Psst! Have you Heard?

Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said there has to be “an end” to the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank “that began in 1967.” Yikes!
(Read more.)

...FBI personnel started notifying headquarters as early as 2002 that other government employees were using abusive tactics -- including sexual humiliation, prolonged hand-to-foot shackling and exposure to extreme temperatures -- on detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Justice officials conveyed some of these concerns in at least one White House meeting in 2003, but the White House apparently ignored them. A year later, the revelation of similar abuses at Abu Ghraib became a source of everlasting shame for American citizens, a serious blow to the United States's moral authority, and a potent rallying cry for the nation's enemies....
(Read more.)

"Falaqa" and "Farruj"

Once again our national reputation is being drug through the mud compliments of possible actions of the current Republican administration. The Washington Post is reporting about accusations of our outsourcing torture to Jordan. (Thanks to the Moderate Voice for the heads up.)

Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often, forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the "grilled chicken," in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed behind their knees, and beaten.

I do not know if the reports of torture are true or not. The sad thing is that, given the history of the last seven years, such a scenario is not out of the question for the administration of the current successor to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, et al.

"You have to decide..."

Several times since the Republican misadventure in Iraq turned sour, I have been told by a few defenders of the decision to invade that "even Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD". These folks seem to think that means he also supported the invasion.

I have known that was not true. I am glad, now, to be able to give chapter and verse. A transcript of President Clinton's remarks of March 14, 2003 -- less than a week before the invasion -- has been posted at the Hillary Clinton website. Here are some excerpts:

"... you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration...

[Saddam]'s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. ... I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change..."

I, like President Clinton, believed President Bush was acting foolishly in the months leading up to March of 2003. I was quite vociferous about that, despite the ridicule of a whole gaggle of my Republican friends. I saw an administration hyping the case for preemptive war. They may have believed some of what they said about WMD, but they blatently hyped it. They knew Saddam was not an immediate threat to the US and they knew Saddam was unconnected to the terrorist attacks of 2001 (and never SAID he was, as they are quick to point out) but blatently lied about the first and actively promoted the second impression, and those misconceptions became majority assumptions in the US. The Machiavellian neo-cons viewed war as an exercise of the unique power of the world's only remaining superpower. It was an opportunity, the neo-cons seemed to think, that the US should not pass up. From slimy politics, to slippery slope, to free fall.

What a different and better world this would be today if the election of 2000 had not been compromised.

What a difference it will make for our country if in 2008 we can elect a statesman (or woman) to repair the tragic mistakes of the Republicans. I will be thrilled to support Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Obama, or Dodd.

Assurances

Well, once again the presidency - even when the current one is the lamest of ducks - has demostrated its inherant power in our system. At least with a Democratic majority, tiny though it is, the rubber stamp responses are delayed slightly.

Perhaps it is better to have Mukasey at the Justice Department than to have Bush's recess appointment, whoever that might be. Schumer, Fienstein, McCain, Snowe and others seem to think they have assurances that the torture has stopped or will stop when Mukasey is in place. I am not assured, but I am hopeful. And as Sen. Fienstein says, at least he's not Alberto.

Still, my Republican friends, your Mr. Bush continues to drag our nation's reputation through the muck. There is no legitimate reason for our President and his appointees to refuse to call torture torture. By seeming to countenance torture as legitimate "interrogation technique" he defames our country, supplies our enemies with gasoline to pour on the flames of anti-Americanism, and endangers our soldiers. It seems obvious to me that the reason must be that this President is quilty of okaying torture and wants cover through redefinition of the term. This is nothing new, of course, tyrants have used such ruses throughout history.

Oh, well, in 443 days, perhaps, the recovery can begin.


Later Note: S.W. Anderson at Oh!Pinion has some good posts on this topic.

Psst, Judge! Waterboarding is torture.

Illustration taken from Wikipedia. A drawing of torture in Cambodia.

Get a clue, Judge. Waterboarding is torture.

The Geneva Conventions say waterboarding is torture.

Our immoral vice president may not care, but waterboarding is torture.

