“Enhanced interrogation” v. Rape — What’s the difference?
Over at The Atlantic’s website, the blogger Andrew Sullivan poses an interesting, even gruesome, philosophical argument: If you buy the Bush administration’s arguments that its “enhanced interrogation” techniques don’t constitute torture, why not rape? Sullivan writes:
Raping someone need not leave any long-term physical scars; it certainly doesn’t permanently impair any bodily organ; it has no uniquely graphic dimensions - the comic book pulling-fingernail scenarios the know-nothings in the Bush administration viewed as torture; and although it’s cruel, it’s hardly unusual. It happens all the time in regular prisons, although usually by other inmates as opposed to guards. It barely differs from the sexual abuse, forced nudity and psychological warfare inflicted on prisoners by Bush-Cheney in explicit terms.
Under Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department lawyers issued memos saying that physical abuse that causes no permanent physical damage or threat of imminent death doesn’t constitute torture. Waterboarding, while it might make someone think he’s drowning, doesn’t qualify as torture, nor does being deprived of sleep or forced to stand for 40 hours, or being left naked in a 50-degree cell. Here’s a handy list.
If you can’t justify rape, how do you justify the rest of these acts?
Kevin Horrigan is deputy editor of the editorial page. He writes editorials on local, state and national politics and public policy and also contributes a signed column to the Sunday Commentary Page. "The Old Sport" is a former sports columnist for the Post-Dispatch and for 10 years hosted radio talk shows on KMOX and KTRS in St. Louis. He lives in South St. Louis with his wife, Kate, and a dream of one day starting a professional catfish noodling tour. 
Oh the humanity!!!!
I can’t believe some of the prisoners may have had the front of the shirt grabbed by an interrogator. I am appalled that some of the prisoners were made to stand for long periods of time or may have been (gasp) slapped.
KSM was waterboarded a reported 180 times. He’s still here. Daniel Pearl had his head severed from his body by KSM. He’s no longer on this earth. Wonder who got the better end of that deal?
I think the bigger aspect to this is the President taking decisions in a time of war to protect the country and protecting lives following 9/11. I understand that the US waterboarded three people, all of which were very senior Al Queda leadership who eventually divulged plans for follow-on attacks. Ultimately, the US may have cut corners but it was justified to save American lives.
Another similar situation is when Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomp on two Japanese cities to save American lives and force the Japanese to surrender without needing a full invasion. We obviously killed tens of thousands of innocent Japanese lives in the process. However, it was justified to save American lives.
If the PD Editorial Board truly believes that waterboarding senior Al Queda leaders demands a formal investigation and trial of the Bush Administration, you should first show some principles and demand that Harry Truman be dug out of the ground and tried as well. At least that way you would be consistent. As it is now, you just hate the Republicans as usual.
BO is raping the taxpayer. I would consider that torture. Actually listening to all the “uh uh’s” is killing me.
A CENTRIST,
Naw, babies are not real people until Obama says they are. The fact that a baby in the womb has a beating heart and functioning brain means nothing until they take that first breath of air. Obama’s partial birth abortion initiative makes sure that those scissors are jammed down the throat of that baby if he dares to try to take a breath when his head first pops out. Of course you can’t call that torture since the baby is killed. Obama I believe calls it his CO2 emissions reduction program.
There are plenty of arguments that illustrate that waterboarding is wrong or constitutes torture. This isn’t one of them. I can describe something small, white, and in my house but you don’t know if I’m talking about an eraser or a mouse.
Waterboarding is simply not rape. The only way he’s compared them is by using things they do not do. Kissing could be described similarly. This argument is pathetic and mildly insulting.
The electorate voted for change in November. The new United States policy is that we are going to play nice with the maniacal terrorists who’ve sworn to destroy us. Let’s just wait and see how that works out.
Mr Horrigan,
So I agree with you that someone who has not committed a crime should not be tortured. Once you have murdered someone, however, the fitting punishment is to end your life. Anything short of that is fine as well. Also if someone is in the act of trying to kill you, you have the right to kill them (or anything short of killing them). I don’t understand why that concept is so difficult.
You bring up a good point though — what is the appropriate punishment for a rapist. I think the folks down in Louisiana had it right and they ought to continue capital punishment for anyone convicted no matter what the supreme court says.
How to put this? Rape is a war crime.
Cf. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/Warcrimes.aspx items number xxi & xxii
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument Pt.III Sec. 1 Art. 27
The argument as being presented by those who seem to like “water boarding” and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques seems to be, “The other side does horrible stuff, so can we.” Such a line of argument simply lowers the level of the standing of the person making it.
And for the good members of the RCCA, try this:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=1108
Lastly, as horrible the beheadings are, and make no doubt public execution is horrible, they are executions not necessarily torture. It would be torture if they were conducted with a hack saw. I am suspicious that some here are probably fans of the SAW movies.
None of this is legal or moral anywhere on the planet.
Bwaaaaahahaha… Andrew Sullivan.
He’s still pushing the Trig Palin conspiracy.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/sarah-palins-revelation.html
So.. RHarnack is saying we should kill them instead of torturing them?
Rape, torture, murder is legal and moral in many places on this planet. Those people want to rape, torture and murder our citizens. Do you really think a hug is going to change them?