Posted by Damozel | TPM has an article which contains a portion of an interview with Retired General James 'Spider' Marks, Romney's pick for National Security Adviser. The quote comes from a November 8, 2005 interview. Marks, a CNN analyst, acknowleged that he would torture a prisoner 'in a heartbeat' to try to get information to save a soldier or a civilian even though:
- He is convinced that with the majority of prisoners it doesn't work.
- He thinks it should be illegal.
And by 'torture' he doesn't mean wimpy 'aggressive interrogation techniques' such as waterboarding and 'head-slapping' which the Bush Administration seems to think don't really cross the line. By 'torture' the former interrogation teacher and CNN consultant evidently meant a knife in the leg. And now that he's no longer an analyst for CNN, he's Romney's pick for National Security Adviser.
Here's what he said during a November 8, 2005 interview: I've been telling myself that I've read it wrong, that it is quoted out of context, that it didn't mean when he said it what it now seems clearly to mean to me when I read it. But in case I've got that wrong, I've put the parts I like best in bold because, General, I've seen that movie too.
TOM FOREMAN (voice-over): If you could save the life of a soldier, rescue the hostage children; stop the next terrorist bomb by torturing a prisoner for information, would you do it?
JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I'd stick a knife in somebody's thigh in a heartbeat.
FOREMAN (on camera): Retired General "Spider" Marks, a CNN consultant, worked for U.S. Army Intelligence, teaching interrogation.
MARKS: The kinds of enemies we're fighting have no sense of right or wrong. They will go to any depths to achieve their ends.
FOREMAN: Do we have to go with them?
MARKS: We don't need to go with them. We need to preclude them from going there. And that might include some use of torture in order to prevent it.
FOREMAN (voice-over): Polls have shown that more than 60 percent of Americans think torture can sometimes be justified. But here is the catch. Experts, including General Marks, are convinced with the vast majority of prisoners, it just doesn't work.(TPM; emphasis added)
In addition to thinking it doesn't work---I'm going her by Foreman's quoted statement---he does think it's wrong. Unless, of course, some military operative decides it is necessary. In which case it's wrong and yet...necessary.
FOREMAN: ...So in your experience and in your view, torture as a policy should be against the law?
MARKS: True.
FOREMAN: And yet, we might still have to use it.
MARKS: True.(TPM; emphasis added)
So do you remember that film? It's the one where the good, honorable, but ruthless military maverick has to bend the law that pettifogging officialdom lives by in order to save the day---and it works! And the bad guy bleeds to death and we're okay with that because everything we've seen of him is bad and he totally deserves it. And there are no consequences to us or to our way of living or thinking because the film ends with families reunited, the hero redeemed, and the spirits of the dead who stand in for us flying up to Heaven. We don't get to see the way in which disregard for the rule of law undermines our freedom, our way of life, and our identity of Americans.
It's not that I don't understand Marks' point: he doesn't think torture should be official government policy, but that he as an individual would break the law in exigent circumstances in order to save a life. In other words, he thinks it is the prerogative of the solitary hero to commit this transgression in circumstances when he considers it necessary. And naturally when we hear this, we put ourselves in the place of the hostages or of their families----in other words, in the state of mind where human beings are most vulnerable to the urge to ignore the rule of law and behave in the manner encoded in our genes.
Of course a society crosses that line at its peril. If we allow ourselves to respond as our nature prompts us rather than in the manner dictated by the rule of law we make compromises from which we can never as a society fully recover. Each transgression makes the next one easier to rationalize. It's cleaner, more efficient, more expedient to treat human beings as means to an end rather than ends in themselves when their interests are violently opposed to ours. And each time you do it, you lay the groundwork for the next transgression. To be a civilized, you have to know that expediency never trumps humanity and that your worst enemy is a human being just like you and that the infliction of violence never leads to anything but the need to inflict more violence.
To me, the torture issue is an easy one; you don't do it because you don't do it because it's wrong because it's illegal because it violates international law because civilized nations don't do it because it's wrong because it's wrong. Wrong morally, philosophically, ethically, humanly, humanely, christianly, spiritually, essentially, theoretically, and categorically.
William Quinn, a 25 year old interrogator who has actually been in the position of having to get crucial information from enemy operatives wrote a piece suggesting that there may be better---as in more effective---ways to get information from people who don't wish to give it up. The piece, very fittingly, is called "Never Forget Our Enemies are Human Too." Quinn writes:
In my meetings with detainees, it was often hard for me to understand how the calm and pleasant person with whom I was speaking could have committed the brutal acts to which he confessed. I couldn't help but wince every time I heard an American refer to the people we were fighting as "barbaric" or "inhuman." I had learned never to dehumanize my enemy, but to maintain a concrete understanding of him as a human being. That realization helped me understand that I was every bit as capable as they were of committing their crimes.
It is true that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are wrong. The world cannot be perfected in the name of a political ideology or Islam or any other religion. Even if it can be, I am certain that perfection will not be achieved through violence. Nonetheless, a person's involvement in an organization that practices terrorism does not put him or her beyond our comprehension. They are still people with similar wants and fears.
Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, we've succeeded in killing a lot of people. We've invaded two countries, captured thousands of terrorists, and set up new, democratic-style governments in place of the dictatorships we ousted. It has been an incredibly therapeutic six years -- at least it felt good at the beginning -- but it hasn't been effective at stopping or even slowing terrorism.
The people who decide our counterterrorism strategy are far better informed than I, but I suspect that, when we are successful, it will be because we recognize our enemies as human and develop plans that recognize their humanity. We need to be tough, and we shouldn't back down from a fight, but we also need to learn that empathy can be as powerful a weapon as missiles.(Detroit Free Press)
Why are we even having this discussion, anyway? How can we have regressed so far or let fear undermine our principles to the extent that it has? When did saving our skins become more important than the values that made the country great? When did we authorize our leaders to pursue the policy of cowardice (because it's giving in to fear, not fear itself, that makes people throw away their principles)? And if we no longer put decency and respect for the humanity of others before all other concerns, even our own darkest fears, can we fairly claim for ourselves the greatness of the brave people of previous generations?
Of the Republican frontrunners, the only one who has the right attitude toward torture is, of course, the only one who understands what it means first hand John McCain. And while it's still too early to know, it doesn't look as if McCain is going to be able to defeat Rudy, even if he is able to make a comeback against Romney.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS:
I say 'Torture'; You Say 'Harsh Interrogation Techniques'.... (Updated)
"Aggressive Interrogation Techniques" Part 2 (ATTN: Republican Candidates).
"Aggressive Interrogation Techniques" versus The American Way.
More Secret & Illegal Maneuvering re: the Administration's Use of Torture
Tales of Repression in Burma; First Lady Laura Bush Takes a Stand
General Says Rumsfeld Misled Congress re: Abu Ghraib
Colin Powell Calls for Closing of Guantanamo
Senate Takes Swipe at Secret CIA Prisons, Seeks to Learn What Bush Knew Before Invading Iraq
LINKED
Never Forget Our Enemies are Human Too (Detroit Free Press)
Romney's New National Security Adviser Said He'd Torture 'In a Heartbeat' (TPM)
Comments