For civil libertarians, the decision by President Obama to bar the prosecution of Bush officials for the torture program was always a flagrant choice of politics over principle. Now a poll ratifies that decision. A poll commissioned by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that Americans are accepting torture in greater numbers. The study also shows a decrease in support for Israel in any military conflict and two-thirds saying that they would like the U.S. to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On torture, Americans still reject its use for terrorists by a margin of 56 percent to 42 percent. However, the support for torture “has increased by 6 points since 2008 and by 13 points since the ques tion was first asked in 2004.”
This has always been the concern among civil libertarians: that the Bush program would make torture less of an obvious taboo. This problem has become magnified with Obama who has shielded Bush officials from prosecution while people like Dick Cheney proudly speak publicly about their use of waterboarding. The result is an implied message that torture is allowed or tolerated under some circumstances.
The poll seems to reaffirm a famous passage from Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928):
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
Source: Rawstory
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html
Rahm cheers drone attacks: ‘Who did we get today?’…
We are way past torture. We no longer need it we have drones who can and will eventually take out an American Citizen that does not have America’s best interest at heart.
“but rather it is the public that reaps that reward.”
Gyges,
Taking him seriously? Oh no, not in the slightest. His skills are that of an amateur.
But just because he’s a lame propagandist doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to be called out on it with logic and proof. The mockery of his ineptitude is just gravy. As Goebbels noted, “[t]he most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” but he also noted that “the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie”. Since “our side” has been using argument based in logic, legal citation and historical examples and his “argument” is mired in simple repetitive unsubstantiated opinion, the reasonable reader can make the distinction. Unfortunately repeated assaults on the truth require repeated reprisals lest the big lie take hold.
His style proves him nothing more than an odoriferous propaganda buffoon, but to mitigate the propagation of the big lie requires spritzing it with the sweet smelling perfume of truth and reason. He is not the beneficiary of logic and proof – nor could he be by his demonstrated nature, but rather it is the public reaps that reward.
Gyges
I’m taking him seriously for the time being but I’ve been wrong before … often, in fact 🙂
Buddha,
That can’t be AMERICAN law, because it’s got all those squiggly things next to the numbers. That’s obviously some kind of commie thingamajig. You have to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool Old Baker.
I forget are we still taking this shill seriously or have we all figured out he’s just the same tale told by an idiot that likes to blow on through under different nom d’internet every month or so?
As to hitting a British national over the head because of the actions of his/her ancestors … I have too many British national friends and a few who are relatives (one presently residing in my guest room) … I would never conk any of them on the head ’cause they’d conk back … I’m a practical idealist and they can be really mean mothers, if you know what I mean ….
Bakersfield,
The message I take from all this is that the Foundings had direct experience with the subject of torture during war time and understood full well the temptations of its use which is why the Constitution makes it illegal for all generations to come. These men weren’t just a bunch of high minded liberals sitting in their libraries pontificating. They were in the thick of it and realized the effort required to rise above the fray and the very real possibility that leaders who followed them might not have either the experience or the discipline such decisions require.
Now, do I think pockets of revolutionary soldiers got caught up in torturing others? Certainly, especially those who were also Indian fighters … but it was not sanctioned by the government and if caught by Washington I bet … in fact I know I’ve read it somewhere … they were executed. (now I’ll have to go find the citation)
We all know why it happens but what has made us so different from our enemies, up to this point, is that our government called it illegal … no matter what.
For those who know their history Obama’s failure to go after Bush and Cheney … well, none of them would have cut it in Washington’s army or on Washington’s cabinet … nor for that matter, in or on Eisenhower’s.
Bush and Cheney rationalize their torture policy based on 9/11 and the enemies we now face. Washington faced far worse on a daily basis … women and children killed by British troops … farms burned … captured POW’s tortured on prison ships and thousands of Tory spies as neighbors. For those who know their history, the comparison is stark.
I have no idea what rationalization Obama feeds himself.
Thus any really good sergeant presently leading his men and women will see to it none of them get caught up in the torture fad that is the legacy of those three men.
