For people who value the Rule of Law, the last Republican debate reached a new low. One would think that the promise of war and torture has now replaced work and taxes as the main issues for voters. To their great credit, John Huntsman and Ron Paul stood against torture as “unAmerican.” However, as noted in prior blogs, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann called for the use of torture in the resumption of the waterboarding program. In the meantime, Gingrich called for yet another war: this time against Iran unless it yields to our demands. He and Santorum appeared to add promises of the murder of scientists as part of their package of promised presidential acts. I will be moderating a debate on torture this week organized by Ralph Nader’s “Debating Taboos” program.
Cain was asked directly about torture:
Herman Cain: I believe that following the procedures that have been established by our military, I do not agree with torture, period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.
Major Garrett: Mr. Cain, of course youāre familiar with the long-running debate weāve had about whether waterboarding constitutes torture or is an enhanced interrogation techā technique. In the last campaign, Republican nominee John McCain and Barack Obama agreed that it was torture and should not be allowed legally and that the Army Field Manual should be the methodology used to interrogate enemy combatants. Do you agree with that or do you disagree, sir?
Herman Cain: I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique.
Major Garrett: And then you would support it at present. You would return to that policy.
Herman Cain: Yes, I would return to that policy. I donāt see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.
First, the question starts with a common misrepresentation in the media that there is a real debate over waterboarding being torture among experts. There is certainly a debate among politicians but the status of waterboarding as torture has been well-established for decades as noted in this recent chapter on torture.
Second, the whole purpose of our laws and treaties making torture a war crime is that it is not left to the military in this country or other countries. It is a war crime subject to prosecution.
The questioning then turned to Bachmann:
Major Garrett: Congressmanā congresswoman Bachmann, your opinion on this question that our emailer asked.
Michele Bachmann: If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. It gained information for our country. And Iā and I also would like to say that today, under Barack Obama, he is allowing the A.C.L.U. to run the C.I.A. You need to understand that todayā today weā itā when weā when we interdict a terrorist on the battlefield, we have no jail for them. We have nowhere to take them. We have no C.I.A. interrogations anymore. It is as though we have decided we want to lose in the War on Terror under President Obama. Thatās not my strategy. My strategy will be that the United States will be victorious in the War on Terror.ā
Now there is a strong platform: I would like to win in the war on terror. It appears that this pledge comes with the added promise of “by any means — legal or illegal.”
Paul and Huntsman offered the only redeeming moments in the debate:
āRon Paul: Well, waterboarding is torture. Andā and many otherā itās illā itās illegal under international law and under our law. Itās also immoral. Theā and itās also very impractical. Thereās no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing 100 people because you know one person might have information? And thatās what you do when you accept the principle of aā ofā ofā of torture. I think itāsā I think itās uncivilized and pracā and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principle that we will torture people that we capture.ā
Huntsman then added āWe diminish our standing in the world and the values we project which include liberty, Democracy, human rights and open markets when we torture. We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture.ā
Of course, for those who are not satisfied with a pledge to torture our way to victory, there is always Newt Gingrich. Previously, Gingrich pledged to eliminate the EPA and its protection of citizens from pollution. Now, he pledged to start yet another — and bigger — war with Iran. Gingrich called for “maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems.ā Of course, killing scientists is generally defined as murder. Yet, Gingrich appears to have thought about that little wrinkle: āAll of it covertly, all of it deniable.ā That would be the first overt covert operation in our history.
Not to be outdone, Santorum added “You know there have been scientists turning up dead in Russia and Iran, there have been computer viruses, there have been problems at their facility. I hope that the United States has been involved with that.”
Gingrich also added that war would be necessary “if, in the end, despite all those things, the dictatorship persists, you haveāyou have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.” Santorum, however, wants immediate support for Israel in commencing the bombing of Iran” āWe should be working with Israel right now to do what they did in Syria, what they did in Iraq, which is take out that nuclear capability. Before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and the world changes.ā
Gingrich appeared to be joined by Mitt Romney in his pledge for war if Iran does not yield. [Recently, I sat next to Romney on a flight from Oklahoma City. I told him that my editors would be grateful if he would unburden himself of any embarrassing stories or policies during the flight. It would remain between us and the readers of USA Today. Somehow the “I will go to war” policy escaped his attention. I actually found him to be remarkably nice despite what was clearly a long day. With the exception of turning down snacks in First Class, I was left with little to show for the long flight.]
It was truly an other-worldly moment with candidates for president casually discussing the murder of scientists and starting another war to attract voters. Of course, this could trigger a race to the bottom. Why stop at Iran? How about Syria or even China? Then there is Canada, which continues to threaten our fishing areas and dump low cost potatoes on our market. Indeed, you now have two candidates — Huntsman and Paul — who have campaign platforms that are entirely devoid of any pledged war. Even Obama has a war to his sole credit. The war gap could explain their low ratings in our new political reality.
The Presidential Oath of Office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Isn’t there something like an admission against interest that would disqualify some of these candidates.
The Penn State of mind really came out didn’t it … remember the Kent State of mind?
I’d describe the candidates who endorse war and/or the torture of human beings as morally bankrupt. Newt proved that he was years ago.
