The 2008 Election: A Vote on Torture
by Emily Meldra
The 2008 elections are still around a year away, but the race to the finish is already in full force. The front-runners of both parties have emerged dynamically and relentlessly to self-promote themselves along the campaign trail, making sure they are seen and heard at every politically advantageous opportunity, and testing the waters in the battleground states, hoping to emerge victorious. In the aggressive environment of the modern presidential race, every moment matters, with every position scrutinized, reviewed and torn to pieces. With the information (and misinformation) overload of today's world, the average voter has a new wealth of resources to turn to in considering who deserves the vote.
In spite of all the irrelevant nastiness, nitpicking and trash-talking leading up to the presidential race, a few real issues always make it to the forefront of American awareness and worldwide attention. In recent months, American endorsement of torture has become an unnerving undertone to the constant debate surrounding Iraq and the ever elusive "War on Terror."
As this administration's term draws to a close, it has become clearer that while the American government certainly seems to endorse torture (despite repeated denial), the American people do not. Americans are in favor of a return to a more traditional reading of Constitutional rights, disallowing torture, reinstating habeas corpus and requiring warrants before listening in on phone conversations, according to a recent ACLU study conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart. Both the average democratic voter and the average republican voter overwhelmingly disagree with the current U.S. stance on torture.
The use of torture has massive political implications, not to mention the human and cultural connotations of such cruel interrogation methods. The endorsement of practices typically linked to countries with flexible constitutions and dubitable human rights records puts our country in an even worse light than the one it has been facing since the Iraq War. The rest of the world has come to see America as a self-centered, stubborn, thoroughly ignorant nation, focused on expanding its sphere of influence in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons.
There was a time when America was a pillar of morality (true morality, not religious zealotry), supporting international cooperation, denouncing secret prisons and upholding a consistent doctrine of values. Today this has all fallen to shame. The Bush administration continues to redefine the definition of torture until U.S. actions abroad are within the tenuous bounds of legality. Just because an activity leaves no physical marks, there is plenty of scientific evidence attesting to the emotional and psychological effects of prolonged torture.
Documentation is slowly emerging proving U.S. engagement in questionable interrogation methods. And while the administration has recently scaled back such operations under strong scrutiny, a certain ambiguity remains. Bush's recent nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, has been hedging questions about the legality of waterboarding in recent Senate hearings, suggesting his tacit approval of the administration's actions. Many of the presidential candidates have been similarly coy about their positions on torture, perhaps fearing being labeled as weak on terror so early in the game.
A recent New York Times op-ed succinctly asked, "Is this really who we are?" Has our national sense of morality really degraded to such a degree that we can overlook this callous disregard for human life? Despite the general agreement that torture leads to coerced confessions, and that little worthwhile intelligence is gathered through the US' "progressively aggressive" interrogation techniques, our administration stampedes onward, ruining our international image and jeopardizing the safety of our armed forces abroad. Doubtless, some of the detainees stuck in Guantanamo have probably committed crimes, but let's prosecute them the American way, with a trial, the right to a defense and a fair shot at "innocent until proven guilty."
Waging a war of terror to fight terror is not only counterproductive but cruel, embarrassing and inhumane. Elections are around the corner, and with them the American people have the chance to ask for better. As the debates continue, it is the right and duty of the citizenry to demand clear answers to clear questions about the future of American practices regarding torture. We have jeopardized too much in the way of international reputation and human dignity to remain on this destructive path. Before voting next November, remember that on rare issues like torture, the purposeful infliction of pain on another human being, there really is a right and a wrong answer. Let's make our candidates accountable for maintaining basic standards of human rights.
