Tuesday, March 15, 2005
America Loves Torture
Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Chronicle comments on the lack of widespread outrage over ongoing reports of US torture:
Back in 1930's, the US Supreme Court held it a pure due process violation to use evidence secured by torture. The case involved a confession extracted from a black man using "standard interrogation methods." When the defense attorney asked what these were, the sheriff replied "We handcuffed him, hoisted him up to a tree branch by his wrists, and beat him until he confessed."
The sheriff believed folks so treated wouldn't confess unless they were guilty - and the trial court admitted the confession. Too bad those bleeding heart liberal judges kept out this valuable and trustworthy evidence.
|
It seems pretty much established that we, as a nation, don't mind torture all that much. Abu Ghraib was, of course, a scandal, but the reaction from the masses was underwhelming. The Pentagon as usual scapegoated a couple of grunts, and the whole thing went away.
Guantanamo Bay is pretty clearly a hellhole of illegal and/or repulsive activities (female interrogators saying, "I've got my period! This is my blood! Ick, eh?"), and yet it continues to continue. The new attorney general thinks that some portions of the Geneva Convention are quaint. President Bush personally approved shipping unnamed prisoners to undisclosed prisons in compliant Third World countries, where we can just keep them until they rot and beat them at will.
...
There are two problems with torture, besides the obvious one. One, it doesn't work. John McCain was tortured for six years, and never said a thing. Do you think that Islamic radicals believe in their cause less than John McCain believed in his? And here's the second problem: You can't be sure you're torturing the right guy. If someone says, "I don't know," and he really doesn't know, then you've spent a lot of precious torture time for nothing.
(emphasis added - Full Article Here)
Back in 1930's, the US Supreme Court held it a pure due process violation to use evidence secured by torture. The case involved a confession extracted from a black man using "standard interrogation methods." When the defense attorney asked what these were, the sheriff replied "We handcuffed him, hoisted him up to a tree branch by his wrists, and beat him until he confessed."
The sheriff believed folks so treated wouldn't confess unless they were guilty - and the trial court admitted the confession. Too bad those bleeding heart liberal judges kept out this valuable and trustworthy evidence.
