I don’t believe in torture, but right now, I’d like to see a few people subjected to some of the torture techniques that they approved for use against US captives in the so-called War on Terror.
I’d be satisfied if they just stuck to the ones used against 15-year-old Omar Khadr—techniques that a US federal judge established constituted torture under the Geneva Conventions.
I have a 15-year old son, so I’m particularly aware of what an atrocity it has been the way the US has treated Khadr, and some 2500 other young boys and teenagers that it admits to having captured and labeled as “enemy combatants” in its so-called “war on terror.”
Khadr, recall, was sent at the age of 14 to Pakistan by his allegedly terrorist-linked Canadian father to attend a madrassa—one of those fundamentalist Muslim schools. Like a number of students of those schools, he was indoctrinated in jihad and ended up fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan against the warlords that opposed them. When the US attacked Afghanistan, in 2001, Khadr got caught up in a war against America. According to the charge against him, he was arrested in 2002 after US Special Forces found him and some adult fighters hiding out in a remote compound in the mountains. The Americans called in an air strike, and then moved into the rubble to find out who was left—quite probably, according to some testimony in the case—to finish them off. Someone, still alive after the attack, tossed a grenade which killed one of the Americans and blinded another. The others sprayed the wounded fighters, gravely injuring Khadr and killing one of his older companions.
Khadr was accused of being the grenade tosser, and was reportedly
tortured in Afghanistan, before being shipped off to Guantanamo, where
he remains six years later, facing a military tribunal. He was
interrogated there, not just by Americans, but by Canadians too.
A citizen of Canada, and clearly someone who was captured and held in
violation of the Geneva Conventions, which hold that children are
“protected persons,” not to be held as POWs if captured in wartime, but
rather to be treated as victims of war, Khadr has thus far been
abandoned to his fate by his own government. The Conservative prime
minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, anxious to have Canada serve as a
willing servant of US military power and foreign policy, has not lifted
a finger to help him.
Now a court in Canada has ordered the Canadian government to release
videotapes it was keeping secret of Khadr’s interrogations, and they
make for ugly viewing. Khadr is shown weeping, holding up his wounded
arms, pleading to be given treatment, pleading to be returned to
Canada. It’s a disgusting scene, especially when we learn that he had
already been “softened up” for his Canadian interrogators by American
torture specialists at Guantanamo who subjected this boy to three weeks
of sleep deprivation and god knows what other creative techniques which
we recently learned were copied from the methods developed by the North
Koreans and applied to American captives in the Korean War.
It all makes you disgusted to be an American—especially with so many
Americans still justifying this kind of grotesque behavior.
But back to my desire to see some torture inflicted. I am not a violent
person, and I do not believe that violence, or certainly torture, serve
any good purpose, but when I saw that young boy being interrogated,
after already having endured nearly a year of hell at the hands of his
captors, and I pictured my son in his position, I admit something
snapped. I am so angry at those who have deliberately organized this
systematic descent into national barbarity that I want them to pay for
it in the way that is most likely to bring home to them the horror that
they have unleashed. My profound wish is that President Bush, Vice
President Cheney, former Department of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Canadian Prime Minister Harper
all be subjected to no less than a month of unrelenting torture, to
include water boarding, at least 2-3 weeks of sleep deprivation, a
variety of 24-stints of being forced into stress positions (Rumsfeld’s
should be standing), some violent slapping around, and a bit of
creative sexual humiliation. Since we don’t know at this point whether
anal sodomizing was officially sanctioned, or was just something that
the torturers on the ground came up with that was then ignored by
superiors, I’m willing to let that one be left up to those performing
the torture, but I sure won’t object if it happens.
At this point, I can’t think of anything less than such a punishment
that would be fitting for these monsters who are currently still
running our, and Canada’s, governments.
When I think of what kind of twisted minds these people must have in
order to actually have met in the White House and approved such methods
for use against human beings—human beings who under our Constitution
are to be afforded the presumption of innocence, and who are promised
to be protected against “cruel and unusual” punishments (or in Harper’s
case to have known about it and then not protested, even to protect a
child born in his own country)—and even against children, it makes me
sick to my stomach.
If there is a hell, I am sure there is in it some special circle
reserved for such monsters, but I think, having seen what was done at
their direction and with their approval to young Khadr (who after all,
if he really ever did toss that grenade, was only doing what any US
soldier would hope to have the courage to do in wartime if his unit
were attacked), that hell is too good for these leaders. They all need
and deserve the special punishment of having done to them what they
ordered or allowed to be done to others.
Sadly, my wish to see them suffer such a fate is unlikely to be
granted. One can at least hope, though, that they will have their names
etched somewhere for posterity on some memorial to the victims of war
crimes and to the eternal condemnation of the perpetrators of such
bestiality.
NOTE:
This column produced some impassioned
correspondence, some supporting in-kind punishment for the leaders who
have made the US the world's leading advocate of state-sponsored
torture, others saying that even for such heinous criminals as Bush and
Cheney, torture is not permissible.
I am
publishing one such note from the latter pile, sent by a long-time
journalistic comrade, an expatriot now living in Denmark who has seen
much and who has demonstrated his commitment to progressive change for
decades of struggle.
While I believe that all the
torturers and other government and military leaders and combatants who
premptively invade any people are legitimate targets of being killed
for these war crimes by the legimate resisters, defenders of their
sovereignty, I can not approve of ever torturing any person or animal.
To do so debases our own humanity and it flies in the face of what we
revolutionaries (and other progressive-minded people) stand for.
I empathsize with your anger Dave; it is the same as my own.
Nevertheless, we who wish to build a world of equality-justice-peace,
we who wish to create the new man and woman (á la Che...) must act
according to our goals and not subcumb to the methods of the
filthy-minded war criminals. When we fight with arms, as we must often
do historically and in the current wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and
wherever else the imperialist monsters invade or subvert, we do so as
righteous combatants in or out of uniform. We must not stoop to
brutalizations. Not all means justify our goals.
My essay was really written in a moment of anger, as I watched a
frightened young boy, the victim of American torture, pleading for
help, and saw my own son, the same age, in that same position. I would
not expect such a thing to ever happen, and should the happy day ever
arrive that Bush is impeached or leaves office and ends up being
indicted and convicted for war crimes, I'll be satisfied just to see
him convicted and jailed.
I will say, however,
that if it were my own son who suffered a fate like young Khadr's,
nothing would stop me from wreaking a terrible vengeance upon whoever
put him in such a situation. Reading and watching news of the massive
campaign of torture that Bush and Cheney--with the knowing connivance
of Democratic Party leaders--have inflicted in our names on tens of
thousands of captives in this bogus "war" on terror, at least 2500 of
them children, I have, until now, simply been calling for their
impeachment and trial on war crimes charges. I have not until now
thought about punishments or vengeance.
The
reality is that, under international law, if these guys were
prosecuted, the most that they'd get would be jail sentences. I suppose
that under US law they might get worse. I believe that some war crimes,
notably the Crime Against Peace of which Bush is clearly guilty, carry
the death penalty. Some other war crimes also carry that sentence. And
though I don't support the death penalty, I find it hard to argue
against its imposition on a man who has single-handedly authorized a
war that has slaughtered over a million innocent men, women and
children, destroyed a country, and who himself has the blood of over
130 capital punishment victims on his hands.
The
execution of George W. Bush for war crimes would be a most fitting
punishment, and I for one would not lift a finger to prevent it.
I totally agree with you. The Canadian government's abandonment of Khadr is especially disturbing to me. There's a petition to tell the Prime Minister to protect his citizens here: http://go.care2.com/15898432
1
July 28, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: