King of Pain - New York Times
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By fox/LKOS_ONESHEET_88x31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 18, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
King of Pain
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

A lot has been written and said about President Bush's demand that Congress
"clarify" the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the
use
of torture under any circumstances.

We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the
rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup
of
former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have
spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage
America's
faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.

But I haven't seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr.
Bush so determined to engage in torture?

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. According to an ABC News
report from last fall, procedures used by C.I.A. interrogators have included
forcing
prisoners to "stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt
in the floor for more than 40 hours"; the "cold cell," in which prisoners
are
forced "to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees," while being doused
with cold water; and, of course, water boarding, in which "the prisoner is
bound
to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet," then
"cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over
him,"
inducing "a terrifying fear of drowning."

And bear in mind that the "few bad apples" excuse doesn't apply; these were
officially approved tactics - and Mr. Bush wants at least some of these
tactics
to remain in use.

I'm ashamed that my government does this sort of thing. I'd be ashamed even
if I were sure that only genuine terrorists were being tortured - and I'm
not.
Remember that the Bush administration has imprisoned a number of innocent
men at Guantánamo, and in some cases continues to imprison them even though
it
knows they are innocent.

Is torture a necessary evil in a post-9/11 world? No. People with actual
knowledge of intelligence work tell us that reality isn't like TV dramas, in
which
the good guys have to torture the bad guy to find out where he planted the
ticking time bomb.

What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims,
desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear.
Thus Ibn
al-Shaykh al-Libi - who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell
and water boarding - told his questioners that Saddam Hussein's regime had
trained
members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This "confession"
became a key part of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq - but
it
was pure invention.

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration - more fundamental than any
particular policy - has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the
president's
power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president
precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an
illegal
and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their
right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority
in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the
administration's
plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are
equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood
with the
Democrats in opposing the administration.

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those
opposing him on this issue is that he's willing to do what's necessary to
protect
America, and they aren't. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a "war president," Mr. Bush has
been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf
of
the cause - even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be
called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw
Winston
Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told
us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he
wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and
our
self-respect.

Copyright 2006

Posted by Miriam V.