This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Torture Is Continuing Under the Obama Administration, Creating More Terrorists and Further Destabilizing the Economy
As I pointed out in May 2008:
The U.S. has imprisoned 2,500 children since 9/11 as "enemy combatants", in violation of the Geneva Convention against classifying children as POWs ...
Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. Government has videotapes of boys being raped at Abu Ghraib prison (and see this; see also this - General Taguba discusses the sexual humiliation of a father with his son - see this and this).
This doesn't come as a complete surprise, given that assistant deputy Attorney General John Yoo has publicly argued that the president can order the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
In April 2009, I noted:
Respected political scientist Michael Haas
has confirmed that children were tortured, and Raw Story has explained
that the newly-release Bush torture memos may corroborate claims that
at least some detainees' children were tortured using insects.
The number two man at the State Department, Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, said
that many of those tortured at Guantanamo Bay were innocent, but that
the Bush administration did not really care whether they were innocent
or not.
Last December, I wrote:
Many reporters have said that the Bagram prison facility in Afghanistan is worse than Guantanamo ever was. Moreover, abuse is apparently still occurring there.
As Spiegel wrote on September 21, 2009, in an article entitled "Prisoner Abuse Continues at Bagram Prison in Afghanistan":
US
President Barack Obama has spoken out against CIA prisoner abuse and
wants to close Guantanamo. But he tolerates the existence of Bagram
military prison in Afghanistan, where more than 600 people are being
held without charge. The facility makes Guantanamo look like a "nice hotel," in the words of one military prosecutor...Bagram
is "the forgotten second Guantanamo," says American military law expert
Eugene Fidell, a professor at Yale Law School. "But apparently there is
a continuing need for this sort of place even under the Obama
administration."From the beginning, "Bagram was worse than
Guantanamo," says New York-based attorney Tina Foster, who has argued
several cases on behalf of detainee rights in US courts. "Bagram has
always been a torture chamber."And what does Obama say?
Nothing. He never so much as mentions Bagram in any of his speeches.
When discussing America's mistreatment of detainees, he only refers to
Guantanamo...From the beginning, Bagram
was notorious for the brutal forms of torture employed there. Former
inmates report incidents of sleep deprivation, beatings and various
forms of sexual humiliation [and rape with sticks]...
At
least two men died during imprisonment. One of them, a 22-year-old taxi
driver named Dilawar, was suspended by his hands from the ceiling for
four days, during which US military personnel repeatedly beat his legs.
Dilawar died on Dec. 10, 2002. In the autopsy report, a military doctor
wrote that the tissue on his legs had basically been "pulpified." As it
happens, his interrogators had already known -- and later testified -- that there was no evidence against Dilawar...
However attorney Tina Foster feels that the new initiative is just a cosmetic measure. "There
is absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the
Obama administration's position with respect to Bagram detainees' rights," she says during an interview with SPIEGEL in her office in the New York borough of Queens.And see this.
Moreover, Obama is still apparently allowing "rendition flights" - where prisoners are flown to countries which freely torture - to continue...
Finally, Jeremy Scahill - the reporter who broke most of the stories on Blackwater - says that some forms of torture at Guantanamo have continued under Obama, and may even have gotten worse. For example, Scahill points out that:
The
Center for Constitutional Rights released a report titled "Conditions
of Confinement at Guantánamo: Still In Violation of the Law," which
found that abuses continued. In fact, one Guantanamo lawyer, Ahmed
Ghappour, said that his clients were reporting "a ramping up in abuse"
since Obama was elected.
Now, reports are circulating that boys were tortured last year - after Obama was sworn in as President - at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan:
As the Washington Post reported Friday:
The
U.S. military has begun investigating allegations that two Afghan
teenagers were beaten and humiliated by guards while in American
custody last year at a secret detention center at Bagram air base,
according to U.S. and Afghan officials.
U.S. military officials
took statements from the teenagers last month and are contacting others
who say they were held at what Afghans call Bagram's "black prison," a
detention center run by U.S. Special Operations forces. This classified
facility is separate from the main prison at Bagram, which holds about
700 detainees.