Blouise:
Thank you for that: this is as I understood it, the British themselves ultimately accepted that their own barbaric actions were counter productive to their ultimate aims.
But I wouldn’t hit a modern day British citizen over the actions of his ancestors, regardless of how much they disagreed with me
Toady: FAIL(25) like one of those Duracell bunnie he just keeps on goin, trying to argue an opinion that hasnt been expressed.
FAIL(26) the next rubbish you manage to type with yo webbed fingers.
Buddha, (off the subject but still on)
I’ve never touched an illegal drug in my life, let alone inhaled or swallowed or shot-up but it is great fun to kid about it and fulfill the stereotype associated with liberals. Now, if weed is totally legalized … I aim to try it.
I used to have a neighbor who grew pot in a field by the turnpike … every Christmas he would “harvest” a few small plants, plant them in decorative containers, decorate them with lights and ornaments and deliver them throughout the neighborhood … ah, the sixties ….
What follows is long but there are some real gems that go directly to this argument:
“Every schoolchild knows that Gen. George Washington made extraordinary efforts to protect America’s civilian population from the ravages of war. Fewer Americans know that Revolutionary War leaders, including Washington and the Continental Congress, considered the decent treatment of enemy combatants to be one of the principal strategic preoccupations of the American Revolution.
“In 1776,” wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in “Washington’s Crossing,” “American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements … was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution.”
The fact that the patriots refused to abandon these principles, even in the dark times when the war seemed lost, when the enemy controlled our cities and our ragged army was barefoot and starving, credits the character of Washington and the founding fathers ….
Fischer writes that leaders in both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights. This was all the more extraordinary because these courtesies were not reciprocated by King George’s armies. Indeed, the British conducted a deliberate campaign of atrocities against American soldiers and civilians. While Americans extended quarter to combatants as a matter of right and treated their prisoners with humanity, British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.
Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
John Adams argued that humane treatment of prisoners and deep concern for civilian populations not only reflected the American Revolution’s highest ideals, they were a moral and strategic requirement. His thoughts on the subject, expressed in a 1777 letter to his wife … Adams wrote: “I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”
Even British military leaders involved in the atrocities recognized their negative effects on the overall war effort. In 1778, Col. Charles Stuart wrote to his father, the Earl of Bute: “Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate.”
In the end, our founding fathers not only protected our national values, they defeated a militarily superior enemy. Indeed, it was their disciplined adherence to those values that helped them win a hopeless struggle against the best soldiers in Europe …
President Lincoln instituted the first formal code of conduct for the humane treatment of prisoners of war in 1863. Lincoln’s order forbade any form of torture or cruelty, and it became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention. Dwight Eisenhower made a point to guarantee exemplary treatment to German POWs in World War II, and Gen. Douglas McArthur ordered application of the Geneva Convention during the Korean War, even though the U.S. was not yet a signatory.”(America’s Anti-Torture Tradition
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)
blah blah blah
FAIL(19) continues to argue an opinion that has not been expressed.
Your friend Wooly enquired about 12 year olds a little earlier,
Hmmm……….I’m beginning to detect a rather alarming pattern here.
FAIL(20) continues to act in an illogical manner by arguing an opnion that hasnt been expressed
FAIL(21) Hypocrite
FAIL(22) Liar
FAIL(23) Ignorant
FAIL(24) Pedant
Good luck with that an if I see any 12 year olds, I’ll send them your way 😉
Yep. About what I expected from a 12 year old.
Run along now, junior.
FAIL(11) continues to argue an opinion that hasn’t been expressed
FAIL(12) Even when the reasoning is laid bare Toady continues to argue an opinion that hasn’t been expressed
FAIL(13) Toady just keeps on going……Continues to argue an opinion that hasn’t been expressed
FAIL(14) Hypocrite
FAIL(15) Liar
FAIL(16) self confessed illegal drug user
FAIL(17) Ignorant
FAIL(18) continues to argue an opinion that hasn’t been expressed
Good luck with that
Or you could try to rationalize torture some more.
