberites saying we don't torture because waterboarding et al *isn't* torture.
That's really not much of a backslide, is it? We're still lying about our actions, and abusing and killing folks in the process.
Has it stopped under Obama? Maybe we should take his word for it … after all, he hasn't lied to us so far, has he? He's just been a little imprecise in stating his intentions … like ending the occupation of Iraq, for instance.
And I'm a little confused about this whole "Hard Left" thing. I believe that a system based on profit creates a few winners and a whole lot of losers, that we're all in this shit together, and that treating others as you want to be treated should be our guiding principle (as much as I might fall short of following it).
Am I "Hard Left", far left, etc.? If so, I'm happy to be labeled as such.
Finally, as regards torture …
It's an abomination that has no place in a civilized world.
Of course, we don't live in a civilized world, do we?
So, left with no other viable option, would I have tortured Hitler to prevent the Holocaust? Would I have tortured Truman to prevent Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Would I have tortured JFK and LBJ to prevent the slaughter in Vietnam? Stalin? Mao? Tojo? Pinochet? And on and on and on?
Yes, I think I would … if I could bring myself to. And I'd despise the necessity of having to do so.
I won't argue with anyone who believes torture is wrong under all circumstances. I think it should be outlawed among nations. What I stated above, and the motivation for it, have nothing to do with torture as it's been practiced for millenia.
But many folks think it does … they buy the "ticking time bomb" and "torture works" horseshit based on this "greater good" argument. At least that's how they justify it to themselves … those who have any moral qualms about it.
I don't think it does any good to state an unequivocal opposition to torture without acknowledging that moral dilemma under the "best case" situations above. I think that strengthens the argument to ban torture in the real world … because the scenario of "the greater good" doesn't exist at Guantanamo or Bagram or any "black site". The inquisitors there may be protecting something … but it isn't our freedom, is it?
I hope I'm making sense here.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I somehow left out those who approved "enhanced interrogation techniques". I imagine that's self-evident, but I think it's important to list them specifically.