Too Much Information

Some pragmatic anti-torturism in my new column for TAP Online. This post on Arms and Influence is also apropos.

Comments

Bush's embrace of torture ...

That's his legacy.

And ours, now.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 12, 2006 12:32 PM

Correct. Under threat of torture prisoners always resort to saying what their captors want to hear. We attempted to harden American prisoners complete with POW training up until Viet Nam. Then common sense set in and now Americans held by advisaries are allowed to do whatever to save themselves.

In fairness to Mr Bush I must protest. We do not know what was/is being done to the prisoners we have.

During WW2 the British did a bangup job getting Axis agents to become turncoats and actually help out. That was done by giving them an option. Either they played ball or they were shot. I think absolutely every one decided to play ball. Maybe one didn't, been a while, can't remember for sure.

It's my opinion that it's politically bad to harp on the subject of POWs. My miniture surveys say the average American, (voter) thinks Muslim prisoners should be tortured, red hot pokers to the eyes, that sort of thing. Comes form their heritage, burning people at the stake, inquisitions, witch hunts and the like. There's a lot more to complain about than the handling of prisoners.

They're clean out of ideas about Iraq. The question thinking voters have is do the Democrats have any better ideas. It's not necessary to lay them out but the voter must become aware that the Democratic party is just as interested in defeating terrorism as the Republicans. It's understood, (by most) that only the ones in power need to lay our plans. "Stay the course" is not a plan and most everyone knows that. "Cut and run" is not a plan either. Change of leadership is the plan that leads to a plan that will work.

Posted by tctatc | September 12, 2006 12:37 PM

"It's my opinion that it's politically bad to harp on the subject of POWs."

In the end, you have to stand for something, or there's no point to politics. If you aren't willing to take a stand on principle when we're talking about torture, where will you take a stand? Slavery? Nuclear first strikes? Genocide? If those things were politically expedient, would you stop harping on them as well?

Note that the end of public opposition to torture is the end of all remaining restraint on the torturing.

Posted by rea | September 12, 2006 7:33 PM

Surely the electorate isn't actually in favor of torture. It's just that they tend to believe the President when he says we don't do it, since the alternative is so unthinkable, and they are easily seduced by arguments saying gosh, those Democrats won't even let us deprive terrorists of dessert without calling it torture. But we shouldn't mistake political gamesmanship for the notion that the public actually supports torture, because they surely don't.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2006 11:21 PM