Musings about
torture are dangerous form of contemplation
Commentary
by PAT MURPHY
Is this a
glimpse of America’s future?
As father
arrives home, mother asks, "How was your day, dear?"
Father:
"Not good. I had a stubborn case. He still says he doesn’t know
anything — even when I used electric cattle prods on his genitals,
yanked a few fingernails, kicked him in the groin, and shot pepper spray
into his eyes."
"You
poor dear," mother says, as she wipes blood from father’s boots.
Impossible?
Not to a
few opinion makers in U.S. media.
Torture as
national policy has surfaced as a serious topic, even with Jonathan Alter,
Newsweek magazine’s influential columnist and an NBC television
commentator.
"Time
to Think About Torture," headlined his column.
FOX TV news
devoted a program to torture as a method of making suspects "spill
the beans."
CNN’s
"Crossfire" conservative panelist Tucker Carlson joined in,
conceding that "torture is bad," but adding, "Some things
are worse. And under certain circumstances, it may be the lesser of two
evils."
Surely this
isn’t what Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had in
mind several weeks ago when she predicted in a speech that Americans might
forfeit some civil liberties as the result of the war on terrorism.
Or, perhaps
this reckless talk merely is a sign of a bored media trying to excite some
attention.
In the
darks days after Sept. 11, media commentators were among the first to
caution about abandoning constitutional guarantees in an ugly showdown
with terrorists.
But now
constitutional guarantees seem the least concern of some guard dogs of
civil liberties.
The image
of legally sanctioned torture in the U.S. criminal justice system is
breathtaking as well as sickening.
Other than
deranged psychopaths and sadists who relish brutality and maiming humans,
who would administer torture? Would police academies graduate men and
women skilled in inflicting pain?
Would
physicians be required to keep torture subjects alive during physical
abuse?
Would
torture only be used by Feds? Or would local police demand the right of
torture in drug cases, homicides and rapes to keep local peace and
tranquillity?
Would
torture methods be limited or would anything go — beating, sleep
deprivation, imposed hunger, anal water injections, truth serums, electric
shock, toxic spray, breaking bones, or what? If abuse resulted in death,
would torture agents be automatically absolved?
Before
beginning painful sessions, would torture agents require permission of
judges? Or could torture be administered willy-nilly on anyone
"suspected" of a crime?
Would
torture sessions be open to witnesses as are executions?
And what,
pray, would happen to the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on "cruel
and unusual" punishment and on obtaining evidence illegally — just
ash can them as stuffy obstacles of a bygone era of naïve civility?
If the
world’s spying apparatus must yield to torture to mine information, then
billions spent on intelligence has been a sham.
Even now,
we haven’t shown the stomach to act on information we have: Iraq’s
cauldrons of death are boiling with a witch’s brew of biological,
chemical and, probably, nuclear weapons materials.
What haven’t
they been taken out with bombs?
The Nazis
elevated torture to an art form. Ditto, World War II Japan, North Vietnam,
the Cold War Soviet Union, communist China and brutal regimes of Asia and
Africa.
More often
than not, torture brutally elicits false confessions for propaganda
purposes, not for useful intelligence.
Now
Newsweek’s Alter and others would have the United States add its name to
this motley history of beastliness by uncivilized rogue nations.
If physical
abuse to elicit information is our next step backward to the Stone Age,
then say kiss the courts system goodbye; shred federal and state
constitutions; shut down multi-billion dollar crime investigative tools,
and propose a treaty legitimizing torture worldwide.
Then we
will have sunk to the same level as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.