psychobabble
Why torture, you ask?
What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there's going to be a devastating attack on the United States?
Yes, what would've happened had "we" gotten information in advance of a devastating attack on the United States? We'd totally be all over that, right?
I think it's time for an honest appraisal of the torture "argument" (it's not even an old one, really) - as the example above illustrates, the "fors" wither rather quickly under scrutiny. My guess? It's because we can.
Lewis Lapham wrote some months ago that what Gitmo, et al. really was all about was experimentation: a kind of lab to see how far Hadley and his assorted "wes" can take things, here, there, everywhere. And maybe more perversely? I think "we" like it, too. I think we like demonstrating that not only do all your airspace and trade policy are belong to us, but your rights and your bodies and what you believe are belong to us as well.
Nixon talked up a late 60s model of this once upon a time, the so-called "madman theory". This is a bit different though, more total, more crude, definitely more open and defiant, a foreign policy with all the clumsy obviousness of one of those hook-up shows on MTV.
<< Home