If you cannot admit that pouring water over a captive's gagged mouth and covered face until he is convinced his death is imminent is torture, you are either too stupid or too evil to be Attorney General of the United States. Waterboarding is torture.

Olympia Snowe knows. John McCain knows. John Warner Knows. Lindsey Graham knows. I know. You, Judge Michael Mukasey, know. Waterboarding is torture.

Say it or do not become Attorney General. Waterboarding is torture.

This was America. We will make it America again. We will not allow the hoodlums in this administration any more leeway to tear down America. Waterboarding is torture, you incredible jerk. Waterboarding is torture.

America does not approve torture. Waterboarding is torture.

It is not about who they are. It is about who we are. Waterboarding is torture.

All you terrorists out there, listen up!

This blog has been entirely too apolitical lately, so here's a post I let slide for a while:

I read a post a while back by a blogger who professes to believe that people in America especially the "liberal left"" are more upset by Mike Vick's abuse of dogs than by terrorism against human beings.

This blogger seems to believe that the "liberal left" should be voicing more opposition to terrorism: that those who disagree with the Republican response to terrorism have not been vocal enough in our abhorance of terroristic acts. The blogger wonders why there are not protests againt terrorist acts.

I would not know where or when to protest against terrorism. I guess I could do it here on the Limb. I have never considered terrorists a likely part of my audience. But, fine. I'll say it again, just in case ---

Hey you terrorists, stop it!! I mean it! Right now!

That's ridiculous, of course. If there should be any terrorists in my vast readership, I cannot imagine that they are affected by my words -- other than, perhaps, to be pleased that their atrocities have goaded me into a response.

Why do terrorists terrorize?

They terrorize to cause terror, (duh!) hoping that in our fear we will do what they want us to do.

What do they want?

They've told us. They want radical Islam to rule the world

So:

1. Therefore they need to radicalize Islamic countries
   
2. Therefore they need more Islamic people to become angry enough to join the radical Islamic cause
3. Therefore they want western countries to make "crusades" on radical Islam, especially if there is lots of "collateral damage" among Islamic peoples
   
4. Therefore they try to egg western countries into such a war by terrorist strikes
5. Therefore they are thrilled when westerners rant against radical Islam -- especially when they lump all or most Muslims with the radicals
6. Therefore the vilest among them will murder missionaries, saw off the heads of journalists, send young zealots into city squares with bombs strapped around their waists, fly airliners into tall buildings, and, if they can, detonate a suitcase nuke in downtown Peoria.
   

Every time our side goofs up and attacks a country that did not attack us, bombs a site that includes non-combatants, treats the Koran disrespectfully, tortures Muslim prisoners, shouts "bring 'em on!", looks at or disseminates a terror picture or film of a beheading, rants about the "evils" of Islam, etc., etc., etc. -- when we do those things, we further the terrorist cause.

Here at the Limb, we have consistently voiced our belief that America should relentlessly, lethally, aggressively pursue terrorists. We should carry a very big stick. But we should speak very softly. Ranting about terrorism is about the most useless exercise I can imagine. It is worse than useless, actually, since ranting reinforces the terror. Elevating what Bin Laden wanted called a great war into the "Generational War on Terror" is exactly the wrong thing to do. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for that - along with our sensational press. It should instead be a multifaceted, longterm, unceasing, multinational, and relatively quiet, police action.

Instead of ranting we should make it clear to the terrorists that , while we will beef up our defenses as much as we can, and strike the bad guys whenever possible:

• We will continue our lives as unaffected by the terror as we possibly can.
  
• We will not give up our freedoms in response to terrorism.
  
• We will not compromise our morals and ethics in response to terrorism.
• We will remain true to our founding documents.

I do agree that the public in general is too removed from the war in Iraq. Given that belief I am moving ever closer to the idea that we need universal service in this country. It is too easy to send other folks children into foolish wars.

By the way, if Vick is guilty -- and since I wrote this several weeks ago I've heard tell that he has acknowledged his guilt -- he is a cruel and disturbed human being. But he hasn't quite achieved terrorist status in my Book of Evils. Though I have always heard that animal abuse turns up in the life stories of psycopaths pretty frequently.

