Torture Seeps Into Discussion by News Media: ‘…(A) growing number of voices in the mainstream news media (are) raising, if not necessarily agreeing with, the idea of torturing terrorism suspects or detainees who refuse to talk.’
Some human rights advocates say they do not mind theoretical discussions about torture, as long as disapproval is expressed at the end. But they say that weighing the issue as a real possible course of action could begin the process of legitimizing a barbaric form of interrogation.
Journalists are approaching the subject cautiously. But some said last week they were duty-bound to address it when suspects and detainees who have refused to talk could have information that could save thousands of lives. Plus, they added, torture is already a topic of discussion in bars, on commuter trains, and at dinner tables. And lastly, they said, well, this is war.
NY Times [via Abby]
It seems the discussion contemplating torture is couched entirely in moral relativistic terms, of considering the acceptability of acts no matter how heinous if one can frame them as preventing even greater evils. Are there no courses of potential action that cross some absolute line of incompatibility with whatever remains of our humanity?
And then there’s this, from Geov Parrish:
Does anybody in this country get it?
Does anybody understand what the United States is on the verge of doing?
Experienced, respected food aid organizations warn that even before the bombing of Afghanistan began on October 7, some 7,500,000 Afghans were — through a gut-wrenching combination of poverty, drought, war, dislocation, and repression — at risk of starving to death this winter. When the bombing began, almost all delivery of food from the outside world stopped. Now, roads and bridges are destroyed, millions more people are dislocated, and the snow is steadily approaching from higher elevations and from the north.
For weeks, aid organizations, along with voices from throughout the region, have been begging the United States to call off its bombing campaign, at least for long enough so that aid agencies can conduct the massive transfer of food into and throughout Afghanistan that is necessary to prevent death on a scale the world has not seen in a long, long time. On our newscasts, it’s politely referred to as a “humanitarian crisis.” That’s a euphemism that makes “collateral damage” seem humane.
Seven and a half million people at risk of dying in a matter of months. That’s three times the number of people Pol Pot took years to kill. Thirty-five times the number that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined. If 5,000 died on September 11 (a number that reports are now suggesting is vastly inflated), we’re talking the equivalent number of deaths to ten World Trade Centers, every day, for 150 days. Slow, painful deaths. Entirely avoidable deaths. Deaths whose sole cause is not the United States, but most of which can still be prevented — except that the United States is refusing to allow them to be prevented.
It repulses me to say this, but I suspect a lot of Americans don’t care. They’d rather see the United States “get” Osama bin Laden (though there’s no actual evidence that we’re any closer to that today than we were two months ago, and probably the task is harder as he becomes more popular and protected). A lot of people in this country do not care that a staggering number of innocent people are on the verge of being condemned to death, or that most of the world will blame the United States. Correctly. workingforchange [via AlterNet via wood s lot]
