There was some great discussion today on every topic despite general consensus of opinion. However, I will say that I still wonder: is it worse for us to contiue on in this hypocritical practice of hush-hush torture simply because every other country does it or is it worse for us to further alienate ourselves for the time being by stepping up and trying to regulate/clean up a self-inflicted wound?--not to mention David's great and terrifying point about the taking of any such steps risking the eventual collapse of the entire government. However, his point only then led me to wonder--really, if the Torture Warrant did its ideal job by lessening torture to the point of requiring a presidential thumbs-up, wouldn't those inflicting the torture be more careful about their methods to ensure no breach of "contract" in order to protect both themselves and the government at large? And even if something were to happen to the torture victims beyond what the president okay-ed, then wouldn't those inflicting the torture still be the ones held responsible for going too far -- thus providing that essential scapegoat always present to cushion the president's presidential behind. Then, of course, who can forget that beautiful option of impeachment? -- I hardly think the government would collapse just because of a single crappy presidential action (look around you, for goodness sake) because there is always another governmental entity/branch to fall back on and always the option of impeachment should the president him or herself be found responsible for the torture being taken too far.
David, and all, feel free to rip this apart as you please because I promise you, you know much better than the logistics and inner-workings of the government than I. I only thought that maybe this idea got a bit muddled amidst the general discussion over the morality of torture and its aftereffects on the people of the nation. Would a police officer really feel more justified in slapping a suspect around if suddenly not even the FBI was allowed to do so without the president him or herself giving a formal okay? Is it really a slap in the face to our allies if we attempt to set a new, however furiously unpopular, precedent of taking responsibility and getting our hands dirty to make an eventual amends? Would a torture warrant even be necessary if the torture in question was to be carried out as a method used during wartime? Would such an exception be held simply on foreign soil or also smack dab in America herself? All of these possibilities aren't even being brought up simply because of the touchiness of the subject but if the real problem with this is that we're too squeamish to talk about it -- how is it then that we as the American people can be so carefree about allowing it to happen willy-nilly?
Torture will occur whether we admit it or not, regulate it or not, but wouldn't at least a sort of confession and attempted changes to such a disgusting reality be better than this hush-hush degradation of human rights?
And let's not forget that ticking bomb scenario. A dead informant, after all, is the least helpful.
