Letters to NYT on torture editorial
The New York Times today has an interesting series of letters in response to their Editorial On Torture and American Values [see also my comment]:
To the Editor:
Your Oct. 7 editorial “On Torture and American Values” is exactly right. How much longer must we suffer the defilement of our nation’s honor, the desecration of our most cherished ideals? Let us become once again the people we really are.
Adequate words are lacking to express how necessary it is for us, as a nation, to face what we have done, to stop all cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture by our own government, to close all the loopholes, all the secret prisons, all the facilities that shame us, like the one at Guantánamo Bay. Not least, all the dissembling in high places that makes these shocking abuses possible must be brought to an end. George Hunsinger
Princeton, N.J., Oct. 7, 2007
The writer is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
To the Editor:
“On Torture and American Values” lets Congress off the hook too easily regarding the torture and secret detention program. As with the Iraq war, many Republicans and Democrats were and still are willing to be misled (or claim to have been so) rather than appear to be perceived as weak on terrorism.
Sadly, Congress by its actions and inactions is the handmaiden of the torture program. Despite the publicly revealed memos authorizing torture and the testimony of its widespread use, Congress, even under the Democrats, has yet to hold even one hearing regarding the responsibility of high administration officials. Perhaps had it done so, the administration would not have felt emboldened to continue the program.
Instead, Congress affirmatively aided the torture program. Examples abound: removing habeas corpus from detainees and failing in its restoration (habeas is key to protecting against torture — lawyers and courts have access to detainees); granting amnesty to officials who may have violated the torture and war crimes provisions of our law; allowing a defense for future abusers if they relied upon legal advice; authorizing the president to redefine cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and permitting the use of evidence derived from torture and coercion.
Now with the nomination of a new attorney general, Congress again has an opportunity to make its voice heard: no attorney general who does not clearly and unequivocally repudiate the new torture memos and the secret sites at which torture is carried out should even be considered for the job.
Michael Ratner
President
Center for Constitutional Rights
New York, Oct. 8, 2007
To the Editor:
No, we do not torture. We do whatever is legal and necessary to protect ourselves. J. A. Harris
Castine, Me., Oct. 7, 2007
To the Editor:
In your Oct. 7 editorial you rightly deplore the Bush administration’s de facto endorsement of the use of torture as incompatible with American values. Inconsistent perhaps, but by no means historically exceptional. The United States helped put the likes of Augusto Pinochet and the shah into power, turned a blind eye to death squads and the widespread use of torture in Central America, and got serious about the ideas of racial equality and justice at home relatively late in its history.
So while President Bush’s defense of torture-by-another-name undoubtedly violates what are supposed to be American ideals, that kind of moral duplicity by a United States administration is, unfortunately, by no means exceptional.
Kimmo Wilska Isokaari
Helsinki, Finland, Oct. 7, 2007
To the Editor:
Re “Bush Defends Interrogations, Saying Methods Aren’t Torture” (front page, Oct. 6):
If President Bush considers applying “a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures” not to be torture, then what exactly does he consider torture to be?
It appears obvious that the Bush administration is bent on doing whatever it pleases in the name of “keeping America safe from terrorists” no matter how much it damages our sense of morally acceptable behavior and our reputation around the world.
Congress must reassert itself and rein in the unacceptable interrogation methods of the Bush imperial presidency. Byrd K. Osborne
Naples, Fla., Oct. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
The United States, once a close ally, is now a country to be feared. The interrogation methods President Bush acknowledges to exist are undoubtedly torture, no matter how often he repeats that they are not.
As a European, I am now afraid to visit the United States and will not do so unless I have to for my work for fear of doing something wrong at the airport and being detained for a prolonged if not indefinite period of time. I also do not to dare express critical views in e-mail messages to American colleagues and friends, for fear they will get in trouble with authorities. This is how my contacts with the United States, a once friendly nation, have evolved.
Kees Schepers
Antwerp, Belgium, Oct. 6, 2007
To the Editor:
Why are we surprised that the Bush administration decided, in secret, to let torture still occur? If one looks at the history of this administration and the prevalence of signing statements used by President Bush while signing bills he really does not want to enforce, we, as a country, should not believe that the president will actually enforce any law that he signs anyway.
Saying one thing in public and then doing another in private seems to be an ingrained characteristic of this White House. David Cook
Syracuse, Oct. 8, 2007
Add comment October 10th, 2007