May I reiterate that demagoguery that demonstrates macho characteristics has been successful throughout human history, as we humans viscerally respond to perceived fears of the “other”. The war and torture meme demonstrates machismo to many who believe in the myth that strength is exhibited through aggression. This is a viable strategy for many who seek election in this country, particularly to those who link fortitude with aggression.
If this were but a knowing strategy being practiced with malice aforethought by these candidates we could chalk it up to the usual political deceptions. What makes this current situation so very frightening is that these moronic mewlings represent deeply held beliefs, rather than political pandering. In short, most of these people are insane and yet are taken seriously by many in the public. That the MSM takes these as serious statements without editorial comment lends gravitas to them. We need not go down a rabbit hole, nor through a looking glass, to know we live in Wonderland.
Torture is illegal and waterboarding is torture. End of debate.
“I will be moderating a debate on torture”
Too late, that debate’s already been had. So far, two presidents over the period of 11 years have signed off on it. Our judicial system voted “present”. Our legislative system has abstained from the process of warmaking entirely, save to cut a blank check whenever asked.
Those who are guilty of it will never see the inside of a jail, unless it’s in the performance of their work duties as they clock in to torture yet more victims.
I see no sign of that changing anytime soon.
War and torture and who can give their use the highest praise?
To what kind of constituents are these candidates appealing?
This group is scary but the fact that there are those willing to listen to them is downright frightening.
Nancy,
The case you’re thinking of is the court martial of Maj. Edwin F. Glenn.
Frankly-good question. I think there’s case law going back to the Spanish American War where some American servicemen were prosecuted (UCMJ?) for waterboarding Philippinos.
Michele only worked for the IRS for 4 years after getting her LLM. She never really practiced law even during that short period according to her colleagues at the IRS. They say sHe spent so much time on maternity leave she was hardly there (leaving her caseload to others to handle). I am pretty sure she stopped working for the IRS in 1982. She never practiced law after that and she is not listed as active on the Minn. Bar website. During her time as a newby at the IRS she negotiated delinquent tax settlements- her only “case” was against someone for I think $6,500. She certainly was not at the level where she would be involved with tax policy. I have to laugh when I hear people say she has creds as a tax lawyer.
I opened a container of pears and found them covered with mold. I had to toss the pears into the sink and turn on the garbage disposal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-torture-party/2011/03/03/gIQAnL1HIN_blog.html Five candidates spoke in favor of torture. I know why I am partisan.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/bachmann-aclu-running-cia-under-obama
Professor,
I’m glad you decided to pursue the warmongering aspects from the debates.
I never thought I would see the day when the candidates of either party would endorse torture-a form of interrogation outlawed in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence since Elizabethan times. Even the “prosecutors” in the Salem witchcraft trials knew torture was outlawed and this was 1692!!! I am sure Cotton Mather would have loved to take a hot poker to the many accused of witchcraft. It wasn’t even considered as an option (though there’s some evidence that Martha Carrier’s two sons were put in “stress positions).
But then again, I never thought I’d see an American president endorse the execution of an American citizen without trial or even any indictment (and this guy taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago ?!?).
Oh tempes oh mores!!! Too depressing … Thank you Prof. Turkey for keeping up the fight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/leon-panetta-warns-iran-strike Panetta is warning against what most of these republicans say they are prone to do.
Why do none of the questioners ever mention that we executed Japanese soldiers at the end of WWII for waterboarding American servicemen? It seems like a logical question, particularly put to a lawyer (even if her degree is from a phoney-baloney excuse for a law school). “Would you agree that the US was wrong to convict and execute Japanese service persons for using harsh interrogation techniques against Americans in defense of their country?” If not, why not dipstick?
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent column on the complete agreement between openly far right candidates and the Democratic far right candidate concerning torture and the rule of law. It’s very creepy that they are in total agreement on the most depraved and illegal policies possible.
The only way out of this is for no one to support or accept torture or the destruction of the rule of law in their candidate of choice. That is, the people have be actually believe in the rule of law. The people must reject torture. One does neither of these things by cheering or voting for any person who supports, condones or engages in these actions.
If we believe in the rule of law, that is what we must support, no matter what, no matter who is breaking it. There must be an ethical underpinning to what we are doing. Otherwise, it is the race to the bottom with Rs breaking faith with our nation as long as the president is an R and Ds breaking faith with our nation as long as the president is a D. As we have seen with Obama–he was greenlighted by his supporters to do as much and worse than Bush. This will continue as R supporters will greenlight their president to equal and surpass the depravity of Obama. It can only end when people quit greenlighting “their” candidate and stand up for the rule of law.
So my choices are Obama or one of these morons???? Why do I have little faith in the future of this country? Another war? Really? I wonder how much more would get taken from the middle class to pay for this.
We need Gary Johnson to install some sanity to this field.
http://news.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/obama-gop-rivals-wrong-on-waterboarding.php?ref=fpb
I have no idea of what war Obama has to his sole credit, unless you want to count Libya which was not much of a war. It hardly came close to our first undeclared war in the same part of the world, the Barbary Wars.