Dennis Prager, You Asked for It

Sorry for not doing this sooner but one has to earn a living. Conservative radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, issued a challenge to the “left” to answer his nine questions about torture. While I do not consider myself a “leftist,” I am certainly not a democrat or a died in the wool supporter of Barack Obama. Nonetheless I am quite qualified by virtue of experience to answer his questions. Here are Prager’s questions and my answers.

Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

Well Dennis, I have two words for you, ABU GHRAIB. Did you follow the story line? We got rid of Saddam but then started using his torture chamber at Abu Ghraib for our own torture. And don’t give me the “few bad apples” nonsense. The horrors that U.S. soldiers and intelligence officers inflicted on Iraqi civilians was indistinguishable to what Saddam did.

One more thing. Saddam’s predilection for torture was never presented as the prima facie reason we went to war. It was his alleged weapons of mass destruction, which turns out did not exist. Is ending torture in Iraq enough to justify starting a war and taking out Saddam? I don’t know. I worry what comes after Saddam. As we can see now we have created an Iraqi government controlled by Shia politicians who are favorably disposed to Iran. We have eliminated a threat to Iran and actually helped Iran spread its influence in the middle east.

Torture is wrong, whether it is done by henchmen of Saddam Hussein or George Bush. Next question.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

Let’s start with the definition of torture that is in the convention the United States signed:

the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. . .

Dennis, aren’t you a law-and-order kind of guy? The critical part of this definition is that the person inflicting the physical or mental pain on a person (or persons) has control over said person. If you like to be tied up naked and spanked with a metal spoon by a dominatrix it may be very painful and you may suffer, but you are choosing to do so of your own free will. But if someone grabs you off the street and binds you because they want to and has total control over you then any suffering inflicted on you is torture. It is all about freedom and choice. If something is inflicted on you against your will without recourse to due process then yes, it is torture. Bring on the next one.

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

Yes it is wrong and you posit a false assumption, i.e., the only way to get correct, accurate, predictive information is through violence and coercion. Yet FBI Agents like Ali Soufan, Dan Coleman and Jack Cloonan have demonstrated conclusively that you can treat terrorist like human beings and still get valuable information. You watch too much Jack Bauer on television. You need to cut back on the fantasy stuff.

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.

Dennis, did you ever hear of the Nuremberg trials. I refer you specifically to United States of America v. Alstötter et al. It seems there were these people known as Nazis who launched a world war that cost the lives of more than 50 million people. In the process they came up with the nifty idea that Jews were a threat and should be exterminated like so many useless cockroaches. Turns out the Nazis lost the war and the United States, along with its allies, put the Nazis on trial, including judges and lawyers who gave legal advice that it was okay to murder women and children. So guess what, we don’t want lawyers who are devious, degenerate bastards skilled at twisting words to justify criminal acts. So let us send a clear message–morality and ethos must be a part of any legal advice. You have a problem with that or do you want lawyers who can come up with excuses to protect the rights of pedophiles, for example?

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

No, it is one of America’s prouder moments. We admit our mistakes and take responsibility for our actions. The only downside is that Barack Obama has sent the message that he is not prepared to hold anyone accountable. And while we are on the subject, the Danes should have published the cartoons. I’ll be damned if threats and intimidation will be used as an excuse to undermine the constitution, freedom of speech, or our duty to uphold the law. Next?

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

Well Dennis, I have two Exceptional Performance Awards from the CIA hanging on my wall. And, unlike Michael Scheuer, I was never fired from an intelligence job because of poor performance. And Mark Lowenthal? An analyst with zero field experience. I will be happy to sit you down with some real CIA case officers, experienced field operatives, who can tell you that they don’t feel betrayed and that our ability to combat terrorism is not being weakened. Since you have never held a security clearance or worked in an intelligence community job some of these concepts may be difficult for you to comprehend. But you seem teachable and I can show you that the advocates of torture are a greater threat to America than those who argue we should uphold our ideals.

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

Dude, get serious. If she lies under oath then yes, prosecute her ass. Unfortunately, she is a liar and a coward. That is not against the law. She also is a hypocrite. Do you have a real crime in mind other than the fact that she is moron?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?

Sure. Those photos are readily available. Did you have a problem with showing the pictures of the atrocities at Nazi death camps? In that same vein the pictures should be shown and we should be accountable for the evil done in the name of our Republic.

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

Actually, I have never made such an argument and view it as irrelevant. What you ignore is that it was the conduct of the Japanese and Germans during World War II that inspired the updated Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

If you fail to address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

So Dennis, I have answered your questions and will be happy to debate the matter with you or anyone else. Anytime, anywhere. Balls in your court.