- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,161
- Reaction score
- 1,373
- Location
- Here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
You got my quote mostly right; however, I don't agree that you've shown quite what you think you have. People accused of crimes have due process. The have rights. They can appeal. A wrong can even be righted. When we take someone and motor true them, there is no due process, no trial, no conviction, no appeal, no rights. It isn't punishment nor rehabilitation. It is brutality, and often ineffective brutality. Guards who brutalize convicted prisoners in our system break he law and in turn can be punished. When prisoners do so o other prisoners, they too can and should be held accountable. The behavior is defended by the system or those who govern prisons, not openly. And good people can take legal action. None if that describes what we have done with torture. Even in the face of learning we tortured or allowed others to torture innocent people, we still have people defending the indefensible.
No, I don't buy that there is any comparison to those convicted of crimes.
I'll tell you this as well, something I learned from an old first Sargent that I think has proven true. We do those who torture an injustice. Solders have to home and live with what thy do. I was discussing this recently with a vet who told me he participated in such acts, and felt they were right. We discussed the effect on him. He listen, talked, and eventually admitted he didn't sleep well, and that his wife worried about him. We do them no favors, and there are more effective ways.
Btw, I'd worry more about those who felt nothing while brutalizing another human being.
The concept of due process itself is subjective. Let's just say for a moment that we bring Taliban POWs back to American soil to be tried in American courts. Well, who gives us the right to remove them from their homeland? And what if they don't recognize the authority of the American courts? "Due Process" is a construct of law that is supposed to equally apply the law to all... but what if the laws themselves are unjust, or the treatment received after receiving due process? And what about the glaring fact that, even in our own country, some get more due process than others? The entire system that is the basis of your argument crumbles under scrutiny, because human beings are imperfect. Prison guards get away with breaking their own rules every single hour of every single day, because the only witnesses to their actions are deemed "uncredible". And to really drive the point home, every single law enforcement officer in this country is imbued with a certain amount of discretionary authority - they can choose to bring someone in or let them go, based on whatever information the officer has (or doesn't have) at that time. You can be arrested for noncompliance with a police command, or for a minor infraction that carries no jail time with it, or even over a case of mistaken identity(!), and your only recourse is to go with the officer and sort it out later... because, if you do resist that "unjust" and unlawful arrest, THAT is actually a crime, for which you can be punished! It's a crazy world we live in.
But once someone has gone through this due process of law, what then? Is solitary confinement suddenly not emotionally scarring, because that person got there through due process? Actually, now that I mention it, solitary confinement is at the discretion of the Warden... which means there is no due process for that specific sentence. Due process can land someone in prison, but what happens to them once they are there is largely discretionary. But I digress. What about due process on the battlefield? If egalitarian practice is the cornerstone of due process, why can't the Rules Of Engagement be used as "law", and satisfy the code of due process if equally applied to all?
I'll say again, I think the fact that some of the less savory techniques we have are so effective is very unfortunate. I cannot condone their use... but I also cannot condone time-sensitive intelligence to rot in an enemy combatant's brain if people are going to die. I'm glad I've never been in the situation where I had to perform such acts, but a part of me, however small, is grateful for the fact that someone is there to commit such acts if necessary.
Now we can argue what constitutes "necessary" all day long!