Waterboarding is Illegal: A Blind Step in the Right Direction
The US Justice Department has finally indicated that the torture technique known as waterboarding has been eliminated from what is now legally allowed for use during prisoner interrogations.
"The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding," said Steven Bradbury, acting head Legal Counsel of the Justice Department. He added, "There has been no determination…that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law."
We must applaud this decision which appears to have been made based upon the moral outcry of many people in the US and the world. The decision comes in spite of some senior officials of the Bush Administration who fully support the use of this and other torture techniques. It is very discouraging that the impact of waterboarding and other forms of torture and Human Rights abuses are still not being considered with respect to their detrimental effect on the Global War on Terror.
It is important to understand that the actual perpetrators of terrorist and guerrilla attacks make up only a very small percentage of any society. The socio-political networks that help them consist of active supporters, sympathizers, and neutral people. By far, the largest proportions of people are in the sympathizer and neutral categories that need only ignore terrorist or guerrilla activities in order to support them. Every time the US allows a prisoner to be tortured, we decrease our rapidly weakening moral position in the eyes of the world. At best, this actually reduces the motivation for neutral portions of the population to stay neutral. At worst, this increases the ranks of active enemy supporters and sympathizers. In other words, the use of torture at the tactical level works against us at the strategic level.
The strategy for winning an insurgent conflict specifically requires that we win over the people to our cause. We can only win an insurgency if we can truly erode the enemy’s support networks by taking away his legitimacy in the eyes of the population. The catch is that legitimacy must be transferred over to the local government and any foreign governments/forces supporting it. If we are successful on both counts, the active insurgent eventually has nowhere to hide, nowhere to get support, and cannot continue the fight without great risk of compromise and destruction.
Until it becomes the norm for the US to shun any form of torture or Human Rights abuse, we will not gain any moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world—and especially in the eyes of our enemies and their supporters. For any form of genuine peace and stability to develop, the people must have the opportunity choose who they support based upon the basic needs, safety, and security that the government provides. Lasting peace and stability will not be established if they must base their choices upon which government they fear the least.
"The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding," said Steven Bradbury, acting head Legal Counsel of the Justice Department. He added, "There has been no determination…that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law."
We must applaud this decision which appears to have been made based upon the moral outcry of many people in the US and the world. The decision comes in spite of some senior officials of the Bush Administration who fully support the use of this and other torture techniques. It is very discouraging that the impact of waterboarding and other forms of torture and Human Rights abuses are still not being considered with respect to their detrimental effect on the Global War on Terror.
It is important to understand that the actual perpetrators of terrorist and guerrilla attacks make up only a very small percentage of any society. The socio-political networks that help them consist of active supporters, sympathizers, and neutral people. By far, the largest proportions of people are in the sympathizer and neutral categories that need only ignore terrorist or guerrilla activities in order to support them. Every time the US allows a prisoner to be tortured, we decrease our rapidly weakening moral position in the eyes of the world. At best, this actually reduces the motivation for neutral portions of the population to stay neutral. At worst, this increases the ranks of active enemy supporters and sympathizers. In other words, the use of torture at the tactical level works against us at the strategic level.
The strategy for winning an insurgent conflict specifically requires that we win over the people to our cause. We can only win an insurgency if we can truly erode the enemy’s support networks by taking away his legitimacy in the eyes of the population. The catch is that legitimacy must be transferred over to the local government and any foreign governments/forces supporting it. If we are successful on both counts, the active insurgent eventually has nowhere to hide, nowhere to get support, and cannot continue the fight without great risk of compromise and destruction.
Until it becomes the norm for the US to shun any form of torture or Human Rights abuse, we will not gain any moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world—and especially in the eyes of our enemies and their supporters. For any form of genuine peace and stability to develop, the people must have the opportunity choose who they support based upon the basic needs, safety, and security that the government provides. Lasting peace and stability will not be established if they must base their choices upon which government they fear the least.
posted by Matt Rowe at 2:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home