Which would just further show your apologist for war crimes nature despite your protestations to the contrary. See, if you’re going to not be an apologist for something like a war crime? You need to quit trying to rationalize its use.
You really do love the sound of your own voice, don’t you? (rhetorical)
As to failure to address your “points”? If you’d made one instead of arguing by non-sequitur, I’d have addressed it (and shot it down) like all the other “points” you’ve attempted to make.
But please, rail against me some more.
It just shows how weak your position truly is.
“Torture is an outward manifestation of frustration … and usually that frustration is with one’s own stupidity.”
couldn’t agree more
and once again the point is proven overwhelmingly.
you cannot simply make a point without exposing your superiority complex, you FAIL(1) to prove any of the statements wrong yet take ten pages to do so and still attempt to interpret them as attempts to justify some imaginary opinion which certainly isn’t mine.
I have never supported Torture nor stated it is right in any way and never will, The statements of fact as posted were simply meant as statements of fact designed to elicit a specific and totally predictable response from you and you alone and you have excelled yourself Toady, better than I could have hoped
The failure to understand (let alone read) the words as posted and as presented and as it is written is such a lovely trait when someone is trying to argue against an opinion that hasn’t been expressed.
and more words from Toady….. How utterly . . . ridiculous.
“Torture has been used by most nations historically (prove me wrong Toady)” That doesn’t mean it is either right,
Nobody said it was did they? FAIL (1) yet you still argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Torture has historically been accepted as a method of extracting information (prove me wrong Toady)”
FAIL(2) you still attempt to argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Torture has been used historically by many as a method of making them do things they dont want to do = coercion (prove me wrong Toady)” Yes it has
That would have been more than sufficient as an answer. FAIL(3) you still go on argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Torture has been used historically by leaders to send out a message to their enemies (prove me wrong Toady)” Yep
Now that one word would have done it,FAIL(4) your answer could have ended there yet you still argue against a point that hasn’t even been made
“These acts have occurred throughout history up to the present day(prove me wrong Toady)” There is nothing to prove.
FAIL(5)Yet you still argue against a point that hasn’t even been made
“Military conflict places individuals and groups thereof into circumstances that they would not normally encounter in their every day existences (prove me wrong Toady)” And millions upon millions of them managed to fight honorably without torturing captives.
whilst that is correct it is simply FAIL(6) as you yet again fail to address the question and still attempt to argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of culture shock as being – a sense of confusion and uncertainty sometimes with feelings of anxiety that may affect people exposed to an alien culture or environment without adequate preparation (prove me wrong Toady)”
FAIL(7) Once again you go off on your own tangent still arguing against a point that hasn’t been made
“It is acknowledged that Soldiers in stressful situations can act out of character (prove me wrong Toady)” yet you still argue against a point that hasn’t been made
FAIL(8) you still attempt to argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Toadys weapon of choice “Merriam Webster” offers up a definition of “out of character” as bein – not in accord with a person’s usual qualities or traits (Prove me wrong Toady)” See above.
nice and concise Toady but FAIL(9) you still attempt to argue against a point that hasn’t been made
“Like arguing by non-sequitur or torturing when it is manifestly a bad way to gather intelligence and specifically against the law.” Even your FAIL(10) closing statement is one made on the entirely out of a massive assumption and one which is entirely misplaced
It would appear that in the absence of any sort of argument, then you will simply argue with yourself
Good luck with that
Blouise,
Yep. Seconded.
Having known a couple people who were involved in torture during Nam … and having watched their attempts to acclimate themselves back into a society where torture was not a government sanctioned activity, as it is today … and reading of the on-going Civil Service discussions with municipalities over the hiring of present day Vets … on a practical basis it’s simply not worth it. On a moral basis … torture is an abomination of the human being.
It wasn’t a lack of torture that left us open to 9/11. It was a failure on the part of the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, and the President to connect the dots from the information they already had and to dig deeper into the places where those connections would have led them.
Torture is an outward manifestation of frustration … and usually that frustration is with one’s own stupidity.