The Torturous States
by Jorge Vargas
Argentina's government in the 1970s and 1980s, like that of Chile in the same period, and of Brazil's some years earlier, and even of Peru's in the 1970s, practiced torture on its citizens without hesitation. There are reports of beatings, of electric torture, of fingers being burned with lighters. Individuals - with bricks tied to their feet - were later on flown into the Atlantic on helicopters and thrown out into the ocean to drown. The executions were done without regard for whether or not the individual had confessed of one crime or another. Once a subversive, always a subversive.
The Germans in the 1940s carried out similar campaigns of brutality on their concentration camp prisoners, and the conquering U.S. and Soviet troops later took the results of these tortures and learned quite a bit about the human anatomy from them.
Peru, this writer's home, is, as previously stated, no stranger to torture. Former President Alberto Fujimori was once so disappointed with his wife for speaking out about his government's corrupt dealings - they were taking donated items from Japan and selling them in the markets - that he locked her up in the basement of the Presidential Palace and had her tortured.
I will not here present the argument that all torture is bad. Such an action can not be measured, necessarily, in terms of 'good' and 'bad.' That is too black and white.
In certain - but, certainly, so few that such a context has not occurred in at least 60 years - military contexts - though certainly not in any of those named above - torture may be a military necessity. That, naturally, does not mean that it is a 'good' thing for that would be to extrapolate a false meaning from one's words. It does mean, however, that there are instances - oh so very few - in which a military's objectives can only be met through the torture of an armed enemy. I will not get into the game of semantics that U.S. government officials, bureaucrats, and military personnel are so adept at - I am not of the school of 'acts of genocide' nor of 'enemy combatants.'
The United States, however, has frequently chastised other governments - especially those of the Middle East and of Latin America - for what it sees as an illegal violation of United Nations agreements against acts of torture, to say nothing of the Geneva Convention.
But, currently, the United States is engaged in its own 'war,' which it is waging against subversive elements hiding out in remote - and not-so-remote - parts of our small Earth. The United States has engaged in direct military action against non-military groups that, history has proven, would be best dealt with utilizing police counter-subversive activity - but that is another argument - and it has engaged in torture against some of these 'enemy combatants,' to utilize the language of Mr. George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush and his cronies who control the upper echelons of U.S. power have accepted, condoned, and quite obviously ordered the U.S. military to torture individuals who are, technically prisoners of war and should thus be protected by the Geneva Conventions. After all, that is what the United States has argued when other countries tried to pull the same stunts. But when the hegemon is acting, things change. Now, of course, these are captured enemy combatants, not prisoners of war - the glories of language, right, Mr. Bush?
Those individuals who would protect these U.S. actions argue that this is the necessity of war. They point to images of 9/11 and argue that it will happen again if torture is not used. After all, the terrorists might be telling the U.S. military about future attacks, if tortured. How could I have been so blind? Of course, I had forgotten the results!
I will not get caught up in the philosophical arguments for and against torture. I will, instead, write as a human. If there is knowledge of an impending attack that will cost thousands of lives, then a government should be able to employ all methods possible to stop that attack on its citizens. However, if that government tortures without any substantial evidence that it is doing so in order to prevent the deaths of civilians, then that government is being nearly as criminal as the terrorists.
Furthermore, a government should only resort to such a method in the case of utmost danger. Rumors and hearsay and Tom Clancy theories are not enough evidence to equal a situation of 'utmost danger.'
If a government does not know when such a situation is actually about to occur, and if a people is unwilling to define such a time - and in the U.S. instance today, both of these conditions are met - then a government can not possible undertake the power to dominate human life and degrade humans to a level befitting the lowest forms of Earthly life. Failure to respect the lives of enemies will lead to a loss of respect for all human life.
Now, it is quite possible that the U.S. government has already lost respect for all human life - certainly, U.S. government actions in the Third World and disregard for the plight of the urban poor, along with those infected with HIV/AIDS would attest to such a claim - but, at present, we must assume that the U.S. government still has some humanity left, so we can hold them to a humane maxim.
Now, this is not an absolute. If there is undeniable evidence that civilians are about to be killed en masse, and one of the would-be perpetrators has been captured, then do whatever is necessary to stop the attack. But, so far, the U.S. has not made any claim that such a thing has occurred in its defense, and we can not assume for them. We will not be their apologizers.
And, in the meantime, if the government of those United States that so arrogantly and shamelessly flaunt the laws of humanitarianism continues to torture prisoners of war - let's drop linguistic pretensions, Mr. Bush - then it must cease to condemn others and to apply its insulting double standard on the world. Either you are a humanitarian or you are not. If the United States will choose to flaunt legality, then fine. No one in the world seems to be interested enough to stop the U.S. So, fine.
But let's not have any pretensions nor any self-righteous declarations.
These military actions against the subversives that the United States of America is engaged in is no more a defense for democracy than were the tortures of the Argentine junta in the 1980s. At least the Argentines kept false claims to a minimum. Combatants are defined by the outcome of the combat, to be sure, but they are also defined by the manner in which they fought.
Some fight with principles, courage, and honor. Others fight with self-righteousness and shamelessly, clouding their actions with webs of deception, fancy words, and, quite frankly, hypocrisy. The government of the United States has most certainly destined its nation - at least for the time being - to belong to the latter category, which is precisely where the terrorists belong as well.
So, really, who can judge whom?
