It isn't that hard to say. Try it.
Then, if you oppose torture, shout that name from the rooftops. It's important.
George W. Bush and company bombed and invaded Iraq based in large part on lies told by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Why are opponents of torture so lame, so slow, in making this point?
Is it because they were taken in by Al-Libi's lies and would rather gloss over that sad fact of history than to make it part of their argument against the President's proposed torture and detainment bill debated this week in Congress? Is it because they've become so fearful of being called disloyal or soft on terrorism? Whatever fig leaf they're hiding behind, the record is clear that al-Libi was under custody of U.S. secret forces in 2001 when the CIA blindfolded him, duct-taped him, loaded him onto an airplane, told him they planned to rape his mother while he was away, then flew him off to Egypt.
Interrogators in a secret hell-hole prison there asked al-Libi none too gently to "admit" that Saddam Hussein was teaching al-Qaeda to make chemical and biological weapons. According to The New Yorker, The New York Times, Newsweek and others, Al-Libi gave them what they wanted. Later he recanted, and said he told the lies to end the pain of torture. A Republican dominated Senate Intelligence committee has confirmed al-Libi's later statements that no formal ties existed between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and further reported that, far from working together to attack U.S. interests, Saddam and bin Laden regarded each other as enemies. Still, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others in "the Iraq group"--a team set up inside the White House in 2002 to sell America on the idea of invading Iraq--made al-Libi's lies a centerpiece of their case. Just how aware Bush was that he based his war on a pack of lies should be looked into.
Yes, many loudly parrot unproven claims based on "classified information," that we've disrupted terrorist plots through use of "aggressive interrogation techniques." Some even point to the Battle of Algiers, in the late 1950s, which France was loosing badly, by some accounts, until it employed torture, mass bombing and other counter-terrorism techniques. What proponents of such a model often leave out is how a disgusted and angry populace rose up across Algeria and turned their French leash-holders out of the country by 1962.
In simple human terms, what the French failed to do, and what Bush long ago forgot, is to honor the logic and moral force behind the Golden Rule. When you think about it, that simple rule, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," is at the heart of the Geneva Accords. Maybe it's too much to expect our president and members of Congress-most of whom loudly proclaim their Christianity--to honor the Golden Rule. Still, I challenge you to pause a moment and consider the logic and moral force of that nearly universal law of world religions.
As a dear friend said to me on Monday, it's the simplest rule of all. If observed by all, it could break the cycle of violence everywhere, and the beauty of it is that such a possibility rests with decisions we all make every day.
Several of those opposed to torture and denial of habeas corpus and other rights our troops have fought and died for since the founding of this nation, made subtle allusions to the Golden Rule during live debates this week in Congress. I heard more than one point out that we must arrive at standards of prisoner treatment that take into account how we'd want our own troops to be treated if captured by the enemy. So, unless you want torture to become and remain the law of the land, you'd best plan on spending lots of time telling anyone who'll listen-maybe your congressmen, senators, media and more-that there's a price to pay for Congress's big show of public support for Bush's plans for continued torture and unlawful imprisonment. It could be your neighbor's son or daughter who gets captured in the next war, now so close at hand.