redblueamerica.com

Sir:
It's my understanding of being an American that not only are the lives of its citizens worth protecting but also its principles. It is a matter of historical record that this nation has stood against torture since before there was a United States (General Washington issued directives forbidding his men brutalizing British soldiers). Not to minimize at all the horrors of 9/11 or of terrorism of any sort, but it strikes me as absurd to argue that our nation is in more danger now than in General Washington's time--a time, indeed, when the eventual securing of our independence was far from a "slam dunk," to borrow a phrase. That sort of justification for torture--that our nation is just one more terrorist attack from collapse--strikes me as specious. By that logic, Israel should have ceased its existence long ago.

But enough of that. Your response to me suggests that you are a pragmatist rather than an idealist. So how about this: despite the claims of this administration that information gained from torture has saved "thousands of American lives," this nation has offered no evidence--none--to prove that is the case. Given this administration's record of trustworthiness regarding the War on Terror, forgive me if I'm disinclined to accept just any old thing the Vice-President deigns to say in public about such things. Indeed, information gained via torture could have helped the government gain a conviction of Moussaoui (sp?) but could not be admitted in the trial because . . . evidence gained by such means is inadmissible in a court of law. So far. All evidence available to anyone who at all follows the news would seem to indicate that the practice of torture has been an impediment to the prosecution of those guilty of the events of 9/11. The families of the victims of that day have not had justice served the memory of their loved ones, and that is precisely because of the practice you say is protecting my loved ones from terrorism.

To engage in this practice is to lose the right to protest when it is done to one of our servicemen or civilians. To lose that right is too great a cost to this nation's standing in the world. Again: why pro-torture advocates cannot understand that is something I cannot comprehend. Torture is torture, no matter who does it or for what reason. To argue otherwise is to adopt a moral relativism that I thought conservatives were opposed to and accuse liberals of engaging in.

Ben,
You quote (apparently approvingly--it says, "Ben likes") Vice-President Cheney as saying:
The procedures of the CIA program are designed to be safe, and they are in full compliance with the nation's laws and treaty obligations. They've been carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice, and very carefully monitored. The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law. And the program has uncovered a wealth of information that has foiled attacks against the United States; information that has saved thousands of lives.

To fully explain just how false and/or unproven each and every statement in this paragraph (not to mention how reprehensible and destructive this smug self-righteousness is to an anti-torture stance this nation has spent 230 years building) would require its own post, so I'll save that for my own blog in the future. But here I'll just settle for saying this: When the government of Canada issues a travel warning to tourists visiting this country that they are at risk for being tortured should they run afoul of the law--or even, as in the case of one citizen, guilty of no crime at all--I strongly suspect one nation, at least, would take issue with whether the US is in compliance with its treaty obligations to oppose torture as a signatory to several UN treaties addressing that practice.

Vice-President Cheney delivered this speech to a room full of people who derided President Clinton for quibbling over the meaning of is yet support an administration whose attorney general has just declared to a Senate panel that his office gets to decide what is legal and what illegal and prosecute accordingly. Why you (apparently) cannot see just how obscene this is, why mainstream conservatism has now adopted tolerance of torture as a de facto litmus test for the Republican Party's candidate for President (one reason they're wary of John McCain) is utterly beyond my comprehension. Has 9/11 so traumatized us that we've officially taken leave of our political, legal, cultural and moral senses?