The Cheney “defense” to torture is that committing that crime enabled his henchmen to obtain information that “saved lives”. That may be, but probably is not, true. Of course, if we’re going to tote up lives saved, we also have to tote up lives lost to the terrorists our torture tactics created.
But today we find that in fact, Cheney wasn’t looking for facts, he was looking for cover. He ordered prisoners tortured to get evidence for something the CIA told him was not true: that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. There was no such link, but Cheney ordered more and more torture in order to get “evidence” for what he wanted to hear. We should also note in passing that we are not talking the “ticking time bomb” scenario here. The standard Cheney justification for torture-necessary in order to get information about an imminent attack-doesn’t apply.
The torture techniques employed were perfectly suited to get the evidence Cheney was seeking, since many of them were developed by the Communists to wring false confessions out of their prisoners. For my own part I’ve always believed that all forms of torture are designed to get false confessions, since generally speaking the torture only stops when the torturer hears what he wants to hear.
If true, and we all know in our hearts that this all these charges are true (and to prove it I suggest we waterboard Cheney and ask him) this is further proof that Cheney has committed war crimes of the highest order: he ordered people tortured in order to get them to lie. It is self evident that such lies will save no lives, though they may cost many lives, as they surely did. Even Cheney’s inadmissible defense is inapplicable to the case.
Let us hope that the organ that passes for Cheney’s heart keeps beating at least until the jury comes in with the guilty verdict and the prison door slams behind him.
UPDATE: I must respond to one of my right wing commenters, who claims that torturing helped foil a plot to bomb the Library Tower in Los Angeles. In order to accept that, one must accept the proposition that time goes backwards:
Some in the media have interpreted the memo’s statement that the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Mohammed “led to the discovery” of the Library Tower plot as evidence that the use of these tactics was necessary for intelligence officials to thwart the plot. But as Slate.com’s Timothy Noah noted on April 21, that claim conflicts with the “chronology” of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. For instance, in a February 9, 2006, White House press briefing that Noah cited, Bush homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend noted that Mohammed was not captured until more than a year after the individuals planning the Library Tower attacks had concluded that the plot had been “canceled.” Noah also noted that a May 23, 2007, Bush administration fact sheet stated that the administration “broke up” the Library Tower plot “in 2002” — before Mohammed was captured.
But I’ll say it again, using a timeworn cliche, the end doesn’t justify the means, particularly when one doesn’t know beforehand what end one is likely to reach. We are no more justified in torturing than Osama bin Laden is in killing innocent people in order to bring about his Caliphate. And I would ask my right wing friend, are our enemies allowed to torture our soldiers when they capture them?
One Comment