Torture, Presidential Crimes, International Law on Torture, American History of Constitutional Failures
Thursday/Friday April 23,24 2009
Today’s Zinger:
Today's Zinger is Pure Torture.
The Morning Briefing:
The Discussion:
Torture. There’s a loaded word. I am going to wade into a very controversial subject. Torture is different than political terms like socialism or capitalism. When we hear these political words many people immediately tend to think right or wrong. With torture, most of us react with reluctant acceptance or outrage, with little in between.
This week President Obama decided to release memos outlining the legal opinion of torture and its use to extract information from prisoners in the war on terror in 2002. This definition remained in effect until 2004 when the use of most “advanced interrogation techniques” was stopped. Initially, President Obama said that no one would be prosecuted for what he felt was “a loss of moral ground” but the public had a right to know what was going on. One day later he reversed himself and said that there could be prosecutions. Many staunch Liberals have been calling for the prosecution of Bush and his aids for war crimes and expecting prison sentences.
I am not here to say that torture is an acceptable means to extract information. I know Jack Bauer always gets the information that he is looking for by using torture on the hit TV show “24”, but TV is not reality. Most experts will tell you that torture does not work. Many soldiers and CIA operatives with real experience will say that you can learn more valuable and actionable information playing checkers or chess with your enemy than you will learn from torture. I will accept their wisdom and do not feel the need to personally test this belief.
Torture is not a well-defined term. (Definition of torture) Looking at International Law on the care of prisoners, or the US military code of conduct for the treatment of prisoners, leaves little doubt that the Bush administration pushed the envelope in defining acceptable use of pain and suffering. President Bush and Congress were advised as to the use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” after the United States was attacked 9/11/2001. I am sure no one liked what he or she heard, but there was fear of an unknown enemy intent on killing Americans.
The one duty of the Federal Government, that is clear in the US Constitution, is the protection of America. Given the fear, uncertainty and clear accountability of our government, I am not surprised that The President and Congress approved the torture techniques. (Attorney Yoo on torture memos: Esquire interview) After all, it had been done many times in our history.
And that is really what I want to talk about today. For all those that look at what has been done with disgust and outrage and a desire to prosecute anyone involved in designing and approving the use of “advanced interrogation techniques” or suspending Habeas Corpus to prisoners at Guantanamo prison, a little history is in order. Some of our greatest Presidents have done similar things without prosecution. What would you do?
The international community has attempted to ban the use of torture. As a result, many have expressed surprise at these recent revelations of torture, but the truth is the American military has used a systematic pattern of prisoner mistreatment since the WW I.
Vietnam War:
In 1971, Vietnam Veterans testified to observing and having first-hand knowledge of the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Incidents described in detail the beating of prisoners, throwing prisoners from helicopters, requiring POW's to kneel beside piles of dead comrades sometimes for hours, attaching electric wires to body parts, interrogation with attack dogs, interrogation with snakes, water torture, and burning skin with heated pieces of metal. Even back then some graphic evidence was available in photos and slides of specific incidents. These made Abu Ghraib look like family gatherings.
World War II:
After World War II, there were prisons that remained open for two years after the end of the war. Inmates included Nazi party members and were tortured and starved to death. Locals at the time said you could hear prisoners scream at night. Former prisoners had been whipped as well as beaten and any prisoner thought to be uncooperative during interrogation was taken to a punishment cell.
Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered 'perfectly proper' on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to prevent any Nazi insurgency, although a significant number were also businessmen who had done well under Adolf Hitler.
The government had been briefed about the camp and was told guards were instructed "to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the objective of making them more amenable to interrogation".
In addition to the military's use of torture, some of our greatest American Presidents have disregarded the Constitution for what they believe to be in the best interest of the country.
President John Adams:
When Adams found himself in the middle of an undeclared war with France in 1798, he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which said American citizens were no longer allowed to say anything negative about the government, or its officials. The president could also deport any individual who was from France, or suspected sympathizers of France.
President Abraham Lincoln:
The more vehemently a president equates democracy with freedom, the greater the danger he likely poses to Americans’ rights. President Abraham Lincoln was by far the most avid champion of democracy among nineteenth century presidents—and the president with the greatest visible contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In response to rioting in the Union, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln rounded up 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers and put them in jail. Lincoln also had the habit of jailing his dissenters. Numerous people took political aim at Lincoln, which was met with a prison sentence to silence their opinion and limit competition during his second election.
President Woodrow Wilson:
Woodrow Wilson set up groups of people that silenced citizens who criticized WWI and put them into prisons (ignoring Habeas Corpus) for simply voicing doubts about the war effort. Wilson openly criticized the idea of a constitution to limit the power of the government and he called ethnic groups enemies of the state.
