The facts
Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.
Counterarguments
His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:
- This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
- Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
- Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
- Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
- Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
- It wasn’t torture.
- It was perfectly legal.
- Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
- In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.
My thoughts
- So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
- I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
- Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
- This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
- This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you. - I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.) - On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
- We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
- I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.
This article was also published on OpEdNews.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Critical Reader // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Your arguments are all intellectual, based on concepts, not in any way based on how things operate in the real world. Your devotion to intellectualism has to have an equal foundation in the real world and how things work, not how you wish they would work.
2 Zak Maymin // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Would you care to explain? Am I not allowed to criticize something happening in the real world because it’s happening in the real world? We have corrupt politicians in the real world who act against the Constitution, we should just accept it?
And what does it mean “intellectual arguments” as oppose to arguments based on how the real world operate? Should I give the names of the people from the real world with whom I argue? I do. Shoud I give the references for all the facts? I do. Should I use logic and try to be rational in my arguments? I do.
So give me an example of the real world argument. I hope you don’t mean the argument that starts with “the majority people agree,” because it really doesn’t matter, or with “the reality is,” tha phrase that everybody uses on TV and that means nothing, except of the implicit insult.
I’ve heard O’Really when he loses his arguments with his opponents often say that they use intellectual arguments, it’s all theoretical, as oppose to himself, who’s arguments are based on how the real world operates. I hope you mean something different.
I am really curious.
3 Zak Maymin // Apr 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm
6 COMMENTS FROM OPEDNEWS.COM
I would even go further
Obama said: “For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.” But why not?
Nuremberg Principle IV states:
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
by Zak Maymin
_____________
one comment
all it takes for evil to suceed is for a few good men to be silent.A famous quote and an honest one.if we are silent about torture it will continue and include us next time.
by liberalsrock
____________
Reply: We are already included
They read our emails, listen to our conversations, and follow our cells without warrants. Plus we learned that the Homeland Security consider us – be it conservatives, or Ron Paul followers, or veterans, or just people who don’t like the big government – as terrorists or potential terrorists.
For some reason what scares me the most is the fact that Homeland Security is going to save $52 million in office supplies. In freaking office supply!
by Zak Maymin
_____________
A Buick is not a car
One often hears that America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
But this is completely wrong. A constitutional republic is a type of democracy.
You have only to ask yourself, how are the representatives in a constitutional republic selected?
A: They are selected democratically.
Thus, to say America is not a democracy is like saying a Buick is not a car.
by Perry Logan
________________
Reply: Ah, semantic wordplay
There’s a difference between a democratically elected republic and a pure democracy, and you know it. It’s the same way there is a difference between a school bus and a prison bus. Yeah, they’re both buses. Yeah, a republic is a type of democracy where democracy is interpreted broadly to mean any kind of political institution where people have some kind of vote about something. But by that interpretation, even shareholders and company bylaws are all a type of democracy. But the word has no interesting meaning.
In this context, the author’s point #4 is that we elect representatives, we don’t vote on issues. And therefore the representatives have a duty to make the right decision, even if it means disagreeing with the majority of their constituents.
In a democracy, the majority can vote to kill the minority and the only ones responsible are the voters. In a republic, if the elected officials vote to kill the minority, under the claim that that’s what the majority wants, they are still the ones morally responsible (in addition to the majority).
Try driving a Buick where every passenger gets a vote on whether to turn left or right, and then you’ll know the difference between electing a driver and voting for every speed bump.
by Man B. Free
___________
A carriage is a car…
… because it has wheels.
Our Constitutional Republic has similarity to democracy in using democratic process to elect representatives to pass new laws. The critical difference is in the Constitution limiting the powers of the government and protecting individual liberties.
Our founders feared a purely democratic government. They knew that “a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” (Alexander Taylor?)
The Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and our constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not mention the word “democracy”.
Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:
In a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “… that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Chief Justice John Marshall observed,
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
By Zak Maymin
__________
4 Lady Freedom // Apr 30, 2009 at 4:20 am
I couldn’t break away from reading this. I wish there were other articles to go to that are like this one. Great post, great comments.
Really alive and invigorating.
5 Moral Freedom // May 12, 2009 at 12:56 am
Would you please post more articles? I would like to read more like ‘the mathematical proof that this is right or that is wrong’ or the ‘nine ways…’ I like these. Thank you.
6 randall // Mar 27, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I hope I wasn’t the only person to notice that in the line:
” This is a politically motivated which hunt.”
“which” is used incorrectly and should have been “witch.”
7 Zak Maymin // Mar 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Thanks, Randall. Corrected.
8 Ryan Phil 150 // May 17, 2011 at 10:43 pm
I tend to favor strongly-worded anti-torture legislation without exceptions. But I don’t buy some of the arguments you put forward.
Who gets actually prosecuted and convicted is of course a consideration. The most important function of any such law is as a statement of societal values and morals.
On one end are those who think torture is wrong, no matter what. It is an absolute moral judgment, and no necessity defense is allowed. Torturing one person to save a billion is just plain wrong.
Most are basically admitting it is an empirical question. If it is reasonable for us to symbolically ban all torture always, it is also reasonable to symbolically acknowledge the possibility of doing whatever it takes to protect us against an extreme event like nuclear explosions killing millions. Aside from the legal necessity defense, we can ask if we are willing to publicly set the stage morally for a necessity defense. You don’t have to be pro-torture to wonder about that.
Leave a Comment