Scared little people in panic from their fright turn to the worst in any of us by suggesting torture. It is amazing that this debunked technique, so utterly useless in obtaining quality information and so totally against what is the best argument for our race, our humanity, is reached for whenever something vile happens in the world.
Over and over we talk about using torture. There’s something wrong with our zeitgeist given our repetitive flirtation with torture. No matter what justification G.W had his flunkies concoct, the world considers torture illegal and reprehensible. The U.S. individualism, that allows us to be the only major industrialized power not to offer healthcare for all of its citizens, allows us to repeat a TV series drama about imminent danger and how to head off an attack by terrorists.
Why do we keep repeating ourselves? Why do we keep flirting with the idea of torture? Nothing’s changed – a few additional attacks by fanatical, sick individuals does not change the world. We should have learned the lesson long ago – force does not eliminate force. Unfortunately, among the earliest small minded individuals to react in a panic mode, is elements of our media.
“Horrific attacks like the one that took place in Brussels on Tuesday morning tend to bring out the worst in our elite media. The coverage usually combines the blind panic and speculation that accompany any major breaking news story with an unrelenting stoking of our most vengeful, authoritarian impulses. Tuesday’s news channels were filled with the usual scenes: an array of mostly white men speaking ominously of “soft targets” and of endless war. Most of these outlets like to pretend that calling one of these inevitably gung-ho hawks a “national security analyst” or a “law enforcement expert” somehow makes that person a non-ideological expert. Really, all it does is highlight just how narrow our conversation about terrorism and war tends to be. (Talk of peace stays far away from any table.)”
“It would be difficult to find a better example of a question that was at once so objectionable and so fact-free. Clinton—whose speech before AIPAC on Monday was a timely reminder of just how unrelenting she can be in her bellicosity—declined the chance to give a ringing condemnation of torture, saying merely that it wasn’t one of the “tools” that law enforcement should be using because it wasn’t effective. She also chided Europe for not being as hawkish in its security response to terrorism as she had wanted it to be. “They were reluctant to impose the kind of strict standards [the United States was] looking for,” she said.”
“NBC was by no means an outlier in any of this. Clinton and Trump spoke to other networks, and got many of the same kinds of questions put to them. It was all a deeply depressing spectacle, and a reminder that, all too often, our most prominent journalists react to the worst events in the worst way possible—and that our discourse around torture remains as terrible as it’s ever been.” http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/nbcs_coverage_of_the_brussels_attack_was_stunningly_irresponsible/