American Patrol

The American Conversation-- or at least its funhouse reflection, the American Media-- have been gripped of late by the political controversy over the Bush administration's use of torture techniques in the War on Terror. This controversy has been most interesting for the student of postmodern American politics due to its role as an almost purely formal exercise-- in reality, there is little in this that ought to be controversial, and even less that is in any meaningful way political. While the pundit class and the powers that be lead themselves and the nation through the contorted stress positions of an empty debate, a keen grasp of the obvious and access to the public record renders most of the talking points in that debate low-hanging pinatas that could be easily burst by a blindfolded kid with a stick. No candy, though-- nothing inside at all.

IT WASN'T TORTURE: Yes, it was. Waterboarding alone, leaving aside any of the other "enhanced interrogation techniques," is defined as torture by the Federal laws and international treaty obligations of the United States of America, bolstered by over a century of legal precedent.

IT WASN'T ILLEGAL: Yes, it was, once again as a matter of black letter law and extensive precedent on both the national and international level.

IT WAS EFFECTIVE: While there are ample indications that in fact it was quite ineffective indeed, these are beside the point-- the level of effectiveness of an illegal technique, whatever end it might have furthered, is not a valid defense against the illegality of the technique itself. To quote the 1984 Convention Against Torture, as signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate: "...no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked in justification of torture”.

OBAMA DOES NOT WANT TO PROSECUTE: It is not his decision to make. Whether the President wants to look forward, back, or sideways, under the aforementioned 1984 Convention it is his obligation of his government, and of the other governments who signed the treaty, to investigate and prosecute instances of torture whenever or where ever they occur. Should he abdicate this responsibility, such occurences fall under the universal jurisdiction of the other signatories.

POLLS SHOW A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF TORTURE: Tough shit. This might be relevant if this were in fact a political issue. It is not-- it is a diplomatic and judicial one.

PELOSI, ROCKEFELLER, AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS KNEW ABOUT IT TOO: This scarcely rises to the level of an acceptable playground excuse at preschool. "They knew about it too," isn't really an acceptable excuse for anything, something most clever first graders know, and is mostly offered in support of the premise that we are somehow talking about a "political witch hunt" against Republicans. We are not-- we are talking about the legal prosecution of those who tortured, ordered torture, or engaged in conspiracies to further commission of torture. If some of those people turn out to be highly ranking Congressional Democrats, so be it.

The debate on torture is worth having only to the extent that torture is debatable. Its legal standing, and the necessity of prosecuting it under law, are not. It might behoove us far more to have a debate over what the existence of the debate in the first place has to say about the morality and legitimacy of this nation.