No-BrainersWhen you're given a choice between $1,000,000 tax-free and legal or eating a bowl of live scorpions, that's what you call a no-brainer. A choice so easy to make that even the most ignorant, toilet-water-drinking, low-grade moron would make the exact same decision because it's obvious which is the best choice.
There are choices that aren't that easy - "Should I spend my limited Holiday Movie Bucks on
King Kong, or take the kids to see
The Chronicles of Narnia? Or just buy the DVD of
Serenity and skip the theater entirely?" That's a little bit harder choice. "Do I save the
Mona Lisa from the fire, or do I save the old lady?" That's pretty damn implausible, but a difficult choice.
"To torture or not to torture."
That, my friends, is a no-brainer.
It's been known for centuries that torture doesn't really get anything useful in terms of confessions. There's no way to be sure that a victim has told everything or even told the truth. If the victim is innocent, they've been brutalized for nothing, and you've turned a possible ally into an implacable enemy. If they're guilty, they
might tell you everything, but they might also be holding out. They might be just strong-willed enough to resist the
thumbscrews and the
strappado and maybe even the
Spanish boot. There's no way to be sure, so best put them in the
Scavenger's daughter, just to be sure.
The limitations of torture are well-documented, and it's been used more as a means of intimidation by totalitarian regimes than as a legitimate means of gathering information in recent years. In fact, one of the post hoc reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein. Hussein had rape rooms, in which the mothers, wives and daughters of dissidents were raped, often in full view of their family members. Stories abound of Uday Hussein feeding victims into shredding machines feet-first. During the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, American soldiers were subjected to brutal treatment by their North Korean and Vietnamese captors. In our movies and TV, the use of torture is a clear indicator that a character or society is
bad. Our Constitution enshrines the principle that no man should be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment or deprived of due process. Two centuries of legal precedents have made it clear that we don't torture.
Now, though, in the black-is-white, ignorance-is-strength Orwellian world of the Bush mAdministration, we're having a
national debate over torture. Our elected government is, with an entirely straight face, insisting that it's
necessary to hold people without charge or trial, beat them, deprive them of sleep and food, let them sit in their own feces for days at a time, waterboard them - these are all OK, even if their victims are ultimately innocent, because we're fighting a
war.
We hear that torture
might be useful if we're in, say, a "ticking bomb" scenario where one guy has the information and we need to get it to save the city of New York.
Well, shit. I never watched
24, but I can tell you that those situations are pretty goddamn rare in the real world. As in, it's about as likely that Mt. St. Helens will spew molten chocolate.
Torture should be a no-brainer. No sane member of our society should have to spend more than a second making the decision. Hell, the answer ought to be out before the question's finished: "Hey - can we tortu-" "NO!"
This is the
21st fucking century, people. Not the Middle Ages. We're a modern, enlightened society - we've touched the goddamn moon, we've eradicated smallpox, we spent 50 years dancing on the precipice of nuclear war and
we didn't do it. We're better than this, and any politician or appointee that seriously suggests that torture is anything other than an abomination and a blight upon our culture ought to get strung up, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Speak up, people. Don't let the bastards ratfuck us like this.
Stop them, by
whatever means necessary.