Doomed by Twisted Thinking

Can a “Christian” Nation
Live by Christian Principles?

During the recent national discussion concerning the treatment of terrorist suspects, I wonder if there were any sermons in Christian churches that condemned torture? I doubt many such sermons were given. Such sermons, condemning torture, would have contradicted the view of our “Christian” President and such sermons would probably have been very unpopular in many churches.

Believers think they are being taught Christian principles by their preachers and evangelists. But it is possible to go to some churches for years without hearing one sermon on “Turn the other cheek,” or “Resist not evil,” or even a sermon concerning the beatitudes. Increasingly, it seems to me, we are being taught a very selfish gospel, a gospel designed to make us comfortable. We are taught that our religion is all about our personal salvation, all about our personal reality. Increasingly, ministers, who appear on TV, for example, are teaching that Christianity is all about personal financial gain, all about one’s personal aggrandizement via God’s blessing.

And so, if people are convinced that Christianity is all about personal safety and personal welfare, then from those beliefs can flow all sorts of rationalizations: Christians can approve of torture. Christians can approve of the current status quo system of economic injustice. Christians have rationalizations that are not based on the teachings of Christ, but upon false premises. This is not a new phenomena, of course. In previous ages, Christians approved of slavery and approved of social order based on officially sanctioned terror, and, approved of war and torture.

We seem to be set to collectively march over a cliff. What could save us? We should all be very afraid of what the future may hold. If we extrapolate the trends we see today out 25 or 50 years, it seems a grim future awaits. I keep wondering how our country and our entire world could possibly move toward a bright future, rather than to the destruction. Our current attitudes and practices are based on twisted thinking, and a twisted view of truth, and such thinking will surely lead to disaster.

If anything can save us, it will be wisdom and truth. We need new thinking to infuse our society. But how could that happen? I don’t see our educational or political structures as bringing such a change in thinking about. It seems to me that such a change is more likely to happen via religious revival. Throughout history there have been religious revivals or awakenings that have hugely impacted the societies in which they occurred. A Christian revival in our time may be possible. Ultimately, if we are to be saved, it is truth that must set us free, it is truth that must guide us to fulfillment of our human and societal and world potential. A religious revival may be the force that is needed.

Pilate asked, “What is truth?” A profound question, but as Mark Twain observed, it’s not what’s in the Bible that we don’t understand that should bother us, it’s what’s in the Bible that we do understand that should bother us. We don’t need to know all about truth in order to benefit from the truth that we do know.

Consider the “war on terror,” for example. Our political leaders profess that they know truth and they promote the idea that our safety and well being is assured through aggression and violence. They want us to believe that we overcome evil by unleashing a greater evil. But, Jesus taught that we overcome evil with good. Quite a difference in a view of truth. We are being sold the idea that war is the answer, and that it is possible via war and violence to defeat war and violence. That is an amazing premise. And that is not the truth; it is twisted thinking. We don’t want to be soft, we don’t want to coddle our enemies, and so we have advanced a theory of how to resolve issues that is based on cave man thinking. What we need is ideas based on better thinking, and based on a more profound commitment to truth.

In our efforts in Iraq, the latest estimate is that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed. What kind of strategy is that? And we have spent enough money now in Iraq to given every one of the 24 million Iraqis about $20,000. To assure peace and a hopeful future, it is mind boggling to think how such a fortune could have been spent on positive, life giving actions, rather than on actions leading to death and destruction.

Could you imaging a US President, in response to the Twin Trade Towers attack, saying something like: “This attack shows that there is evil in this world and that this evil can no longer be ignored. We know that evil comes from ignorance, from poverty, from injustice, from lack of hope. This attack has shown us, more than ever, that we must find effective strategies for overcoming evil. I am asking congress, therefore, to approve a ‘Marshal Plan’ type of program for the Middle East, funded over the next ten years for a total of $300 billion.”

Wow. Can you imagine?

