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.
Marginally near-topic:
“I will be moderating a debate on torture this week organized by Ralph Naderās āDebating Taboosā program.”
—–
Decades ago I had the pleasure to see a group of debates on the local educational channel. They were held and sponsored bu Columbia School of Journalism I think. The televised program was a 90 minutes or two hour show.
They assembled a panel of people from the relevant fields and most of them were currently serving in their fields, scientific, political, medical, military, academia, public policy advocates, business, ethicist’s – it was always an excellent panel. It was a Socratic dialogue wherein the participants answered questions from the moderator and did not talk to each other.
They were wonderful. The Vietnam war was not long over and the Great Society and Washington’s activism were argued daily in homes and workplaces all over the country. Women’s rights and certain aspects of medical care were similarly hot topics. These debates were an organized, civil, dispassionate and literate examination of current topics at length and in detail. Aspects of those debates led me to read and think more deeply about certain aspects of the issues presented. (I was still impressionable then š )
I visited the link posted and there was no indication that the Ralph Nader and the Center for Study of Responsive Law debates would be live-streamed or recorded. These debates would seem to me to be great candidates for wider distribution and, I’m sure they would be very interesting and illuminating. I would hope that the series of debates would be made available in some manner in the future.
Swarthmore,
Considering that the current administration is in clear violation of the U.N. convention on Torture, I’m not exactly sure how you can claim the high ground by voting for them rather than supporting someone else who also plans to continue violating the UN Convention on Torture.
Jeff,
“Fact is torture is sometimes, albeit quite rarely, necessary.”
Nope. Torture is less effective than other forms of interrogation. Anything you can get by torture you can get by other methods. Torture is NEVER necessary.
martingugino: “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.”
—
Unfortunately martingugino, there are a lot of people that, being confronted with canned fruit having gone moldy on top, will in ignorance or desperation scrape off the mold and eat the fruit.
I love God
fearingplaying Republicans.Elaine,
Great clip and so appropriate!
POL POT stirring…
The Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed “enemies”:
-Anyone with connections to the former government or with foreign governments.
-Professionals and intellectuals ā in practice this included almost everyone with an education, or even people wearing glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they were literate).
Ironically and hypocritically, Pol Pot himself was a university-educated man (albeit a drop-out) with a taste for French literature and was also a fluent French speaker.
-Many artists, including musicians, writers and filmmakers were executed. Some like Ros Sereysothea, Pan Ron and Sinn Sisamouth gained posthumous fame for their talents and are still popular with Khmers today.
-Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Thai and other minorities in Eastern Highland, Cambodian Christians (most of whom were Catholic, and the Catholic Church in general), Muslims and the Buddhist monks.
For example, The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as forbidden (įø„arÄm). Many of those who refused were killed. (A similar policy was enacted in Maoist China, where Muslims were forced to breed pigs.) Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed. One former Khmer Rouge Commander, Comrade Duch, converted to evangelical Christianity in the years after the regime fell.
– “Economic saboteurs”: many of the former urban dwellers (who had not starved to death in the first place) were deemed to be guilty by virtue of their lack of agricultural ability.
~Wikipedia
If you add the percentages of the pro-torture candidates, it amounts to 65%.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf PPP is supposedly the most reliable poll these days. They have Gingrich 28 Cain 25 Romney 18. I think bdaman said something about a Gingrich Cain ticket or a Cain Gingrich ticket the other day.
Bill Maher Sep 30, 2011 – Even Jesus can’t run on a Republican ticket
Elaine and Swarthmore,
I like that campaign slogan. War, Torture and Tiffanys! I think you should take steps to protect that slogan.
….looks like a car bomber who loves torturing.”
Newt–Master of War & The King of Bling:
Elaine, I read Newt gave her a million dollars worth of Tiffany jewelry to stay in the race.
Swarthmore mom,
War, torture…and Tiffany’s!
New PPP poll coming out this afternoon showing Gingrich has taken the lead. Torture and war will be the platform.
as always, you can’t really have a full debate about torture without defining it. You can’t define it because one you do you create loopholes that would allow for actions that would be reprehensible but wouldn’t meet the explicit definition of torture.
Fact is actual torture is absolutely wrong and should be fully punished and never condoned.
Fact is torture is sometimes, albeit quite rarely, necessary.
Fact is the necessity of the torture should not excuse the torture nor should the punishment be waived due to the need.
*yes I know there are sort of definitions of torture, but they are very and deliberately vague.
Rememember this?
Rick Santorum Foolishly Challenges Vietnam Veteran John McCain on Torture
MS — “May I reiterate that demagoguery that demonstrates macho characteristics has been successful throughout human history[.]”
I used to refer to this as the dick-swinging portion of the program. But as MS notes, the posturing has turned into postulates.
Be sure to catch the candidates as they star in their new surreality show, “Dancing with the Dicks.”
Good point Oro!