A Letter to Eugene Robinson

I don’t often write directly to journalists. I figure that since I have my blog, my comments can be found if the desire to do so arises. I’ve never had one so much as acknowledge my comments before, so writing directly to them seems to me a waste of time.

Today, though, I felt compelled to write to Eugene Robinson who wrote a column today that simply smacks to me of “cop out”. I’ll let you read what he wrote and judge that for yourself. I’m going to post the message I sent him so that you can judge that as well.

Mr. Robinson,

I read your September 19th column (“Torture is Torture”) with great interest. I had hoped, odd title aside, that you would get past the easy rhetoric of telling us all that torture is bad and get into the more important matter of helping us decide what torture actually is. I was sorry to be disappointed. It appears that all you were interested in doing was taking the easy route, as if there were some question about whether torture was a bad thing. The implication, of course, is that if we stand anywhere else but squarely behind you, we are in favor of torture.

That’s the advantage you have when you choose to change the question in the debate. Unfortunately, that’s not the debate that’s going on between Congress and the White House. There is no question whatsoever that torture is wrong – make no mistake about that. There is, however, an enormous question about how we will choose to define torture. That is where the root of the entire debate over what you so ominously label “the program” lies. Quite simply, the President wants Congress to tell us, decisively, what torture is, isntead of leaving it hidden in subjective terms like “cruel” and “inhumane”. See, we all believe we know what those things mean, but I bet that if you took a quick walk through your newsroom there and ask folks what those words mean, you’d get as many definitions of those words as you have people.

Such widely subjective terms do not work in a nation of laws. We have already demonstrated, rightly, says that we will vigorously prosecute and punish anyone who violates the rules on how we handle detainees. Our Supreme Court has, for the first time in our history, allowed Geneva Convention protections to those who specifically violate those conventions and the accepted rules of war. That decision made it distinctly possible that we could prosecute our own using terms that barely anyone can define specifically. Thus, it is only natural that those folks who might be subject to those new rules have decided that until they are made quite clear, there will be no more interrogations of any sort. They don’t want to spend the rest of their lives impovershed or in prison because twwelve people decided to interpret a vague term one way as opposed to another. We are quite willing to draw clear definitions for other crimes. Why hesitate now?

The consequence of your rhetoric is clear. No questions will be asked. No information will be gleaned, even using the most innocuous methods you can imagine. No interrogation will happen until the rules do become clear. It is certain that we will lose out of plenty of useful information that we could have gotten if our countrymen had gotten some clear direction from us.

Which is more important to you, Mr. Robinson? Should we actually debate out in the open where we stand on torture and how we’re willing to define the word? Would that not be good for our nation? Would it not be beneficial for our professional men and women to know exactly where they stand when they go to work every day?

In order to do that, we’re going to have to climb out of our rhetorical hidey-holes, answer some hard questions, and deal with the consequences as they come. I ask you, Mr. Robinson, do you believe that “waterboarding” contistitutes torture? Then say so, and have it written explicitly into law. Same for “stress positions” and sleep deprivation. Draw a clear line. Do not leave room for ambiguity. Be decisive.

Otherwise, all you’re doing is public posturing. You’re certainly not helping to advance the debate. You’re definitely leaving plenty of good people who must do what is often a dirty and thankless job out on a limb that you’re also quite willing to saw off at a moment’s notice. That is hardly in anyone’s best interest.

Though I seldom agree with you, I know you to be a clever and skilled write. I have never known you to say something you do not mean. I prefer to think that this column was an aberration – a moment of lazy thinking where you thought you might be able to put one over on us. I ask that you reconsider that decision and come out in favor of clearly defining what torture will be in our laws now and well into the future. If you can not do that, then at least explain why the obvious conclusion of “Torture is Torture” is all we shall ever get from you. That, I think, is the minimum you could do as a concerned American with such a prominent voice.

I welcome any opportunity to continue this discussion, should you wish to do so. I intend on reprinting this letter on by weblog (http://sundriesshack.com)and welcome any comment you choose to make there as well.

Thank you for your time.

I very much hope that he contacts me. I realize that he is quite a busy man and I’m not much more than a 150 reader a day blogger, but it’s possible that between the two of us, we can get a real dialogue going. I think the torture question is critically important. It’s vital that we decide to answer it firmly and without ambiguity and folks like Robinson can help immensely so long as they decide not to blow rhetorical smoke. We deserve more than that from our media thinkers these days.

No related posts.

Category: Cool Columnists and Wicked Writers, Fighting the Islamists, President George Bush