To make our way to a bright future our actions must be guided by sound principles. We need a basic change in our thinking -- or I fear we are doomed.

Principles like Feingold's

Sherrod Brown, I Want My Senator
To Show Principles Like Feingold’s

Sherrod Brown is the Democratic candidate in Ohio for the US Senate. Brown is challenging the incumbent Republican senator, Mike Dewine. Brown is currently a member of the House of Representatives and is one of 34 Democrats who voted to support the passage of the “Military Commissions Act,” the “torture” legislation dealing with non-American citizens detained as terrorist suspects. This act empowers our government the right to deny detainees any right of judicial review of their detention.

It is surprising and disconcerting that our Democratic challenger would support such legislation and would agree on this matter with the likes of Dewine, Hastert, Boehner, Frist, McConnell, Santorum -- political hacks who consistently show no principles and who consistently seek first to do whatever is needed to gain political advantage. The most charitable explanation of Brown’s vote is that he fears the Republican slime machine, and, in this matter, he is willing to compromise his own principles. The Republican play book, after all, has already been revealed by Majority Leader Boehner in his comment: “I wonder if (the Democrats) are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." A less charitable explanation for Brown’s vote is the possibility that Brown is simply revealing himself for who he is: he is not compromising principles, he is just another politician, not encumbered by principles, making his decisions based upon what his polling data shows. He knows that Democrats will continue to support him over DeWine, and, by this vote, he hopes to be inoculated from the ferocious “protecting terrorists” attacks against him that Republicans would otherwise be funding.

But Democrats who parse their principles for what they hope is political gain, I believe, greatly underestimate a huge and growing number of the American voters -- who include many Republicans and Independents -- who are looking for political leaders who are willing to take principled stands. By his "yes," Brown has missed an opportunity to elevate his race for senator to one based on principles; Brown has missed an opportunity to take a principled stand. I feel that this could have been a successful wedge issue for Brown, had he made a principled stand, rather than making the political calculation that he made. Had Brown taken a stand against this legislation, such a stand would have revealed a character of courage that would have had wide appeal and would have worked in his favor. His calculation of compromising principles for political gain, I feel, will be read as cowardice and, therefore, even from a political standpoint, his calculation was simply wrong. He is ahead in the polls -- but, by refusing to make a courageous choice in this matter, he may find that the enthusiasm of his supporters may diminish.

I would like my senator from Ohio to make the type of speech on the senate floor that was made by Russ Fingold, in his explanation for his “no” vote. The first part of this speech, dealing with habeas corpus, is excerpted below:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition of the Military Commissions Act

Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.
Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us.

And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime—the ability to challenge their detention in court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling—that the legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.

But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.
One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy – ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”

Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Mr. President, why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our nation’s commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good reason to do so? We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And this provision will only serve to harm others’ perception of our system of government.

Mr. President, a group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said: “To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary governmental detention will not serve our interests in the larger world.”

Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations about this particular provision of the bill.
They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because they don’t understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate who support the Specter amendment, are concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that American presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

Mr. President, we must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ. We must not jeopardize our nation’s proud traditions and principles by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about.

Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem with this legislation, nor is it the only instance where the legislation goes beyond establishing military commissions to include unnecessary provisions with deeply troubling results.

"Rushing Off a Cliff"

New York Times Condemns
Proposed Torture Legislation

Thursday's New York Times, September 28, published a strongly worded editorial -- "Rushing Off a Cliff" -- analyzing and condeming the proposed legislation dealing with torture. This is an excerpt from that editorial.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Condoning Torture

Condoning Torture Moves Us
Towards Totalitarianism

In a recent e-mail discussion concerning torture, a long time friend offered a defense of torture as a necessary means of acquiring vital information needed to prevent the destruction of lives via terrorist acts. My reply:

The defense of torture that you offered in your previous e-mail, it seems to me, is one appropriate for a 30 second political attack ad or a bumper sticker slogan. But it is not a defense that corresponds to reality. Your defense of torture sounds to me like a takeoff of the TV program, “24” : our hero, Jack, stiffs the interrogation rules demanded by his soft headed bosses, uses “harsh” torture-type questioning methods strictly forbidden by those soft headed bosses, and at the last minute before the end of the TV allotted program time, finds out the crucial information that saves the day. You are saying that you want the government to have authority to torture a detainee -- when a detainee has vital information. But you're not dealing with the larger question: how many detainees may need to be tortured before the government finds the one detainee that has the vital information?

