Protesting Yoo

As you may have heard, torture-proponent John Yoo was recently given a monthly column on the Op-Ed page of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Tristero over at Hullabaloo suggests the following action:

I'd like to urge all bloggers who have addressed the issue of torture to send one of their posts to the Inquirer. You can do so by following the instructions here.

Who knows? Perhaps even one of us will get published, but at least they will get the message that opposition to torture is widespread, we are articulate, and we will not remain quiet while those who justify torture are provided access to major newspapers.

I've taken him up on the challenge.

Here's my Op-Ed entry - not a single past post, but a patched-together essay from several posts:

President Obama and others have declared that the country must move forward, and argued that investigating the misdeeds of the previous Administration would distract us from the many challenges confronting us.

I agree with the declaration: yes, we must move forward.
BUT - moving forward requires us to confront our present and our past.

The International Military Tribunals held in Nuremberg and Tokyo following WWII can be criticized as nothing more than retribution: vengeance exacted by victors against vanquished.
IF this criticism is to be deflected, we must demonstrate by our actions that the legal principles embodied in these trials apply universally - not just to nations we have vanquished. Specifically, we must demonstrate by our actions that they apply to US!

To allow those in our government who authorized torture to escape the consequences of their actions is to announce to the world (and to ourselves): "No, we DON'T care about human rights or crimes against humanity. Those are just clever slogans to help us feel good about ourselves!" If we fail to prosecute the offenders, we announce to the world: "Yes, we readily accept that there are exigencies in which crimes against humanity can be excused - to protect the State; and 'I was just following orders' is a perfectly legitimate legal defense!"

Looking to the future - as President Obama prescribes: If in the future we find ourselves participating in "war crimes" trials against representatives of a foreign country, just exactly how will we in good conscience justify our participation if we fail to prosecute our own today?

Yes - we must look to the future. Yes, we face any number of daunting challenges.
BUT - to move forward as a nation of laws demands that one of the challenges we accept is bringing to justice the men who ordered torture IN OUR NAME!

In response to the recent release of many documents on W-era torture, conservatives have adopted a more-or-less consistent reply: "Yeah, we tortured... BUT IT WORKED!" - We've been "safe" for 7.5 years!

Let's grant 'em the premise. Okay - it worked. So what?

"The ends justify the means" isn't much of a basis for The Rule of Law! - let alone morality!!!

Yes - the Rule of Law imposes heavy burdens on us as a country - as a civilized nation.
But, the dividends it pays are immeasurable! Any "temporary", expedient circumvention of The Rule of Law threatens us all - more than the supposed dangers from which this circumvention "protects" us.

Recall Robert Bolt's wonderful defense of The Rule of Law from his play, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

This in a nutshell is the argument against torture, against "extraordinary rendition", against extra-legal anti-terrorist tactics of any kind. Those laws we ignore to get the bad guys are the very laws that protect US! We ignore them at our peril.

Give the Devil benefit of law? Yes! - for my own safety's sake!!!

That ultra-liberal pinko Commie, General George S. Patton presented an analogous argument regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of poison gas against civilian populations. Here is an excerpt from Patton’s article, “The Effect of Weapons on War”, published in the Cavalry Journal, November 1930:

For centuries all wounded and such unwounded prisoners as were valueless as slaves had their throats cut. No one was shocked; it was the custom. Finally, it occurred to some altruistic and thoughtful soldier that while the practice was excellent so long as he was the victor, it had it's drawbacks in the not unlikely event of his being the vanquished. The notion of humane treatment for the foe was born. Years of use sanctified the idea; it became the custom. Yet, the horrid thought pops up that help for the helpless sprang from love of ourselves, not of others; from fear of retaliation. The same situation effects the noisome idea of gassing noncombatants. It is contrary to our developed sensibilities, it will produce retaliations; it is not a safe method of war.

It is “love of ourselves, not of others” that underlies our laws.

Furthermore, the argument that “torture kept us safe” begs the question: safe from WHAT?

Personally? I feel significantly less safe knowing that my government asserted its right to surveil me, detain me indefinitely without charges, torture me, render me to a "black site"; and asserted these powers in secret, without my consent. I'd feel even less safe if I believed that a majority of my fellow citizens had, in fact, consented to this!

Renouncing our values to "save" ourselves is absurd!
If we renounce our values and - more the point - our Constitution, we're lost, not saved!

As it turns out, recently released documents confirm that torture – or “enhanced interrogation” – was NOT effective. It did not produce reliable, actionable intelligence.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today opined that, “…one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work.” Perhaps Sen. Graham should read Nicholas Eymerich, a 14th-century Inquistor General of the Spanish Inquisition. Eymerich was no ultra-left humanist, but the first inquisitor to get around the Church's prohibition against torturing a subject twice by interpreting the directive very liberally, permitting a separate instance of torture for a separate charge of heresy. This noted humanitarian’s final verdict on the efficacy of torture?

"Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces."
[“Torture is deceptive and ineffectual.”]

Finally, however, the best argument is that given by General David Petraeus, as quoted by the Senate Committee on Armed Services report, INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY:

"What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight ... is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings."

It’s not about them, it’s about US!

Maybe you've got something better!!!

Send it in!

Here's the link, again: Contact Philadelphia Inquirer
... and here's the link to their "Helpful Hints": Guidelines for Opinion Pieces