The allegations of physical violence and sexual humiliation.
And see this:
Change?
Not much ...
Way to create more terrorists and to further disrupt the civilian economy, Obama administration.
- advertisements -
The ONLY change i believe in are the (gold and silver) coins in my pocket.
oBOMBa's Peace Prize is nice, makes one glad he is this past week or so asking for many hundreds of billions to continue a few wars.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Very enlightening, GW!
Previously, you had written (erroneously, from what we know now) that Dick Cheney was “a one-man band for torture”. But now, thanks to information from this blog entry and the links you provided, we find out that Obama and many others are members of 'the band':
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you say Nancy Pelosi knew about the torture?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, the fact is that Nancy Pelosi was fumbling in her press conference through a statement that someone else clearly wrote for her. This is not some secret that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on this. In fact, the Washington Post reported on this in 2007, that she had been briefed and that other Democrats that were senior figures in the Democratic leadership, particularly on the Intelligence Committee, had received briefings about the tactics that were being used at Guantanamo.
I think what’s going to be important is that we know that some of the members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, who were briefed actually pushed for stronger tactics to be used during these briefings. I think one of the reasons why the Democrats are—the Democratic leadership is not pushing for a special independent prosecutor in this case is because if you actually examine the record, you will find that the Democrats funded these programs, supported these programs, and refused to speak up when it actually mattered. (Emphasis added.)
And this, from The Ticking Time Bomb Thought-Experiment:
Hillary Clinton: "Those are very rare, but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing it ....[If] we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance on that."
So now -- thanks to you -- we know that Hillary Clinton is a pro-torture Nazi. (Borrowing the term.)
And that Nancy Pelosi is a pro-torture Nazi.
And that the Democratic leadership are a bunch of pro-torture Nazis.
And that Barack Obama is not just a pro-torture Nazi, but a lying, pro-torture Nazi.
Thanks for the correction, and the good work exposing this band of pro-torture Nazis, GW!
(BTW, the phrase is "Hoax and Chains", and has been used by Rush Limbaugh for quite a while now.)
OT
And while we debate the merits of GW's thesis, certain folks continue to make money by lending it to us to fund the war on terror. Think about this for a second. They are making money off of the creation of misery. In fact, the argument can be made that the only way these folks make money is through inflicting various miseries upon humankind. Think about this the next time somebody posts that the Fed is evil and your immediate reaction is to want to label the Fed as merely incompetent or stupid.
Saudi is definitely old-world. But to say it is because of Islam is a joke - that is like saying "rule of thumb" (how much you can beat your wife - was a problem of democracy and the british system. Or that women/blacks are not people and cant vote (a position still in the most of the world till the last century) was because of the constitution.
We're talking culture here - they do not want progress that is fair and normal and RIGHT in Islamic terms - because the princes and kings want to keep control.
And we support these oil barrons.
Sorry GW, I lived in Saudi Arabia for almost two decades in the 70's and 80's and the Arab street was radicalized long before even then. I listened to young men swear eternal Jihad...why? Because of US actions in foreign policy? No.... Because we let women drive. I watched preachers on state run TV hold a Koran in one hand and a sword in the other and scream that this is the choice that the West will be given.
They are not Jihadis because we kill and torture them. They will not stop being Jihadis no matter how "nice" we are to them.
They are Jihadis because we will not submit (Islam: "the submission") and until we do they will never stop.
You can condemn our actions on moral grounds but to say that they do what they do because of them is simply, flat-out, wrong.
Saudi is definitely old-world. But to say it is because of Islam is a joke - that is like saying "rule of thumb" (how much you can beat your wife - was a problem of democracy and the british system. We're talking culture here - they do not want progress that is far and normal in Islamic terms - because the princes and kings want to keep control.
And we support these oil barrons.
You are making a cultural equivalency argument, as if the Islamic culture is equal to the English culture (note I am referring to the culture, not the individual people). English culture isn't perfect. None is, but it is superior in its treatment of individuals than the Islamic culture ever has been.
