Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Paul Phaneuf
With the alleged death of bin Laden the dialog about enhanced interrogation
has been reopened. It’s a legitimate question. How does one define
“torture”, and is “enhanced interrogation” a form of torture?
When fighting evil, we do not want to become that which we despise, but
when the lives of innocents are at stake, we must settle the question in our
hearts and minds: just how far are we willing to go and what is the line that
marks the crossover into evil?
That being said, we must ask some hard questions that force us to move
beyond the emotionally charged catch words and sloganeering. It is
reasonable to ask: is “enhanced interrogation” a euphemism for torture? Is
it merely lipstick on a pig?
Emotionally charged words are used to transfix and manipulate the populace
all the time. Is “enhanced interrogation” in the same class of Orwellian
newspeak as “climate change” or “addicted to oil”? In my opinion, it is not.
Other groups have their own definitions which expand or contract what
might fall within the scope of torture, but the U.N.’s definition will suffice for
our purposes.
It’s an interesting definition that must be parsed to consider its full meaning
and implications.
This definition is so inadequate that it has to have come out of the mind of a
U.N. pinhead. It is a political definition. It fails to address what happens in
the real world.
One
Imagine a scenario where you are confronted by an individual who says that
he and his cohorts have kidnapped your child. He shows you a video of your
child being abused. Now I can only speak for myself, but if that person was
stupid enough to put himself where I can get my hands on him, he will, HE
WILL tell me where my child is.
Use your own imagination, but for me, there are no limits, no prohibitions,
and no restrictions on how or how much pain I will inflict on this monster to
get my child back. I will damage the SOB. I will hurt him. He may never
recover. But I could never kidnap his child and do to that innocent what is
being done to my child to stop him. That line I will not cross.
Two
John McCain was the victim of torture, as were many POWs like him. The
Japanese tortured American POWs in the death march. It was torture
because it was intended to cause damage and suffering for its own sake.
Clearly, to make the torture stop, most of us, regardless of our bravado, will
sign anything. In this situation, it makes “enhanced interrogation” of
questionable value. The presence of certainty is necessary to prevent the
descent into barbarism.
The idea is that the line must not be crossed into punishment or vengeance.
In America, four year olds are now fondled and sexually abused before
boarding airplanes (which just proves my point about not trusting the
judgment of government), parents are helpless as they watch; people fear
flying because of the actions of terrorists.
The terrorists are the torturers. They initiated the session. There is no
moral compromise in the decision to be the one who ends it by whatever
means are necessary. I say, under the circumstances described, “enhanced
interrogation” is not torture, it is self defense and is not only morally
acceptable but is in fact morally required.
http://www.PatriotFever.com