Waterboarding

If you have been following the news lately, you have probably heard about a controversy called "waterboarding". The question is whether our government should be passing off prisoners in "temporary custody" to countries that engage in the practice of "waterboarding", something that has, up to now, been regarded as torture. Those in favor of the practice regard it as a "useful" way of extracting information from suspects. Those opposed to it are shocked that torture should be used ANYWHERE in the 21th century, much less in association with the United States of America.

Before we become comfortable with such a technique, we have to deal with a few points:

• The value of the end goal (saving lives from terrorism) needs to outweigh the cost (national integrity and moral standing in the international community). If we are willing to sacrifice our own virtue for that price, then what price are we willing to pay against the threats that will take MILLIONS of American lives (i.e. cancer)?
  
• By lowering the bar of how prisoners are treated, we need to accept and expect that our own military forces will be treated in this way by foreign countries. Granted, there are brutal enemies out there who have always been willing to torture and kill their prisoners, but those have always been just a few rag-tag extremists. Now we will be lowering the moral standard for civilized nations.
  
• We need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of such a policy. In the past, there have been some who have hated America because they viewed us as lazy and rich. Now a new breed will arise that hate us for torturing their fathers, uncles and neighbors. The net result will be trading a single prisoner in our custody for an unknown batch of terrorists out in hiding. Does this make us safer?

Read the following description of Waterboarding (taken from Wikipedia), and decide for yourself.

- Wayne

____________________________________

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.
Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.
The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."

Being somewhat pragmatic, I feel very strongly about this issue. Ok, that’s an understatement – I get very emotional about this issue. Just over 3,000 American civilians have died in the past decade due to terrorism, the overwhelming majority of those on 9/11. We lose that many to cancer EVERY 48 HOURS. That’s right – the threat from two days of cancer equals ten years of terrorism. Moreover, the death loss to three days of cancer matches our nation’s entire history of loss to terrorism.

Which do you think is the bigger threat?

Hypothetically speaking, I know if China or Russia launched a nuclear attack on the US (what else could cause such catostrophic death rates – 550,000 killed EVERY year?), we would be out of Iraq in a heartbeat. There would be no debate, as we would unanimously point to the numbers and agree our priorities lie elsewhere. Is it about time we give the same objective view to cancer?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Bush-basher or a nay-sayer; for me, this is much more about the war on cancer than it is about the war on terrorism. True, terrorism is a monster to deal with; but while terrorism is nipping at the heal, cancer has entirely consumed the other leg.


NEWSWEEK: A 'Surge' in the War on Cancer?
by Jonathan Alter

Aug. 27, 2007 - Presidential campaigns are not just about winning, they’re about putting big ideas on the national agenda. Even though some candidates were elsewhere, that happened Monday at Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The four Democrats who showed up (the Republicans come Tuesday) all committed themselves to at least doubling the $5 billion spent annually for cancer research—in other words, to backing a “surge” in the long-neglected war on cancer. Considering that cancer kills 550,000 Americans a year (that’s 1,500 a day—the leading cause of death for those under 85), it’s about time. As Bill Richardson said, “it's pathetic” that we now spend the same in two weeks in Iraq as we spend all year fighting cancer.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich were also convincing in explaining how they would use the power of the presidency to change national priorities. “That money needs to come home,” Clinton said, and end the “stalemate” in the war on cancer. “It’s a moral obligation.” Edwards took note of the millions of people with cancer who don’t have the advantages he and his wife Elizabeth enjoy. They lose all their money, he said, on top of getting sick. But even the Edwardses cannot read their incomprehensible medical bills. And Edwards, along with the other candidates, believes that insurance companies often limit necessary treatment. He also noted that only two in 10 proposals for cancer research get funded these days. This is driving young reseachers out of oncology toward other fields, dramatically slowing the search for cures. Until recently, when cancer budgets were cut by President Bush, it was five of 10.

There was a passion to the event that will no doubt be obliterated by the news about Alberto Gonzales. That’s too bad. But Armstrong, who co-moderated with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, can take comfort in the fact that the marker has been laid down. Every candidate will now be asked: Do you favor doubling the funding for cancer research? And if not, to what better use would you put that money?

Ultimately, politicians are forced to deal with the real issues in people’s lives. With cancer touching every family in the country, we may be seeing the beginning of new priorities in the big tent of American politics.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

The conflict in Iraq is more than just a thorn in the side of our country, it is a struggle in the soul and moral conscience of our nation. We have been faced with what may be the most intractible question of our century. As a democracy, we are a community that debates issues and takes sides. But I think we perhaps go too far: we pick a corner (hawk or dove) and defend our points vigorously...but we would be better served to keep questioning the issues, and our stance on them. We learn more by considering the arguments of our opponent, than by debating them.

Some questions to consider:

Is this a conflict that can be won by force?

What are the conditions that we will leave Iraq?

What would become of the millions of western-supporting Iraquis if we left?

What would become of the Christians in Iraq if we left?

Is this a conflict that can be won by the military? If not, what is the purpose of the military?

Is this a conflict that can be won at all?

How do we define success?

At what point would we say the cost is not worth it?

If we leave, what will fill the vacuum?

If we left, could the militant radicals build a government, or are they merely agents of chaos and intimidation?

Sadam Hussein was able to keep them at bay with an iron fist. Could another strong ruler/tyrant (i.e. another Sadam Hussein) fill in that void?

If we had to choose, what would be worse - tyrrany or chaos?

Is there anything that would be worth the ongoing cost of American blood? Is there anything our generation feels that strong about?

How many Iraquis lives are worth one American life?

Tough questions...