That, I think, was one of the mistakes Bush (and I for that matter) made in Iraq. All people deserve freedom, but not all cultures are ready for it. The concept developed in England over 1000 years (and really has its roots in Christianity 1000 years before that and the Mosaic law some 1500 years before that).
[Iraq and most of the Muslim world did not have the benefit of that culture so were not ready for freedom. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be free, just that it requires a cultural foundation that did not exist there (or at least not firmly so). That can change and hopefully will, but it takes time. Point is, US can encourage freedom, but it must arise from within. The most an outside party can do is to remove impediments to it (whether they should is a different question I am not addressing here).]
Whether or not you agree with those faiths (Judaism and Christianity) is irrelevant, the culture they spawned values individual freedom more than does an Islamic one.
So I would argue that (backwardness of their Saudi, et al.) is because of Islam. (And note this post has nothing to do with torture, I am simply responding to the comment above)
The point I, and most others on my side I think, have been making is not that torture is desirable, but that in limited and exception cases may be the only option that prevents an even greater horror. It is fraught with danger. There are slippery slopes. But because I believe there can be a rare exception does not mean I think children should be raped, etc.
I'm done on this topic. Enjoy
admittedly, i may even torture the dali lama himself if there is a threat to my offspring,but this is such an inane and contrived plotline.viewed through the behavior of g.s. and uncle sam, osama inc. now looks benign to anyone with balls
Suteibo..Two men kidnap your son. As they are leaving, you capture one of them. He tells you that the other man is going to kill your son. He tells you that he knows where they are going but he won't name the place. What do you do? This looks a clincher but it isn't. In this situation the threat is real,concrete and immediate and the reaction of any parent would be visceral, no pondering rights and wrongs of torture. Institutionalised torture is quite different. The burden of guilt is lifted from the torturer because it is sanctioned by a higher authority. It becomes amoral, mindless, on automatic pilot. In truth it is demeaning for those who do the torturing. Above all, the end-value of the torture is greatly diffuse and questionable. A man is tortured to give you information that might or might not lead to discovering a plot or hideout that might or might not lead the saving of American lives. Tenuous threads indeed. But the pain, suffering and possible death of the tortured man is concrete and real. It can terrorise others in the populace, which of course is why it is a standard weapon in the revolutionist/tyrant armoury, e.g Communists in post-war Europe, Pol Pot, etc. And today, Iran, and formerly Saddam's Iraq.
And yet man tortures man every day and not even on the field of battle and without a war zone or no declaration of war. How can you separate the anguish one feels over the situation I present and and what a soldier might feel for his friends and comrades. Frankly, I am quite encouraged that our military takes prisoners at all. You don't hear about our soldiers in the hands of the enemy. The greatest sin is that our country does not fight wars to win with overwhelming force and conviction. We fight political wars that are drawn out and cause much greater suffering and terror on both sides.
george - i don't care if you never write another financial article to focus on these crimes...you shall inherit the earth....
Change??? You can keep the CHANGE.
--Just another very dissapointed Obama voter
"I thought I learned in Kindergarten that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
I thought I learned in history that we should not become that which we are fighting ..."
Grow the fuck up.
You, sir, might want to listen to the father of our country:
As Scott Horton wrote in 2007:
It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Mali and Angola and...
...and pretty much wherever Islam is taken seriously:
"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who
are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,
and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty"
Qur'an, Sura 9:123
The Most Profitable Investment
[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.
Know your enemy bfore it's too late for you and your family.
This war has been going on for 1400 years.
jihadwatch.com
thereligionofpeace.com
This is a hilarious misquotation. One of many. Pushing out a few misquotes, you have a website too! Do you work for the CIA? Nobody will check this and everyone will go along thinking hey man, those muslims are setup to kill us all!