I can see the 30 second attack ad that your justification would produce: Jack saves the day because he has the guts to torture. Democrats are slime because they are soft headed and oppose taking the tough actions needed to defeat terrorism. Did you catch the recent comment by the Republican Majority Leader, John Boehner? He said: "I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." (The more I read this comment, the more I am amazed.)

It would be impossible to have a torture policy based on the notion that only those with vital knowledge will be tortured. Isn't that the purpose of much torture -- to find out if, in fact, the detainee has vital knowledge? Bush and Co are seeking authority to pursue an effective torture policy, not an ineffective policy. Before the Supreme Court intervened, the administration was operating on the premise that they had authority to take this position: "We will torture, if and when we feel like it, for whatever reasons that we deem sufficient, and we will never be required to justify our practices." Republican leadership seem to be betting that Americans will support a carte blanche torture approval.

The slope to totalitarianism is greased by selfish interests. People support the move to totalitarianism when they support totalitarian measures. Americans are being urged to support totalitarian measures with the promise that these totalitarian measures will assure personal safety. Americans are being urged to give into a view that says, "I don't care what my government does -- so long as it makes me safe." In this war on terrorism, our government has treated non-Americans detainees to secret prisons, incarcerated detainees with no judicial review, sought to have trials in which the detainees could not review evidence against him, and tortured. The administration is betting that Americans will support these actions, because these actions promise to make them safe. But, these actions stoop so low that, as Colin Powell says, we are losing our moral basis for fighting terrorism. And I am wondering if by agreeing to stoop so low, that, as a society, we are agreeing to a slide towards totalitarianism.

We have declared a never ending war on terror -- and our war on terror is producing more terror, more terrorists, which, in turn, has made us increase our war on terror. We've seemingly created a perpetual terror and war producing machine. And propelled by this engine of terror, what is the next logical cycle in this process? What about the threat of American grown terrorists? Should we allow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to hamper our government from taking effective action against American terrorists, or those who might be terrorists, or those who might encourage terrorists, or those who might know a terrorist, etc.?

The war on terrorism, it seems to me, if it continues to escalate, will eventually cause an assault on our Constitution and our Bill of rights. We may start by not caring how non-Americans are treated in this war on terror, by not caring if the Geneva Conventions are trashed -- because we only care about our own safety. But if concern for our own safety is the determining factor, then it is not hard to imagine the next step -- not caring how Americans accused of terrorist connections are treated, and not caring how much growth in totalitarian power is accrued to the government. And those who do care will be slimed. I can almost hear John Boehner say: "I wonder if these people, who say they are protecting the Constitution, are really more interested in protecting the terrorists than in protecting the American people."

It seems logical to me that this never ending war on terror, unless we find better strategies, will lead to a growing movement to reinterpret, to eviscerate, the Bill of Rights -- as, similarly, Bush sought to destroy the Geneva Conventions. And if Bush and his ilk get to appoint one or two more Supreme Court judges -- such reinterpretations of our Constitution, should they be pursued by those in power, could very well have judicial approval. It seems clear: If we do not find a better way to answer the terrorist threat, then the war on terror will cost us all very dearly.

Rove on a Waterboard? What an Image!

In a comment to Mike Bock's last post, Zenyenta pointed to the Americablog suggestion that Karl Rove and a few others from the Bush administration volunteer to experience some of Bush's alternative interrogation methods (I wish I were a cartoonist!) and see where they think the line should be drawn. Imagine Karl on that waterboard. Or the Blusterer-in-Chief, himself. Somehow I think those boys would soon be swearing to anything the "professionals" asked of them.

Torture Is...

