Columnist short-circuits on torture definition and its use
By: Thomas Brennan
Issue date: 2/11/05 Section: Ed-Op
Originally published: 2/10/05 at 9:42 PM EST
Last update: 2/10/05 at 9:45 PM EST
Originally published: 2/10/05 at 9:42 PM EST
Last update: 2/10/05 at 9:45 PM EST
Mr. Mack continues to demean anyone who opposes this behavior as he references criticisms from Senator John Kerry and Senator Edward Kennedy. Mr. Mack is not alone in criticizing these two men, as the media talk show pundits have been taking them apart on the issue for weeks. The same talking heads that insulted Kerry for not taking any definitive stand last year now mock him for actually taking one. Take, for example, Mr. Mack's sign off note. "[Senator Kennedy] does, however, get offended when terrorists are miffed about the heat in Cuba." Mr. Mack would love to have you believe that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are just whiners. Anyone who has read the news knows otherwise. Accusations include everything from standard physical abuse to sexual molestation intent on embarrassing the detainees and insult their religious beliefs.
One prisoner, Omar Khadr, tells a particularly harsh story. Interrogators shackled him to the floor in an array of degrading positions. At one point, Khadr urinated on himself and the floor. The interrogators then found cleaning liquid and used Khadr's body as a mop to wipe up the mess. And yet Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims the United States does not condone or encourage torture.
The part of Mr. Mack's article that struck me the most, however, was the following quote: "By no means am I condoning the systematic beheading of enemy combatants in order to get our way ... we've already seen who does that." This past summer I was at a comedy club back home in New York City. Nick DiPaolo, a decidedly conservative comedian, was making fun of the Abu Gharib Prison scandal. He screamed out, "At least we didn't cut off their f--king heads!" As this packed, blue state crowd cheered and laughed, I couldn't help but wonder what the point of this conflict was. Is this all we can say to justify ourselves? "Hey, at least we're slightly better than the terrorists?"
The Right Wing only made us look worse. President Bush all but side-stepped the issue. Pundits ignored it. Rush Limbaugh compared the images to light fraternity hazing. If we are truly so intent on freedom, justice and peace, how can we not be outraged every time someone lets that mission down? Make no mistake about it, we have toppled a terrible regime and put a stop to the actions of some very dangerous people. But how can we expect to ever be greeted as heroes and liberators when we ignore the mistakes we've made? Every time someone in our government commits an abuse, every time our Presidential Administration ignores it and every time a Right Wing hack condones the behavior, we undermine the supposed purpose of this war.
Mr. Mack began this tirade by asking the readers to consider how far they would go to protect their families and homes. Mr. Mack makes a strong argument. If I had to defend my family, I can not deny that I might bend or break the laws. But as I have said before in this newspaper, that's why I'm not in charge of this country. America and those in charge of it are supposed to be better than that. They are supposed to put personal feelings aside and behave in a manner that reflects one of the foundations of this country: Justice for all.
Thomas Brennan is a senior majoring in screenwriting and playwriting.
One prisoner, Omar Khadr, tells a particularly harsh story. Interrogators shackled him to the floor in an array of degrading positions. At one point, Khadr urinated on himself and the floor. The interrogators then found cleaning liquid and used Khadr's body as a mop to wipe up the mess. And yet Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims the United States does not condone or encourage torture.
The part of Mr. Mack's article that struck me the most, however, was the following quote: "By no means am I condoning the systematic beheading of enemy combatants in order to get our way ... we've already seen who does that." This past summer I was at a comedy club back home in New York City. Nick DiPaolo, a decidedly conservative comedian, was making fun of the Abu Gharib Prison scandal. He screamed out, "At least we didn't cut off their f--king heads!" As this packed, blue state crowd cheered and laughed, I couldn't help but wonder what the point of this conflict was. Is this all we can say to justify ourselves? "Hey, at least we're slightly better than the terrorists?"
The Right Wing only made us look worse. President Bush all but side-stepped the issue. Pundits ignored it. Rush Limbaugh compared the images to light fraternity hazing. If we are truly so intent on freedom, justice and peace, how can we not be outraged every time someone lets that mission down? Make no mistake about it, we have toppled a terrible regime and put a stop to the actions of some very dangerous people. But how can we expect to ever be greeted as heroes and liberators when we ignore the mistakes we've made? Every time someone in our government commits an abuse, every time our Presidential Administration ignores it and every time a Right Wing hack condones the behavior, we undermine the supposed purpose of this war.
Mr. Mack began this tirade by asking the readers to consider how far they would go to protect their families and homes. Mr. Mack makes a strong argument. If I had to defend my family, I can not deny that I might bend or break the laws. But as I have said before in this newspaper, that's why I'm not in charge of this country. America and those in charge of it are supposed to be better than that. They are supposed to put personal feelings aside and behave in a manner that reflects one of the foundations of this country: Justice for all.
Thomas Brennan is a senior majoring in screenwriting and playwriting.