Truth is. These verses were revealed in a context, for situations happening live-on the ground 1400 years ago. The lessons established clear principles (according to Islamic thought) which then determined the laws of war. The interpretations of meaning are not literal sentence by sentence. Drinking for example was allowed in early Islam but then transformation of people occured. If someone came around and said "hey polythesists, drinkers, gamblers, wife beaters, and all you people you know nothing nothing," I'm quite sure nobody would believe that is a revelation. You had to open their eyes, to the fact that (in their belief) something real was happening in terms of a prophet of God.
About "fighting" here is a typical misquote.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9801&CATE=1426
Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:
"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."
Most people usually only quote the first part.
Here's the entire passage:
"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)
Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:
"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)
It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Mali and Angola and...
...and pretty much wherever Islam is taken seriously:
"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who
are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,
and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty"
Qur'an, Sura 9:123
and of course...
The Most Profitable Investment
[Qu'ran 9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.
Know your enemy before it's too late for you and your family.They've been playing this game for 1400 years.
jihadwatch.com
thereligionofpeace.com
Anything is acceptable when you are trying to bring in the Mahdi (as is Ahmadinejad), huh? For many of these guys, this is their motivation. The Mahdi (aka 12th Imam) doesn't return until the entire world is under Islamic control.
"Mahdi (as is Ahmadinejad), huh"
Pause ...
I hate Ahmadinejad and the radical fundamentalist Iranian Mullahs (I dislike all fundamenalists, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc.).
But your implying that the President of Iran is trying to be a global Muslim dicatator sounds like ...
The Iraq War Really Is a CrusadeAccording to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on the apocalypse:
And British Prime Minister Tony Blair long-time mentor, advisor and confidante said:
Given that the Iraq war really was a crusade, the fact that the Pentagon is now saying that it may have to leave troops in Iraq for another decade shows that the crusade is still ongoing under Obama.
Nice to see the father of our country is still open-minded when it comes to religion. If you can overcome your dislike for this fundamentalist Christian (I didn't realize we had met, sorry), long enough, then look at these sources from a Jewish website (Daniel Pipes) and a (presumably Sunni) Muslim website (Discovering Islam)
The Mystical Menace of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
http://www.danielpipes.org/3258/the-mystical-menace-of-mahmoud-ahmadinejad
Shia's Imam Mahdi is likely to be the Dajjal (Anti-Christ)
http://www.discoveringislam.org/shia_mahdi_anti-christ.htm
By the way, no fundamentalist Christian believes he need take action for the apocalypse to come on (and frankly, I wouldn't trust Chirac's reading on this point anyway). That will happen in God's time, not in ours. We cannot make it happen any more than we can make the sun rise. That would imply God is so weak, He could not act unless we made Him do so, or was so weak that even if He weren't ready for the apocolypse, we could make it happen early by taking certain action. No fundamentalist would believe this
Two men kidnap your son. As they are leaving, you capture one of them. He tells you that the other man is going to kill your son. He tells you that he knows where they are going but he won't name the place. What do you do?
This is a silly argument. Obviously I'd do all sorts of sick and twisted things to the bad guy, hopefully free my son, probably try to cover up what I knew was wrong, and fully expect to be prosecuted by the fullest extent of the law (and hope and pray that the fullest extent of the law ends up being as lax as it is for the real bad guys. I support Gary Plauche's sentence.). In the same case, if the authorities had caught the guy (versus me, the father of the victim and really a victim myself), I also would not expect them to torture the guy.
Neither of these scenarios are related to the US military and/or intelligence apparatus torturing enemy combatants or other criminals. I'm not arguing for or against torture, I'm just saying that is a silly argument.
It is related to military and intelligence units if they believe the prisoner has access to information related to significant and imminent attack. For a typical combat operation, I totally agree torture is out of line. But for a significant and massive attack on civilians, it is a different situation and is analagous to the kidnapping scenario.
again a stooge argument to justify anything. same thinking as children who say to friends "how much to jump off that roof?"
see post above wrt lay person argument vs expert opinion on this
Before anyone enters this argument, he/she should submit an answer to this question. One can not have it both ways. Stop lecturing until you search your soul for the answer.
