Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelafemme
Hi AJ,
I'm a little confused about the portion I highlighted in blue. Cruelty and torture have long been a systemic means of coercion and oppression utilized not only by our Armed Forces but by hegemonic powers by in large since the beginning of time.
More later...gotta go pick up the kiddos  |
When I was in the military we were taught that if we captured the enemy whatever else we might do we do NOT torture. Ever. It is a war crime. If given an order to torture, it was our *duty* to refuse to carry out the order and support our superior to the next in the chain of command and, if possible, relieve the officer giving that order of his command because giving an illegal order is prima facie evidence that one is unfit for command. Has torture been used by nation-states and by monarchs before them? Yes. However, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is quite clear on the matter of torture. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and by Constitutional mandate we are *obliged* to conform to it.
George Washington, who explicitly forbade torture, had it right. If we torture their people, they can torture our people. They might torture our people even if we do not torture theirs but if we torture theirs we make it a near certainty that our people will be tortured.
My saying that there was a time when torture was considered out-of-bounds does not mean that torture did not happen anymore than saying that murder is out-of-bounds means that murder never happens. But it was once the case that any commander who gave his troops an order to torture would have been relieved of command. There was a time when we, the American people, would have demanded the impeachment of any elected official who signed off on torture. It was once the case that we prided ourselves, we differentiated ourselves, by our NOT torturing.
Cheers
Aj