We can choose to end torture

[BobcatJH]

Elections are about choices. Sometimes, the choices are easy. Sometimes, they're difficult. Sometimes, as in Ohio, they're between corrupt, business-as-usual Republican governance and a better, more progressive way. Sometimes, as in Connecticut, they're between elected officials who ignore their constituents and candidates who will give the state's citizens a voice in Washington. But this year, voters face an extremely important choice, a choice that tells us as much about ourselves as it does those we elect. That tells the world what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society that supports torture? Or do we want to be a society that doesn't? And a vote for the status quo, for the party in power, is a vote to support torture. This November, those who have long said "Not in our name!" will have the chance to cast a ballot as powerful as their rallying cry. We can choose to end torture.

"This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention," President Bush said Friday. "And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation." Echoing the president's sentiments while being careful to avoid the "t" word was the Wall Street Journal's John Fund. Appearing Monday on "Hardball", Fund told Chris Matthews, "And the Geneva Convention is vague on Article III. It doesn't specify. It simply says that which is degrading. Frankly, Chris, there are some things we need to get out of these terrorists where we might have to degrade them. It doesn't mean torture, it doesn't mean specific things." When pressed on specific things, like water boarding, Fund was quick to point out that it's "going to be off the table from now on", though, despite that fact, it's not torture. What's more, there are things we view as torture now that we may not have viewed as such in the days immediately following September 11. "Chris, you have a shifting definition here," Fund said. "On September 12, 2001, I think almost anything that was done at the time would not have been viewed as torture by the American people. Now it's September 12, 2006, it's five years difference. And I think now that there is a shifting definition." Taking another tack was fellow Bush apologist Bill O'Reilly, whose excuse for torture has long been that the United States should never extend our adversaries courtesies they would never extend us. "So how can you possibly put up an ideal that if we bend over backwards for terrorists, not soldiers, terrorists, that we're going to get anything back?" he said. "It doesn't make any sense."

The president and others defending his policies would have you believe that the Geneva Convention, particularly Article III, is vague. Well, let's take a look at Article III, which states, in part:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

From the start, there is nothing vague about Article III. Notice the use of the word "detention"? Not vague. Notice the phrase "shall remain prohibited", followed by four key provisions? Not vague. Notice the use of "humiliating and degrading treatment"? Not vague. I suspect that the president, when excusing his actions in the face of a "vague" guideline, left out the phrase "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" when discussing the "outrages on personal dignity". Well, the apologist Republican thinking goes, what may be an outrage to personal dignity to one culture may be an everyday custom to another. Tell me, in what culture does forcing naked detainees into a pile not represent "humiliating and degrading treatment" and, therefore, an outrage upon personal dignity? In what culture does forcing someone to stand, hooded, on a box with wires on his hands not represent "cruel treatment"? And in what culture does forcing someone to think they're drowning not represent "violence to life and person" and, therefore "torture"?

It's clear, to me, why this president allows torture. His reasoning, in short: Because I can. Because it can, this administration does things usually relegated to "the bad guys". Because it can, this administration illegally spies on its citizens. Because it can, this administration, purposely places politics above national security. Since Bush took office, his administration has existed primarily as an exercise in amassing as much presidential power as possible. Not only that, but also removing any chance of accountability by tilting the judiciary in the president's favor and helping fill Congress with a pack of rubber-stamp Republicans. What's more, helping lead the Beltway-centered media into irrelevance. Couple these realities with the fact that the president and many of his top advisers appear to be little more than low-rent sociopaths and it's easy to see why this White House has given torture its official seal of approval. Nevermind that torture, as an interrogation technique, doesn't accomplish the goal of obtaining actual actionable information and instead leads the tortured to tell the torturers what they want to hear. Nevermind that, by ignoring a pact we're a signatory to, we're giving the rest of the world the green light to torture our troops, something that has long put our military at odds with this president. This is about one thing and one thing only: Power. This president wants it. He's doing everything he can to get it. And if that means doing things that transcend illegality and more appropriately leave a reprehensible stain on our nation, so be it. We're America, the argument goes, we can do whatever we want.

But the true meaning of being an American is something this president and the Funds and O'Reillys of the world will never realize. We don't torture because we're America. We're better than that. There's a reason the world used to look to the United States for global leadership. Because our behavior set the example. Because we didn't stoop to the level of our adversaries. Because we championed rights and fought for freedoms. Sure, we were the world's preeminent superpower. But we realized that with that privileged position came a special responsibility. The responsibility to use our power wisely. The responsibility to be a good role model. The responsibility to be the standard bearer of free societies. When enemy soldiers surrendered to our troops on past battlefields, they did so because they knew that, in our hands, they would be treated fairly. Can we say the same thing today? Can we still honestly consider ourselves the worldwide exemplar of free societies? Not, in my mind, as long as we're doing things that we've spent decades deploring and about which we're still lecturing other nations against. Also not, in my mind, as long as our actions ensure an easy victory for our enemies. Everything they wanted to see happen to our society - the division, the loss of rights, the vulnerability - they've gotten. Thanks more to this administration's willingness to seek absolute power than any enemy attack. And torture is only one terrible manifestation of that willingness.

When I saw Bill Clinton speak the other day, he warned everyone that "The only way the other side can win is if they can stop us from thinking." And that's exactly what's happening here. They not only want to stop us from thinking about the obvious illegality of their actions, but also to stop us from thinking that we have any ability to do anything about it. Well, we can. This November, we can cast a vote for representatives unwilling to act as a rubber stamp for this lawless White House. This November, we can cast a vote for a sensible foreign policy that accomplishes all of its goals without relying on criminal activity. This November, we can cast a vote for the society we want to see. President Bush isn't the decider. We're the deciders. Our representatives aren't in Washington to march in lock-step with the president. They're there as our employees to give voice to our concerns, not seek to have them silenced. And, most importantly, our job isn't to sit back while our nation forges a new, distressing path. We're here to do something about it. Time and again, this president has acted illegally and shows no sign of stopping. To this point, despite recent developments, no one in his party has stepped up to stand in the way. That leaves us. We can choose to end torture.