Search your soul for the filth that allows you to rationalize torture.Before any one enters this argument, they should not be morally insane and depraved.
Spouting retarded torture justifications, idiotic strawman/ticking bomb scenarios is a waste of time and a clear indication of chugging the koolaid from Cheney and his ilk.
So...you like torture.You think it is good to be tough and not a "pussy' on this.
Welcome to the 3rd Reich you nazi scumbag.You and your pro torture thugs are the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States.We might as well take down the statue of liberty.Because,you clueless scum, when you torture NO ONE IS FREE!
Since most people with an education in history find the nazi regime one of the most criminal disasters ever, it should be pretty easy to recruit freedom fighters to take us on now that we are the nazis.Great job scum.
This is not the situation at hand. If the situation was as clear cut as
- person has information for sure
- getting information will save a life
- terrorizing individual but not killing will get you information with certainty
- any other methods will fail
Then yes, I'm sure I'd capitulate.
But THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION AT HAND. WE ARE OCCUPYING A LAND WITH TROOPS, THEY DID NOT TAKE OUR CHILDREN WE ARE TAKING THERE'S.
Listen to the experts who've done this hundreds of times, in a critical situation the most effective methods with people are not torture. And further torture is a disgusting form of abuse that only serves to make a disgusting image of an occupier (who even in unjust occupation still will have disgusting things going on like rape, that's life unfortunately when you send your boys over there).
Again, the pitiful dodge to avoid coming to grips with the fact that you would do anything to save your own kid's life but not so much for others' kids.
Some [police|intelligence agency|other government|too secret to be known by name] forces have detained your son.
They tell you they have extremely strong indications that your son has [kidnapped an innocent victim|planted a dirty bomb|put a computer virus into the nations energy distribution grid control]. They will now torture him until he unveils his plot.
What do you think and/or do?
that is a inappropriate analogy. please....there is no excuse for what we are doing. none. this is not a libertarian viewpoint, nor is it a conservative viewpoint or a liberal viewpoint. it should be an american viewpoint, nothing more, nothing less. how can it not be? what have we become?
How is it inappropriate. Either you would never do it under any circumstance or you would. It has everything to do with this discussion if only to underscore that there is no cut and dried answer. Anyone taking the hardline on either side of this issue has to answer that question for himself.
Good.
FYI, here is a link to a manual on real torture. Waterboarding may be tough, but it's a day in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood compared to this.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
But this is okay?
Major General Antonio Taguba: Photos Show Sodomy, Rape and Sexual Assault With Wire and Various Blunt Instruments The One Case of Torture Obama Doesn't Want You to Learn About Your Taxpayer Dollars Were Used to Torture Children U.S. Officials Admitted that Boys Were Sodomized In Iraq Prison Here Are a Few of the Torture Photos Obama Doesn't Want You To SeeAnd this
I thought I learned in Kindergarten that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
I thought I learned in history that we should not become that which we are fighting ...
And for the record, I am not a fan of torture. I also believe prisoners should be treated fairly.
Personally I think waterboarding is borderline, but I can see an argument either way.
I will allow that there may be exceptions when it is acceptable (in theory at least), but should be avoided when possible.
But I also don't believe in criminal prosecution of the enemy, particularly one that does not wear an identifiable uniform.
G.W.
If you voted for Obama your as guilty as he is.
Beating him within a inch of his life, has more potential to physically maim and scar than water boarding ever will in a million years.
just who is the enemy? that is the question. these men who are going to be "tried" in new york are all patsies. they had next to nothing to do with 911 or anything else about all of this. they are just useful idiots that caught up in something that they did not fully understand. if you want criminal prosecutions of the enemy, we can start with most members of the clinton administration, most members of the bush administrations (both 41 and 43) and most members of the abama administration and that is just for starters. we have domestic enemies and they must be brought to justice for crimes against america and humanity.
Our domestic enemies are far dangerous than our foreign enemies.
