Dick Cheney reminds me of The Penguin from Batman. Okay, enough of that.
You probably read in the news that documents were released yesterday about the CIA interrogation techniques under the Cheney administration. Er, the Bush administration. A very long document very short: There were a few instances of suspects being threatened with power drills, staged executions, threats to kill suspects children, etc. A multitude of Geneva Convention and Human Rights violations. These were isolated incidents, but eye-opening nonetheless.
Dick Cheney has come out now and said that the documents released Monday "clearly demonstrated that the individuals subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided the bulk of intelligence ... [that] saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks." He uses this information to plant the seeds about why "so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."
Okay. Here we go. Rant time. First off, this seems like a simple dichotomy: Obama's view of Ends-do-NOT-Justify-the-Means vs. Cheney's view of Ends-Most-Definitely-Justify-the-Means. Simple enough, right?
No. Cheney is using a very old and very SUCCESSFUL argument tactic. He so quickly and confidently associates the lack of a terrorist attack since 9/11 as evidential proof that threatening people with power drills and fake shooting the prisoner next door in the chest was the root cause of WHY we weren't attacked again. The problem is a common one. People tend to blur the distinction between Correlation and Causation. Cheney is trying to assert that those harsh interrogation techniques CAUSED a lack of terrorist attacks. But its not possible to prove that. There is a CORRELATION at best. There's also a correlation between Cheney's harsh interrogation techniques and my lack of any cavities from 2001-2009. With Cheney's logic - the torture is directly responsible for my lack of cavities. Only that's ridiculous. But is it really any more ridiculous than what Cheney is saying?
I guess that's up to you. DO the ends justify the means? Personally, I say no. Even IF (and that's a big 'if') you proved that torturing someone directly prevented a terrorist attack - dirty means cheapen the resulting ends. We still have a proud free country at the end of the day. Its just a little less proud. And a little less free.
3 comments:
great insight w/correlation and causation - one of my favorites; and luckily enough XKCD put in his 2cents too:
http://xkcd.com/552/
were these Geneva convention violations? i thought these were the detainees -- who were not legal combatants and thus not afforded POW status.
==========
Aside from this, I'm seeing a disturbing trend to label all unpleasant conditions as "torture." I, myself, have remarked after a long road trip "aaaaghh, these car seats are TORTURE!! get me out of here!" Alas, I am quite certain this does not entitle me to remunerations from HONDA under the 4th convention.
Hearing a gun shot in an adjacent cell? Enduring sleep deprivation? Listening to questions in an impolite tone or at high volume? If these are 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, what does the 'standard' suite of options include?
We just snatched some of them out of their homes, others were just handed to us by local informants with only their word to go on. I think that earns them a FEW rights. Its not liked we picked them up on the battlefield and they just weren't wearing uniforms. Spooks just nabbed them and extradited them. No, they probably don't qualify as POWs - but that's a moral distinction that the Bush administration decided on. Sorta ridiculous to just say "eh, we'll just lock them up without charges or a trial forever because we decided to call them a fancy new term we just made up." They're still humans (although possibly shitty evil ones) and we were a civilized western nation last I check and throwing people in dark rooms and throwing away keys wasn't what we're about.
I will agree about how the term "torture" has gotten out of hand. There's a middle ground to be had here - we do need information and we do have to interrogate, but there are limits to what we can do. That's why we're "Good People" and they're "terrorists." I'm less concerned about interrogation techniques as much as the indefinite detention without Habius Corpus.
My main gripe was just that Cheney is so quick to assume he saved the country from something that probably wasn't going to happen anyway. He's a resentful, hateful soul with few morals and I don't want him to have clout with anyone. He had his day(s) in several administrations, and its time for him and his bullshit to go away. There's a legitimate problem to debate here and people like him blurring the facts aren't helping. There's enough fear to go around without his help.
I would be hard pressed to find ANYTHING that Cheney saved the country from...
maybe unity?
Post a Comment