A General Speaks

Back on my torture kick after reading this letter by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. The letter is essentially telling American servicemen the same thing that any decent human being has known for some time now: torture is not the way to "win" this war. Andrew Sullivan weighs in here. The Washington Post cites the General in this article: He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated. Strong words from a man who still reports to the Executive branch of our government. The lessons that should have been learned from Washington and Lincoln were not. In this article regarding Bush and Lincoln, some of the "reasons" for things that we have done are debunked: ...(concerning) the legal status of captured Confederate soldiers. Lincoln did not want to recognize the rebellion of the Southern states as legitimate, nor was it desirable or feasible to label all Johnny Rebs as traitors subject to execution. He needed a way to treat captured Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war without suggesting that the Confederate States of America was a lawful state. Not really so much different than Guantanamo Bay detainees, except taken from the opposite perspective as our current approach. On the specific aspect of torture: the Lieber code consolidated important humanizing elements of warfare. Of particular note are Lieber’s, and ultimately Lincoln’s, views on the treatment of prisoners. Article 16 of the code boldly states: “Military necessity does not admit of cruelty—that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.” Pretty succinct. We should also remember George Washington's thoughts on the subject: "Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775 Any wiggle room there? These statements require a strict standard of humane treatment, and an absolute prohibition on cruelty, even in the face of brutal and indiscriminate—that is to say non-reciprocal—treatment of our troops by our enemies. The fact that our enemies may do these things is not justification to do them ourselves. Our President, even in September 2006, still firmly stated that such techniques are among "the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country." There is still debate as to whether or not we should be engaged in these techniques. Given all of Bush's book-reading, you would think he'd try an American leadership book or two.