President Franklin D Roosevelt:
Who can forget the forced imprisonment of Japanese Americans at the start of World War II? Franklin Roosevelt approved the interment of these people based on their nationality with no regard to due process. The reason of course, was fear and uncertainty. Just like 9/11, America was not sure who the enemy was and the enemy could be living next door. To quell these fears, the government arrested Japanese Americans and put them in detention camps.
Of course, let's not forget that there are many who believe that Roosevelt was advised, prior to the invasion of Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese where about to attack the United States. The story goes that Roosevelt waited to use the attack as justification for entering WWII and thereby fulfilling an agreement with England and the allies.
President John Kennedy:
Kennedy and his administration supported a coup against the Iraqi government. The country's pro-Western monarchy had been overthrown several years earlier, and after some intense debate' Kennedy decided to back a coup by Abdul Salam Arif. Under Kennedy's instruction, the CIA sent thousands of weapons to Arif, as well as providing him with lists of suspected Communists. Everyone acted surprised when Arif slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba. Eisenhower planned it. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a plan against Cuba including bombardment of industrial installations and acknowledging the killing of civilians, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage. Later, under Nixon, it even went as far as poisoning livestock.
Of course, Kennedy was also responsible for the invasion of Vietnam in the name of preventing the spread of communism.
Conclusion:
To all those that wish to punish the past (in particular the use of torture and suspending Habeas Corpus to terror prisoners during the Bush years), we might want to think what others have done in the name of preserving the Union and keeping America safe. I am not an advocate for the use of torture, but I wonder what people would say if we had been attacked again and more Americans had been killed?
There are many, including members of the CIA and Vice President Cheney, that say the results of the interrogations should be made public to demonstrate the effectiveness, and therefore the continuation, of the practice. Normally I would say I don’t need to know. As long as Congress knows, the President knows and there has been a judicial review, I would feel comfortable with the outcome. Some Americans think they have a right to know everything. I think our adversaries want to know everything to discredit the Untied States. Even adversaries that have no intention of living to the standards that they want to hold us to, but rather are looking for the photo op and perceived moral high ground for their own propaganda (you can read this a Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vladimir Putin).
If the results of the interrogations show that American lives were saved, is this really an acceptable reason for torture? I wonder what Americans might say if a terrorist used a biological weapon in this country and hundreds of thousands of Americans died. Holding to our principals is important, but even the most well intended people can change when afraid and uncertain. I really wonder if this is outrage or just more “I hate Bush and everything he did”. It is obvious a lot worse has happened in the past. I seriously wonder about President Obama's motive since, as an attorney, he knows that you cannot prosecute an attorney for legal advise. This is exactly what he is suggesting be considered by Eric Holder. This can only be a distraction to put more focus on Bush, keep the drama going and appease the far Left who just can't let go and move on.
To all those outraged by the revelations of the torture memos, armchair quarterbacks never fumble the ball, never throw an interception and never make a coaching mistake. If you were President of the United States in 2002, with millions of people counting on you to protect them from terrorists after 9/11, what would you do?
If you were Lincoln in 1860's and there were states driving to succession from the Union, and you feared for a breakup of the United States, would you allow it to happen?
If you were John Kennedy in the 1960's and feared that Russia was establishing missiles in Cuba which could be used to attack the United States, would you try to overthrow a sovereign country?
If you were Barack Obama and Iran announced nuclear weapons with long range missile delivery, what would you be willing to do to stop a clear and present danger. All decisions of past Presidents no longer matter. Its over. The decisons for President Obama are reality. If we are attacked and Americans die, will we still be comforted in knowing that we have taken the moral high ground?
Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved. ZingerKing.
Today’s Zinger:
Today's Zinger is Pure Torture.
The Morning Briefing:
- President Obama has released classified documents regarding the government’s use of torture in the war on terror. While experts agree that torture rarely surrenders useful information, Vice President Cheney contends that “advanced interrogation techniques" have yielded valuable information.
- U.S. history is filled with Presidents that have overstepped, and even totally disregarded the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and International Law in the name of preservation of the Union, American safety and support for planned actions. Do the ends justify the means for President Bush or any other US President?
The Discussion:
Torture. There’s a loaded word. I am going to wade into a very controversial subject. Torture is different than political terms like socialism or capitalism. When we hear these political words many people immediately tend to think right or wrong. With torture, most of us react with reluctant acceptance or outrage, with little in between.
This week President Obama decided to release memos outlining the legal opinion of torture and its use to extract information from prisoners in the war on terror in 2002. This definition remained in effect until 2004 when the use of most “advanced interrogation techniques” was stopped. Initially, President Obama said that no one would be prosecuted for what he felt was “a loss of moral ground” but the public had a right to know what was going on. One day later he reversed himself and said that there could be prosecutions. Many staunch Liberals have been calling for the prosecution of Bush and his aids for war crimes and expecting prison sentences.
