A Means for the Mean

This week, Dick Cheney, possibly the most influential Vice President in U.S. history, was quoted as saying that dunking a prisoner in water as a means to getting information was, “a no-brainer.” This represents the first time that the Bush camp has openly admitted its stance on torture – it is OK if it saves American lives. While that may fly well with the Neocons in Washington, it does not with the rest of the world.

For more than a year now, the topic of what represents torture and what does not has been in the press and the Bush administration has been in the camp pushing for a loosening of the laws defining torture. Slowly, stories of torture of Gitmo detainees and other, darker reports of those kept in secret CIA prisons came to light over the past 18 months. These reports shook many Americans out of their egocentric slumber and called opposition leaders to the floor to stand up for prisoners’ rights – not a very popular political stance, but a very correct moral stance. As more stories became public (combined with the already famous Abu Graib prison pictures), people started realizing that Americans were indeed torturing prisoners in the name of Democracy and freedom. Hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

So the official Bush policy has been that they are against torture, and that what has been done to prisoners thus far is simply interrogation within the law. At the same time as they have said this, the Neocons have pushed for less strict laws dictating what torture really is. So basically, we are now trying to say that what was considered torture in the past should not really be considered torture today. What a load of bullshit.

Finally, with Cheney’s comments, the real colors of the Neocons are showing. The spin squad has been out in force claiming that the VP was not referring to waterboarding when he talked about, “dunking.” For those of you who don’t know, waterboarding is considered one of the most effective means of torture. It is the act of immersing a prisoner until he believes he will actually drown and then reviving him. Then repeating the process until the subject breaks. It is said that most victims cannot hold out for more than a few seconds. (For a more complete definition see this link.)

Only an idiot would actually believe that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding. Dunking would be nothing more than a refreshing experience for a prisoner. There would be no reason for Cheney, or anyone else, to talk about dunking if they did not mean waterboarding. Furthermore, the term, “dunking” when referring to torture is even worse than waterboarding. It was used on suspected witches and meant that the suspect would either drown by not admitting their guilt or admitting their guilt and being executed. (See same link as above.)

This is just one more example to show how low this administration has sunk in moral terms. Unfortunately, what the American government does reflects on all of us, regardless of our political leanings (as any Ex-Pat can attest).

The question is a simple one. Either you are for or against torture as a national policy. If you are for it, you accept the fact that your people will also be tortured by their captors and that it will be legal to do so. I, for one, do not want to go down that road. Individuals will always torture in times of war – it is inevitable. It is quite another thing though to have that act justified by government and law. There is no other stance to take than that of total commitment to avoiding torture of prisoners. That many not be the Bush Way, but it is the American Way.