Debate Over: "Torture" Finally Defined
A lot of the debate over the use of torture has occurred in the Blogosphere and the MSM without any of the participants defining the term. A prime example of this behavior is new-MSM member and Time contributor Andrew Sullivan, who, so far as I can tell, defines torture as "anything that makes me feel a bit icky about my country and its values." Since "torture" has come to mean "stuff I don't agree with," the debate is really about what we should do with captured terrorists in a war that transcends borders and in which the enemy doesn't wear a uniform.
Fortunately, however, the United Nations, in no less a personage than the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, has finally said straight out what constitutes torture under international human rights law:
Holding prisoners incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
That's right. The simple fact that prisoners are held and denied contact with the outside world is torture. Forget pulling off fingernails, clamping electrodes on body parts, the rack. That stuff you thought was torture is way, way beyond the pale. The fact that the terrorist doesn't get his phone call, well, that's torture.
So, now we know what the critics mean. Anything that falls short of "criminal suspect" status will be defined as torture. Anything the Bush Administration does to fight what Ms. Arbour so telling refers to as the "so-called" War on Terrorism that is in line with traditional war fighting methods will be called "torture."
I know Ms. Arbour is a former Canadian Supreme Court justice and, as such, is used to being able to conjure up on her own without any support of tradition, common law or statute, new "norms" that are inviolable, but the breathtaking arrogance on display here is astounding.
This low dishonesty continues the devastatingly harmful trend of liberal politicians dressing up their personal policy opinions with the force of law, under the guise of human rights, in an attempt to foreclose opposition to their views and to, literally, make any such opposition illegal. This sad process, carried out with gusto by the Soros foundations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a whole host of other NGOs and UN agencies whose stances are really nothing more than liberal political policy prescriptions dressed up, does nothing but harm the cause of securing human rights by turning the phrase into nothing more than a synonym for "liberal/left politics."
This, Mr. Sullivan, is why we reject your hysterical stance. We're not pro-torture. We're against defining "torture" in such a way as to force the President to fight an essential war in such a manner as to make victory impossible.
This attempt to paint supporters of the President's lawful conduct of the war to date as supporters of torture is contemptible.
The only good news out of this announcement by the U.N. was our ambassador's response to it. Said Amb. Bolton:
"Today is Human Rights Day. It would be appropriate, I think, for the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights to talk about the serious human rights problems that exist in the world today," Bolton told reporters. "It is disappointing that she has chosen to talk about press commentary about alleged American conduct. I think the secretary of state has fully and completely addressed the substance of the allegations, so I won't go back into that again other than to reaffirm that the United States does not engage in torture."
He added: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers."
Of course it would take courage to attack Cuba, Zimbabwe and Burma. Better to put that much-admired Canadian courage to work and attack the United States. That's a sure-fire winner in Ontario, every time. It's cost-free, routine and makes the Canucks feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves.
It's high past time our government started standing up for itself, don't you think?
Fortunately, however, the United Nations, in no less a personage than the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, has finally said straight out what constitutes torture under international human rights law:
Holding prisoners incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
That's right. The simple fact that prisoners are held and denied contact with the outside world is torture. Forget pulling off fingernails, clamping electrodes on body parts, the rack. That stuff you thought was torture is way, way beyond the pale. The fact that the terrorist doesn't get his phone call, well, that's torture.
So, now we know what the critics mean. Anything that falls short of "criminal suspect" status will be defined as torture. Anything the Bush Administration does to fight what Ms. Arbour so telling refers to as the "so-called" War on Terrorism that is in line with traditional war fighting methods will be called "torture."
I know Ms. Arbour is a former Canadian Supreme Court justice and, as such, is used to being able to conjure up on her own without any support of tradition, common law or statute, new "norms" that are inviolable, but the breathtaking arrogance on display here is astounding.
This low dishonesty continues the devastatingly harmful trend of liberal politicians dressing up their personal policy opinions with the force of law, under the guise of human rights, in an attempt to foreclose opposition to their views and to, literally, make any such opposition illegal. This sad process, carried out with gusto by the Soros foundations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a whole host of other NGOs and UN agencies whose stances are really nothing more than liberal political policy prescriptions dressed up, does nothing but harm the cause of securing human rights by turning the phrase into nothing more than a synonym for "liberal/left politics."
This, Mr. Sullivan, is why we reject your hysterical stance. We're not pro-torture. We're against defining "torture" in such a way as to force the President to fight an essential war in such a manner as to make victory impossible.
This attempt to paint supporters of the President's lawful conduct of the war to date as supporters of torture is contemptible.
The only good news out of this announcement by the U.N. was our ambassador's response to it. Said Amb. Bolton:
"Today is Human Rights Day. It would be appropriate, I think, for the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights to talk about the serious human rights problems that exist in the world today," Bolton told reporters. "It is disappointing that she has chosen to talk about press commentary about alleged American conduct. I think the secretary of state has fully and completely addressed the substance of the allegations, so I won't go back into that again other than to reaffirm that the United States does not engage in torture."
He added: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers."
Of course it would take courage to attack Cuba, Zimbabwe and Burma. Better to put that much-admired Canadian courage to work and attack the United States. That's a sure-fire winner in Ontario, every time. It's cost-free, routine and makes the Canucks feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves.
It's high past time our government started standing up for itself, don't you think?