I am not here to say that torture is an acceptable means to extract information. I know Jack Bauer always gets the information that he is looking for by using torture on the hit TV show “24”, but TV is not reality. Most experts will tell you that torture does not work. Many soldiers and CIA operatives with real experience will say that you can learn more valuable and actionable information playing checkers or chess with your enemy than you will learn from torture. I will accept their wisdom and do not feel the need to personally test this belief.
Torture is not a well-defined term. (Definition of torture) Looking at International Law on the care of prisoners, or the US military code of conduct for the treatment of prisoners, leaves little doubt that the Bush administration pushed the envelope in defining acceptable use of pain and suffering. President Bush and Congress were advised as to the use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” after the United States was attacked 9/11/2001. I am sure no one liked what he or she heard, but there was fear of an unknown enemy intent on killing Americans.
The one duty of the Federal Government, that is clear in the US Constitution, is the protection of America. Given the fear, uncertainty and clear accountability of our government, I am not surprised that The President and Congress approved the torture techniques. (Attorney Yoo on torture memos: Esquire interview) After all, it had been done many times in our history.
And that is really what I want to talk about today. For all those that look at what has been done with disgust and outrage and a desire to prosecute anyone involved in designing and approving the use of “advanced interrogation techniques” or suspending Habeas Corpus to prisoners at Guantanamo prison, a little history is in order. Some of our greatest Presidents have done similar things without prosecution. What would you do?
The international community has attempted to ban the use of torture. As a result, many have expressed surprise at these recent revelations of torture, but the truth is the American military has used a systematic pattern of prisoner mistreatment since the WW I.
Vietnam War:
In 1971, Vietnam Veterans testified to observing and having first-hand knowledge of the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Incidents described in detail the beating of prisoners, throwing prisoners from helicopters, requiring POW's to kneel beside piles of dead comrades sometimes for hours, attaching electric wires to body parts, interrogation with attack dogs, interrogation with snakes, water torture, and burning skin with heated pieces of metal. Even back then some graphic evidence was available in photos and slides of specific incidents. These made Abu Ghraib look like family gatherings.
World War II:
After World War II, there were prisons that remained open for two years after the end of the war. Inmates included Nazi party members and were tortured and starved to death. Locals at the time said you could hear prisoners scream at night. Former prisoners had been whipped as well as beaten and any prisoner thought to be uncooperative during interrogation was taken to a punishment cell.
Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered 'perfectly proper' on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to prevent any Nazi insurgency, although a significant number were also businessmen who had done well under Adolf Hitler.
The government had been briefed about the camp and was told guards were instructed "to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the objective of making them more amenable to interrogation".
In addition to the military's use of torture, some of our greatest American Presidents have disregarded the Constitution for what they believe to be in the best interest of the country.
President John Adams:
When Adams found himself in the middle of an undeclared war with France in 1798, he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which said American citizens were no longer allowed to say anything negative about the government, or its officials. The president could also deport any individual who was from France, or suspected sympathizers of France.
President Abraham Lincoln:
The more vehemently a president equates democracy with freedom, the greater the danger he likely poses to Americans’ rights. President Abraham Lincoln was by far the most avid champion of democracy among nineteenth century presidents—and the president with the greatest visible contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In response to rioting in the Union, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln rounded up 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers and put them in jail. Lincoln also had the habit of jailing his dissenters. Numerous people took political aim at Lincoln, which was met with a prison sentence to silence their opinion and limit competition during his second election.
President Woodrow Wilson:
Woodrow Wilson set up groups of people that silenced citizens who criticized WWI and put them into prisons (ignoring Habeas Corpus) for simply voicing doubts about the war effort. Wilson openly criticized the idea of a constitution to limit the power of the government and he called ethnic groups enemies of the state.
President Franklin D Roosevelt:
Who can forget the forced imprisonment of Japanese Americans at the start of World War II? Franklin Roosevelt approved the interment of these people based on their nationality with no regard to due process. The reason of course, was fear and uncertainty. Just like 9/11, America was not sure who the enemy was and the enemy could be living next door. To quell these fears, the government arrested Japanese Americans and put them in detention camps.
Of course, let's not forget that there are many who believe that Roosevelt was advised, prior to the invasion of Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese where about to attack the United States. The story goes that Roosevelt waited to use the attack as justification for entering WWII and thereby fulfilling an agreement with England and the allies.
President John Kennedy:
Kennedy and his administration supported a coup against the Iraqi government. The country's pro-Western monarchy had been overthrown several years earlier, and after some intense debate' Kennedy decided to back a coup by Abdul Salam Arif. Under Kennedy's instruction, the CIA sent thousands of weapons to Arif, as well as providing him with lists of suspected Communists. Everyone acted surprised when Arif slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba. Eisenhower planned it. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a plan against Cuba including bombardment of industrial installations and acknowledging the killing of civilians, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage. Later, under Nixon, it even went as far as poisoning livestock.
