No torture in my name |

No torture in my name

The Bush administration spent months building a legal justification for torture. Its advisers wrote that what we’re doing is not really “torture”; and even if it is really torture, as commander-in-chief the president can order torture if we’re at war; and even if he can’t usually order torture legally, he can in this case because of the dangers to national security.

Hogwash. What U.S. soldiers, agents, and contractors did to other people is absolutely torture under common sense, U.S. statute, U.S. treaty obligations, and international law. There is no “unless the U.S. president wants to” escape clause in any of those legally binding documents.

And our national security is damaged by our participation in torture, not helped by it. It creates blind rage against the United States. Our troops and civilian contractors are in danger of “reciprocal torture” if they are captured. Further, studies and anecdotal evidence agree that reliable predictive information comes not through torture but through building a personal relationship of trust with those who are detained.

I want my elected officials, to hear this message: Use a common sense definition of “torture.” No torture in my name. Not ever, under any circumstances.

Karen Rogers

Nevada City

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User