GW;
Let's suppose 4 men kidnapped your two children and one was captured. This one knew where the other three took your children. Time is of the essence and quickly running out. What would you be willing to do to get that information?
Yes, and let's also suppose these 4 men are American soldiers who have taken them without any charges being laid or any hope of them being fairly tried.
I wonder if there is a Islamic TV show that is just like 24 with hero Jabbar Bauer?
You have the wrong argument. War is hell. Who enters the battlefield and expects humane treatment from the enemy who is trying to kill you? Kill or be killed. Protect yourself and your unit. If someone is taken on the field of battle, what should happen? As it is now we talk a lot about the prisoners we take. There is no discussion of the prisoners they take. Except the videos of beheadings. The problem with the US since WWII is that we engage in political wars without taking the necessary steps to end them quickly. Until that changes, these discussions are just so much noise and mean nothing.
all wars since and including the war of 1812, have been contrived and created. there has been no constitutional war since the war of 1812. all wars are fought to destroy human beings and to cause nations to go into debt among other deleterious things i won't go into concerning racial matters. you have no idea the depth of depravity of the internationalist banker.
You are missing the point of the hypothetical. Point is, consider for yourself whether torture could ever be justifiable (even if not desirable).
If that were necessary to save your child, would you do so?
Would you risk your child's life on the assumption that torture never works?
What if it were to save a million people? Is maintaining the moral high ground worth risking their lives?
I know this is a game of "Would You Rather...?", but it is the issue at hand.
this is the argument of lay man. for example: senator graham in the torture proceedings:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/286307-2Senator Graham goes back and forth and only really says "it is bad policy. because the harm (politically etc) outweighs the benefits. He DOESNT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG." EVEN when the EXPERT disagrees:
The whole proceedings is a great tell on how far our govt will go to break the constitution including suggesting that the President can override any laws and theconstitution at will (yup one of the lawyers in the torture memos suggested that!)I am not missing the point. I get it. It`s justification of torture. Try reading "All quiet on the western front" sometime.
Without debating these specifics, let me ask a related phiplosophical question (without debating the premise). This is not to tie your hands but to elicit a response on the practicalities of fighting a guerilla war.
Assume for the moment that the Country A always follows the rules of war and that Country B does not.
How do you fight Country B?
Further, how do you fight that Country B when he makes false claims that Country A is violating those rules of war while Country B is merely defending himself honorably (which in this premise is untrue)?
Can this war be fought and won? How?
It seems to me it could not. Country B will always claim to be victimized and win the hearts and minds of (at least some of) his countrymen, as well as a worldwide audience pre-disposed to dislike (fairly or unfairly) Country A.
Again, I am creating a black and white premise, but the purpose is that I honestly cannot see how this enemy could be fought. He would take advantage of Country A's gentlemenly behavior and use it against him (as proposed in "Rules for Radicals")
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
- Plato
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- U.S. President James Madison
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
- Adolph Hitler
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the 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."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
I hate to say this, because I was born in America, grew up in American, and love this country - and I was shocked when I learned this a couple of years ago - but we've used terrorism for a long time.
Just 2 examples ...
As documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).
The former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" (the audio is here).
Oh yeah, and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski - the guy who decided to give Russia a war in Afghanistan by arming the locals and whipping up fundamentalist Islam, and one of the biggest hawks in 100 years - told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".
How do you protect yourself from an enemy whose tactics are more ruthless and less ethical than your own?
Ask the Swiss. No one invaded them during World War II. They're armed to the teeth but they mind their own business. Not a bad model.
Non-intervention may be desirable. On the other hand, the Swiss were complicit in Nazi atrocities (re: banking for Nazis and as repository for items stolen from Jews) and so are not the best model I think.
More importantly, it is easier to be non-interventionist when there is a protector out there. The Quakers in PA benefited from the American Revolution even though they did not fight. They were able to maintain their moral high ground and win their freedom because others did the dirty work.
The Swiss ultimately were left alone (in the long-run) because the US and England (and USSR) defeated Germany.