Bush and Torture: Are We Next?

Lost in the national debate over torture is any consideration of the Bush administration’s abominable record on preventing terrorist attacks; namely, 9/11, the only foreign terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil.
Lost in the reams of discussion by the amnesiac America media is the fact that the Bush White House had numerous and specific warnings about 9/11—which it did not obtain through the use of torture, and which it did nothing about.
Then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission in March, 2004, that the now notorious Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 had been entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.”
But what did President Bush do in response to this briefing? Said 9/11 commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerry, after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, “Mr. President, you knew they [the 9/11 hijackers] were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July and August there was a dire threat and you didn’t do anything about it…. You did nothing.”
Has torturing prisoners really prevented terrorism in the last five years, as the president claims? If so, can we see some proof on that? As a nation embroiled in a debate over something which will define our very character as a nation, I think we deserve some detailed evidence.
The evidence already available on torture is that it does not in fact produce reliable intelligence; it can actually produce bad intelligence (see several articles in Newsweek devoted to the issue, one by Senator John McCain, from November 21, 2005 at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/).
And what of the innocent? Hundreds of terror suspects rounded up after 9/11 have been released from Guantanamo Bay, having never been charged with a crime. Several times in the last week I’ve heard TV commentators make reference to the popularity of the show 24 as some sort of proof that the American people condone the use the torture. I’d like to see 24’s hero, L.A. counter terror cop Jack Bauer, torture or kill a suspect, only to find out later that he, or she, was innocent. “You made a mistake, Jack. Was it worth it?”
The debate has become racist in the extreme. This morning on NPR I heard a male guest say that these terror suspects were “not in the family of man.” None of the other guests objected. “What are we supposed to do, give them lamb kabobs?” asked a female journalist on Bill O’Reilly, sarcastically, last week. O’Reilly chuckled.
What bothers me the most about the idea of state-sponsored torture, aside from the fact that it’s evil, against God, and against American ideals, are the ominous prospects for us here at home. If it becomes okay to torture people in military prisons abroad, how long before it becomes okay to torture American citizens in U.S. jails? All in the name of the war on terror, of course.
Consider the case of so-called “nonlethal” or “less than lethal” weapons. Many nonlethals in use by police departments around the country today—rubber bullets, tasers, CS and CN gas, or tear gas and pepper spray, even high-frequency acoustical weapons—started out being used by the Pentagon in conflicts overseas. Like torture, many of these are banned by the Geneva Convention. And yet, because they exist here in a legal nether-zone, chillingly known as “Operations Other Than War,” they are freely employed by police departments to subdue suspects. (See the Articles on the lower left-hand side at www.demilitarizethepolice.netfirms.com for extensive information on the subject.)
More troublingly, nonlethals have increasingly been used for “crowd control” in political protests in the United States (see Seattle, 1999; New York, 2003; Miami, 2004 and on and on). The same weapons that are being used on “insurgents” in Iraq are being used on anti-war and anti-globalization protestors here in America.
On September 12, 2006, the A.P. reported that the Air Force is pushing for an expansion of the types of nonlethals used for domestic “crowd control”:
“Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday," according to the A.P.
“Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne. 'If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,’ said Wynne. ‘(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.’”
And here you have the perfect, twisted logic for the future implementation of torture in America: “If we're not willing to use [torture] here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use [torture] in a wartime situation.”
By the way: the contract for these electromagnetic weapons? $20 billion. And what is their sole purpose? To induce extreme pain, through the microwaving of human beings; of political protestors, exercising their right to freedom of speech, here in America. For what other “crowds” is the Air Force talking about “controlling” if not the crowds at protests?
The crowds in our crowded prisons? Nonlethals are used there as well.
One could argue that the use of nonlethal weapons already amounts to a form of torture.
Torture doesn’t produce reliable intelligence; it makes people around the world hate us, arguably leading to a greater danger of terrorism here at home; it doesn’t sit well with the American people, lawmakers or legislators; and it’s wrong.
So why is the Bush administration pushing for torture so hard?
Perhaps because we’re next on their agenda?
We, the people, who would exercise our right to peaceably assemble and denounce them?



Excellent new site on 9/11 truth: www.belowgroundsurface.org.
One-stop shopping for scores of films, news clips and other information.
Enjoy. Tell somebody. Act.