It Depends Upon What
The Meaning of the Word “Torture” Is


President Bush has said flatly that the US “does not torture.” Yet, he says that, because of a Supreme Court ruling, there is a need for more “clarity.” Bush wants to make sure that there is an agreement in congress that certain interrogation techniques are given legal protection via new laws. These techniques, according to Bush, are essential for the continuation of a “program” that has been successful in producing valuable information. Bush argues that these interrogation techniques may be “harsh,” but that they do not comprise “torture.”

At his 15 September 2006 press conference, Bush said:
"This debate is occurring because the Supreme Court ruling said that we must conduct ourselves under the common article three of the Geneva Convention. And that common article three says that--you know--there will be no outrages upon human dignity. That's like very vague. What does that mean? Outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that's wide open to interpretation."

It appears that Bush is acting on a fear that the interrogation practices that his “program,” evidently, has used for some time, needs legal protection via new laws -- because, if a jury simply applied Geneva Convention standards, as a basis to evaluate the legality of current interrogation techniques, without “clarification,” via new congressional action, then he and his chain of command could be held criminally liable.

The Geneva Convention provision, that Bush cited, prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." It is amazing that Bush would argue that what constitutes “outrages upon human dignity” is vague and open to interpretation. Don't we know an "outrage upon human dignity" when we see it? Anyone looking at the pictures from Abu Ghraib would not be confused whether those pictures reveal such “outrages.”

Far from fearing that the Geneva standard is too “vague,” that someone might not really understand if a specific practice is an “outrage upon personal dignity,” or not, it seems obvious that Bush is afraid that the Geneva standard is, in fact, too definitive. His interrogators, evidently, very well know that their “harsh” methods would be universally condemned as an “outrage,” therefore against the Geneva Convention, and, therefore against US law. So, the interrogators must have legal protection, via laws that give more "clarity," the story goes, or the program will need to end.

Do we torture? Bush says “no,” and now we can see how Bush justifies that “no,” regardless of his certain knowledge of many outrageous interrogation practices that his administration has sanctioned. The Bush justification goes something like this: We do not torture prisoners, because, the word “torture” means to treat prisoners in such a way as to violate the Geneva Convention. And we do not violate the Geneva Convention, because our interrogation practices are not an “outrage to human dignity.”

What Bush seeks to do is to buttress his weak justification, a justification that no jury would buy, with this additional statement: “And the congress has clarified, via law, that our practices do not violate the Geneva Convention -- therefore we do not torture.”

The arrogance is amazing. And the cynical political calculation is amazing. The fact that this issue is coming to a head six weeks before election is not a happenstance. But surprisingly, and refreshingly, Rove's playbook is not working quite like planned because Republican senators, rather than Democratic senators, are leading the opposition to the proposed Bush legislation. These Republican senators are receiving grief, but nothing like the insult, accusation and venom that certainly was planned for the Democrats had Democrats led the opposition.

The Ends of Things

Very few established institutions, governments and constitutions ... are ever destroyed by their enemies until they have been corrupted and weakened by their friends.

-Walter Lippman, journalist (1889-1974)

Torture, Terrorism, Abu Ghraib, Black Sites

Our Own Worst Enemy

Yes. We are, sometimes, our own worst enemy.

Take the Bush treatment of prisoners from the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

It is not a great leap from unconcern about the treatment of accused terrorists to unconcern about mistreatment of other prisoners or political enemies.

Treating prisoners inhumanely is incredibly stupid. It inspires revenge. It embitters a generation or two or three. It repels potential allies. It is also un-American and un-Christian and unwise. It plays right into the hands of the terrorists. No act committed by the terrorists themselves has helped the terrorists' cause so much as the Bush Administration's amateurish, clumsy and wrongheaded policies regarding prisoners, which, intentionally or not, led to the Abu Ghraib disgrace. (Well, OK, the Iraq war itself has helped Al Qaeda recover from the defeat in Afghanistan and divided the anti-terrorist world. But no part of the Iraq war has hurt us more than the prisoner abuse.)

