Torture: Its not about efficacy or about morality. Its about narrow self interest - Reciprocity

[grantcart]

Torture: Its not about efficacy or about morality. Its about narrow self interest, its about reciprocity.

The effort by Cheney and other apologists for Bush/Cheney to put forth the acceptance of torture on the grounds of producing actionable intelligence is not only factually wrong, its off the point.

The perception that we should not torture on higher moral grounds is welcomed but also not historically the true reason that torture was the focus of treaty and enforcement by the International Committee for the Red Cross.

The case for the Geneva Conventions was made, not on the basis of a superior moral standing, but on the basis that we did not want the same treatment on our own troops . The problem with arguing a purely moral position is that you can devolve into theoretical situations where the torture of a single person could be morally justified to save a city.

The historical reason that there has been broad support against torture in the United States and that it has always received strong support by the military is that it is the only way to achieve better treatment of our own soldiers who are prisoners . If you accept that waterboarding, or other techniques, are legal and acceptable then you have to accept that they can be used against our own soldiers who become prisoners.

Those on Fox and the Cheney followers that are arguing that they are acceptable techniques are saying that they would accept such treatment against our own troops in the future.

They would accept their own brothers and sisters, sons and daughters being subjected to the exact same treatment.

The question that should be asked over and over again is:

Why do they have so little concern for our troops that they are willing to allow our troops to be subjected to this kind of treatment, why do they accept that our troops can be waterboarded, that it is an acceptable and legal action against our own soldiers? If we accept it as legal then we cannot object to it being used against us.

[AllentownJake]

1. Like all GOP plans

Its short sighted, ineffective, and easy to sell to their brain dead followers.

I have a guy at work, generally smart, however when it comes to this torture thing he's absolutely for "torturing the terrorist"

The fact that it doesn't work, lowers as a nation, or that it puts our people in more danger doesn't phase him because he wants "justice for 9-11"

He's also a devout catholic which makes me scratch my head. I tried that line, Your Lord said love your enemies, and also justice isn't in this world...not budging. Lizard brain wants brown people to pay.

[grantcart]

3. So then he approves our enemies torturing our soldiers. Its that simple.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. they wanted to act tough like the Nazis to gain power and citizen submission

this tough act stuff has been used time and time again. The thing was clouded with 9/11 which beat people into submission. PNAC at work.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I'm fine with the argument that it is ILLEGAL.

All the rest is rationalization in my opinion, but it sure beats the denial we used to get from the criminals.

[grantcart]

5. The reason we perued the laws is that we wanted to make it universally illegal.

If it is accpetable at any time then it will become acceptable against our own soldiers in the future.

[AtomicKitten]

6. The funny thing is that I thought it was already universally illegal.

It is against our Constitution and against International Law. I thought that covered it, but the criminals have succeeded in make it SQUISHY with their rationalizations and what-ifs.

There is no question the fear of reciprocity as a repercussion is keen, but more than anything else President Obama needs to underscore its ILLEGALITY if only to correct those that have worked so hard to smudge the outlines of the crime itself.