Of course, Kennedy was also responsible for the invasion of Vietnam in the name of preventing the spread of communism.
Conclusion:
To all those that wish to punish the past (in particular the use of torture and suspending Habeas Corpus to terror prisoners during the Bush years), we might want to think what others have done in the name of preserving the Union and keeping America safe. I am not an advocate for the use of torture, but I wonder what people would say if we had been attacked again and more Americans had been killed?
There are many, including members of the CIA and Vice President Cheney, that say the results of the interrogations should be made public to demonstrate the effectiveness, and therefore the continuation, of the practice. Normally I would say I don’t need to know. As long as Congress knows, the President knows and there has been a judicial review, I would feel comfortable with the outcome. Some Americans think they have a right to know everything. I think our adversaries want to know everything to discredit the Untied States. Even adversaries that have no intention of living to the standards that they want to hold us to, but rather are looking for the photo op and perceived moral high ground for their own propaganda (you can read this a Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vladimir Putin).
If the results of the interrogations show that American lives were saved, is this really an acceptable reason for torture? I wonder what Americans might say if a terrorist used a biological weapon in this country and hundreds of thousands of Americans died. Holding to our principals is important, but even the most well intended people can change when afraid and uncertain. I really wonder if this is outrage or just more “I hate Bush and everything he did”. It is obvious a lot worse has happened in the past. I seriously wonder about President Obama's motive since, as an attorney, he knows that you cannot prosecute an attorney for legal advise. This is exactly what he is suggesting be considered by Eric Holder. This can only be a distraction to put more focus on Bush, keep the drama going and appease the far Left who just can't let go and move on.
To all those outraged by the revelations of the torture memos, armchair quarterbacks never fumble the ball, never throw an interception and never make a coaching mistake. If you were President of the United States in 2002, with millions of people counting on you to protect them from terrorists after 9/11, what would you do?
If you were Lincoln in 1860's and there were states driving to succession from the Union, and you feared for a breakup of the United States, would you allow it to happen?
If you were John Kennedy in the 1960's and feared that Russia was establishing missiles in Cuba which could be used to attack the United States, would you try to overthrow a sovereign country?
If you were Barack Obama and Iran announced nuclear weapons with long range missile delivery, what would you be willing to do to stop a clear and present danger. All decisions of past Presidents no longer matter. Its over. The decisons for President Obama are reality. If we are attacked and Americans die, will we still be comforted in knowing that we have taken the moral high ground?
Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved. ZingerKing.
Trackbacks
-
5/17/2009 9:35 AM
ZingerKing wrote:
Mon/Tues May 18,19 2009 Today's Zinger:A Lie Is Not A Lie When It Is Witnessed, Documented And Videotaped. Then It Is Self-Destruction.Morning Briefing:Nancy Pelosi has gone to war with the CIA over her knowledge of interrogation techniques in 2002. Russia, the Contras in Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam and many others have been been at war with the CIA, but these were covert operations This war is quite different. Nancy Pelosi is firing in public and she is standing alone. Unfortunately, she may be shooting blanks at an organization known for killing with one shot. ... -
5/17/2009 9:43 AM
ZingerKing wrote:
Mon/Tues May 18,19 2009 Today's Zinger:A Lie Is Not A Lie When It Is Witnessed, Documented And Videotaped. Then It Is Self-Destruction.Morning Briefing:Nancy Pelosi has gone to war with the CIA over her knowledge of interrogation techniques in 2002. Russia, the Contras in Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam and many others have been been at war with the CIA, but these were covert operations This war is quite different. Nancy Pelosi is firing in public and she is standing alone. Unfortunately, she may be shooting blanks at an organization known for killing with one shot. ...
So the Obama and the Democrats want their “Truth Commission” and criminalize Bush administration for keeping the country safe for 7 years. Not important that the Democratic current leaders were all briefed and signed off. They were just “lied” to (Their favorite mantra). So if we are going to follow this logic why not go back to the Clinton administration, their lawyers put in place the walls that did not allows us to seek and identify terrorists. They set in motion the Cole and then 911 and the other attacks before that. Should they not be prosecuted them for causing the deaths of thousands of Americans? Should we not go back to Carter and prosecute the lawyers who allowed the Iran hostages to be held for over a year? Where does it stop? Should we go back to see if any of the FDR lawyers who are still alive who made the decision to place the Japanese Americans to put into camps?
Is the new era of “bi-partnership” that is brought by Change we Can Count On. Yes We Can.
So start the process now, when the Obama Administration officials leave office we can get a head start on their prosecution. Lets make it easy and have a new Cabinet Position “Prosecute the last Administration” should be put in place.
Reply to this