Hacking of heads, roadside bombs, suicide missions: these are terrorist acts. They are grisly, beastly, unimaginably cruel. Yep, that's terrorism. These barbarous acts are the evil history of every war in all ages. In my book the Abu Ghraib atrocities and “black sites” (and My Lai, Andersonville, Wounded Knee, etc) are worse for America, not because they are more bloody or more evil in themselves, of course they are not; but because they initiate Americans as junior members of the society of the brutes of Baghdad and their predecessors of Germany, Japan, the Spanish Inquisition, etc, etc., etc.

The entire Bush response to the terrorists has been wrongheaded. I say that not because I believe we should be pacifists. Heavens, no. We should respond with devastating and righteous fury against proven terrorists. But we should respond as Americans who believe the words of our founding documents, who believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Whenever we disregard basic human rights, I believe we disregard and diminish our heritage and our moral standing in the world. In short we defeat ourselves. We fail our forefathers.

We become our own worst enemies.

Odd Man Out

Alone on A Limb

What I write below is very serious and important to me. I promise that all my blogs will not be political in nature, but I love my country and cannot ignore issues like those I discuss below. If this bothers you, my blog may not be for you.

VACLAV HAVEL said:
"You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility..."

OK, I don't fear for my life at family reunions. But I am the family dissident. So, another quote, this time from EDWARD R. MURROW:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."

I am alone among my siblings. We are a big, loving, hugging, boisterous, generally strong-willed bunch. Five sisters, two brothers and my mother. We vacation together almost every year with our spouses and children and even grandchildren. We usually get along well.

Like the rest of the country, though, we are split by politics. Unfortunately for me, however, our family is not split down the middle: all five sisters, my brother, and my mother have become very conservative Republicans. I am the the odd man out.

I am a Democrat.

I love the founding documents of our country.
I revere the founding fathers.
I believe in civil rights for all.
I believe dissent is a responsibility of citizenship.

I believe in the separation of church and state as being best for both.
I believe our government should protect minority rights.
I believe that we have a cultural heritage that should not be denied or ignored. The Christian faith is a huge part of that heritage.
I believe also that we must be more sensitive than our fathers to the fact that many loyal Americans are not Christian.

I believe in stringent environmental protection.
I believe that the government should, for the public good, provide good roads, a strong national defense, effective emergency management, outstanding public schools, basic housing and food for the poorest among us, support for the arts, good public broadcasting, mass transit in cities, inter-city and cross-country passenger rail service, for starters.

I believe the activities, associations, living arrangements, or lifestyles of adults should concern the government only if it interferes with the life, liberty, property or health of others.
I believe no person, however stupid or misguided, should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

I believe in our right as a people to covenant together to provide universal health care to our citizens.
I believe those of us who, through some combination of intelligence, hard work, learned skills, and good fortune, have been financially well-rewarded should pay the largest part of the expenses to provide the services and protections I have described.

I believe torture is always wrong and incredibly stupid and any president or vice president or other official who advocates relaxing that rule cannot be trusted with the powers of his/her office.
I believe all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe we should go to war only when there is a clear national interest that can be protected no other way and when there is a strong consensus among the people to support the war.
I believe that lying, exaggerating, or hyping information in order to take our country to war is a high crime.

I therefore believe the current occupant of the White House is right out there with Richard Nixon and James Buchanan in the race for the most dangerous President of all time. With the right wing in total control of all three branches of government, a major "news" network, an intricate right-wing "religious" political consortium, and a huge talk-show echo chamber, it isn't likely to be practical to impeach him. He deserves it.

A final quote, this time from a Nazi, HERMANN GOERING:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Probably most of the folks who visit this blog (if anyone does) will be my family. Except for my wife and daughters, I expect my family will disagree with me. I'm sorry I'm alone out on this limb of our family tree. But I've been pushed out here by my "personal sense of responsibility". To abandon my limb while I have these beliefs would be cowardly and unpatriotic.

I hope my wonderful family will at least understand me better for what I write here.

I welcome brief polite comments in support or disagreement. Those who have long responses should post links to their own blogs in a brief comment. I will delete any impolite comments.