I haven't done one of these for a while.
Torture and/or "Enhanced Interogation Techniques" appear to be back in the discussion, if they ever went away.
Donald Rumsfeld, it appears, has little shame and even less regret as he is still giving interviews, making statements and generally behaving like an innocent.
The question is ... Is he?
At least in respect to this small, yet highly significant aspect of his past actions. I know he is one of the worst examples of fascist government tendencies we have ever encountered, and those are questions for another time.
On the narrow point of Enhanced Interrogation, or "Torture", as it is more accurately known ... Was he, is he correct?
Clearly the vast proportion of the civilised world believes not. Indeed, I believe not too, but it's simply not good enough go "ugh!", and move on. I think it's necessary to understand clearly why it is so wrong.
Rumsfeld, and his supporters who constituted a large part of the electorate clearly believed that, in the defense of the Homeland, it was actually okay to sanction torture. My personal feeling, for what it is worth, is that he, and they, were wrong.
The atmosphere following 9/11 was toxic, and remains so, at least to an extent. In the pursuit of the perpetrators many things were done that a mature society would normally frown upon. High on that list is a war, that even at the very least, cost more American lives than the incident itself. I do not put American lives higher than those of any other nation, I simply make the point.
It is the case that intelligence (the gathered kind) has the potential to save lives, sometimes a great many lives. It comes as little surprise to learn that there are determined attempts to extract information from those we feel possess it. How far should we go?
There are many who believe that there is no distance we should NOT go. No method, however unpleasant, that should not be employed in our quest to save the lives of innocents. There does, however, come a point where we so subsume our humanity that we end up little better than those who would do us harm.
The US is signatory to agreements designed to preserve that humanity. Agreements that make torture illegal under both US and International law. For very good reasons it would appear, not least of which is simply that evidence gained under duress is the most unreliable evidence of all.
However, let us set that aside for the moment.
Suppose, for a minute, we knew that another 9/11 was planned. Further, we also knew that a prisoner we hold has all the details required to prevent it. I ask you to accept that this is the case. We do have this guy, and he does know.
The proponents of torture will simply suggest that the means will justify the ends. They will point to the fact that this one person has a choice. He can talk, or the information can be extracted, by whatever means necessary. The saving of many thousands of lives depends upon this and sometimes, so the argument goes, the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, or the one.
It is a powerful position to take, and a very popular one.
Why should we consider this one person above the lives of so many others? Why not just torture the information out of him, and be done with it?
Well this is where we have to draw the line under torture.
Because there is another scenario when considering the Rights of the one.
Suppose we understand that this guy will not yield to torture, or that the information he will give might be so erroneous, so tainted that it becomes useless. But this prisoner has a six-year-old daughter. If we torture her he is guaranteed to tell us everything he knows.
Sure, it sucks to be the kid, but think of all the lives we are saving.
It is a never-ending downward spiral into depravity because the needs of the many do not, and can not be allowed to be made more important than the rights of the one. We are all ONE, and we need our humanity.
Discuss.