BTK: works for me!

The defenders of torture have two talking points: (1) torturing people ‘works’ because sometimes you get what you want from it, like useful information; and (2) define ‘torture’.

Loathesome Lindsay Graham hammered away at these two themes during the Senate hearings yesterday on the infamous Bybee/Yoo memos, which gave sadistic thugs in the employ of the U.S. government carte blanche. Graham pestered a witness from Georgetown University on whether putting a spider in the cell of an arachnophobe would constitute ‘torture’.

This is reminiscent of the defense lawyers’ approach in the Rodney King police mayhem case, in which each parcel of the incident was separated from the whole and made to look innocuous, allowing the jury to succumb to its suburban prejudices and let the cops-gone-wild off the hook.

So if we slam a guy’s head against a ‘soft’ wall in his neck brace, then it doesn’t really sound much like torture, does it? (Brit Hume on Fox) Or if we make him stand up for a few hours, that’s nothing compared to what a cabinet secretary goes through (Donald Rumsfeld). Cold temperatures? Loud music? Oh, please! And on and on—the phrase ad nauseum really does fit here.

Another way to phrase or to answer the question would be, Would it be appropriate to treat a uniformed American solider by doing X? After all, he (or she) might have ‘actionable’ intelligence related to upcoming attacks that wartime enemies might very well feel entitled to extract, like info on bombing runs over Afghan villages that end up blowing a couple dozen locals to smithereens.

I keep asking myself how this torture debate is finally going to explode, and the possibilities are dizzying. G.I.s videotaped being subjected to these techniques? leading to the obvious question, On what basis do we object? Will the tapes Obama is now trying to suppress include child-rape scenes ?

You’d think the revelations about how torture led to the phony intelligence that led to the debacle in Iraq would have cooled enthusiasm for the practice. But the debasement of ethical discourse in our society is so advanced that the impact was minimal.

Condi Rice’s ex-employee Philip Zelikow had a chilling comment in yesterday’s hearing about the authority sought by Bush’s mob lawyers, noting that the powers claimed would enable Bush or a future president to apply exactly the same tactics to American citizens in U.S. territory. I have no doubt that his warning will prove prescient if the ongoing apologies for torture are not definitively uprooted and discredited.

The issue persists, and all appeals to ‘move on’ or ‘turn the page’ are pointless. A Nazi death-camp guard is being prosecuted just this week for his role in crimes against humanity from 70 years ago. Bybee and Yoo should take note.

Meanwhile, yesterday’s hearing was a good illustration of why we need a sober commission of inquiry to unearth the seamy mess. The undistinguished freshman senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, had a great opportunity to uncover and broadcast some important facts, but instead led FBI agent Ali Soufan through a series of yes/no set-up questions. The guy had plenty to discuss, but Whitehouse was more interested in getting his own screen time and couldn’t shut up.