Torture Erodes National Security and Democracy

I’ve been waiting for this. In the Nov. 14th edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Alison Brysk, professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-editor of "National Insecurity and Human Rights," provides a comprehensive argument against the Bush Administration’s underhanded use of torture in its intelligence-gathering activities in the war on terror.

Titled Torture Doesn't Work, Brysk’s article begins:

"A morally bankrupt foreign policy. A degeneration of democratic checks and balances. Those are just a few of the disturbing facets of the state of the US government revealed by the debates over the confirmation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his views on whether waterboarding constitutes torture.

"But the deepest irony of the Bush administration's ambivalent stance on such medieval tactics – practiced in the name of defending national security – is that torture is not only wrong, it's also a stupid strategy that undermines the defense of democratic societies against terror."

I'll not attempt to paraphrase the remainder of Brysk’s argument here; instead, I’ll just list the subheadings and urge you to to read the entire article:

"Torture is an ineffective counterinsurgency strategy.

Torture escalates conflict.

Torture blocks international cooperation against terror among valuable democratic allies.

Torture drives out legitimate policing.

Torture undermines the rule of law and corrupts democratic institutions."

I believe Brysk's article will be helpful in standing up to the Neocons. Nontheless I continue to feel ashamed that Americans have been dragged into this horrible discussion in the first place - before Dubya, torture was simply not an option for our country.