Posts
Or, a Fervent Lament About What Yoo Should Repent
Morally impaired professor John Yoo. Now there is a man this country should sue.
May his days writing White House memos and briefs bring him to trial and eternal grief.
This is the lawyer who “Torture” he said,“is hard to define and all in your head.
Besides with all the time bombs a ticking, mustn’t we give those suspects a kicking?”
True, dogs, sticks and stones might break a few captive bones,
But, near drowning it seems, shouldn’t even be counted as mean.
So what if it risks all our soldiers and troops. And, makes us liars and hypocrites to boot.
Jack Bauer did it and look at his result. To not follow his lead would be a big insult.
Jailing forever without charge, counsel or trial? As to any Amendments, John Yoo’s in denial.
“The Constitution is quaint and really quite dead.” Or, so he proclaimed and deliberately mislead.
May his words of malevolent and ignorant intent result someday soon in his prompt disbarment.
A thank you from Bush was his apparent sole goal. For that he sold out his profession and soul.
Convict Bush as well for his unlawful bend since he swore a solemn oath the Constitution he would defend.
But, try Yoo first cause he should’ve known better. Aren’t attorneys supposed to follow the law to the letter?
Nazi lawyers and judges caught Nuremberg ire. That too was for fulfilling their boss’s desire.
Unless for this there’s some stiff punishment, others will assume rules are meant to be bent.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
2009/06/06
2009/04/27
“GETTING ABOARD WATERBOARDING”
We don’t need Jack Bauer. Let the Fox "News" Commentators Test Drive Torture Techniques
The one and maybe only thing that made the US of A different from all the countries of the world and maybe of all history was that it stood for something more than just self interest or mere self protection. It stood for certain almost unique principles, one of which was that we do not torture. No matter the provocation, no matter the magnitude of the threat, no matter the strength or pervasiveness of the enemy, no matter the risk of delay or harm. We did not torture as official policy and we did not tolerate those who do. Simply calling it something else was never a defense. And, I have never understood why the current crop of "conservative" Republicans seems to hate so much what America once proudly stood for.
Here are a couple thoughts since it does not look like the Republican leadership and their followers will be satisfied until they get torture approved. If we must be like the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, the Spanish Inquisition, and all the others who used such methods without qualm, let's at least insist on two preconditions.
First, no one can vote for or authorize any torture method unless they themselves, their spouse and their children are subjected to it first by a sadist. That might eliminate some of the worst methods. Second, as to any methods that are NOT first "tested" by and survived by those employing them, let's have some consequences. IF they are used for, say, the apocryphal justification of the ticking Atom bomb, then fine. Give the torturer a ticker tape parade, declare him a hero, thank him for his "saving humanity" (an interesting irony) and have the parade route deliver him straight to solitary confinement for the rest of his life since anyone doing that obviously is not fit to mingle with the rest of humanity. That way they get to call themselves "heroes", but we will not have to have such dangerous sociopaths in our midst.
The one and maybe only thing that made the US of A different from all the countries of the world and maybe of all history was that it stood for something more than just self interest or mere self protection. It stood for certain almost unique principles, one of which was that we do not torture. No matter the provocation, no matter the magnitude of the threat, no matter the strength or pervasiveness of the enemy, no matter the risk of delay or harm. We did not torture as official policy and we did not tolerate those who do. Simply calling it something else was never a defense. And, I have never understood why the current crop of "conservative" Republicans seems to hate so much what America once proudly stood for.
Here are a couple thoughts since it does not look like the Republican leadership and their followers will be satisfied until they get torture approved. If we must be like the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, the Spanish Inquisition, and all the others who used such methods without qualm, let's at least insist on two preconditions.
First, no one can vote for or authorize any torture method unless they themselves, their spouse and their children are subjected to it first by a sadist. That might eliminate some of the worst methods. Second, as to any methods that are NOT first "tested" by and survived by those employing them, let's have some consequences. IF they are used for, say, the apocryphal justification of the ticking Atom bomb, then fine. Give the torturer a ticker tape parade, declare him a hero, thank him for his "saving humanity" (an interesting irony) and have the parade route deliver him straight to solitary confinement for the rest of his life since anyone doing that obviously is not fit to mingle with the rest of humanity. That way they get to call themselves "heroes", but we will not have to have such dangerous sociopaths in our midst.
2008/05/14
2008/04/03
"TORTURE 101 - A NEW CLASS AT BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL"
Or, Why Has a California Law School Decided a Torture Advocate Should Teach There?
Would someone please ask the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School why he woo'd John Yoo, the author of the memo to Bush on how to get away with torturing both suspects and the American Constitution, to be on the faculty? Does the Dean suffer from Alzheimer's? Is it because like Bush he never reads a newspaper? Is it because there is some sort of Affirmative Action program at UC Berkeley for torturers? Is the school going to open a branch at Gitmo or perhaps rename itself the Torquemada School of Depravity? Does the Law School no longer teach Constitutional Law? Has the Dean never read the Constitution? Did the Dean get his own law degree from a school that advertises on matchbooks? Does the Dean think that hiring Bush's henchmen likely to get the Dean awarded the inaptly named Presidential "Medal of Freedom"? Does the Dean hate America and all it once stood for? Doesn't the Dean think America has been embarrassed enough?
Come to think of it, why hasn't Consigliere Yoo's license to practice been revoked for unethical conduct? Lawyer are not supposed to assist clients in the commission of crimes. They are supposed to act at all times as Officers of the Court. And, if their clients insist on continuing to break the law, then the lawyer is supposed to report him to the police or courts. When Yoo gave Bush cover to conduct torture at whim, to search without warrants, to violate centuries old habeas corpus rules, to deprive defendants of counsel, to do much of the grievances that Thomas Jefferson decried in the Declaration of Independence and to lie about it, he became an unindicted co-conspirator and should never be allowed to be a model for students, unless Gestapo are the new models.
Yoo should be disbarred, not at the bar drinking with impressionable youngsters. Doesn’t anyone in California remember Yoo is teaching at a Law School, not a Liar School?
If the Dean at the UC Berkeley Law School refuses to answer any of the foregoing questions, does that mean we are free to waterboard him to get answers or at least lock him away without counsel until he talks?
Would someone please ask the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School why he woo'd John Yoo, the author of the memo to Bush on how to get away with torturing both suspects and the American Constitution, to be on the faculty? Does the Dean suffer from Alzheimer's? Is it because like Bush he never reads a newspaper? Is it because there is some sort of Affirmative Action program at UC Berkeley for torturers? Is the school going to open a branch at Gitmo or perhaps rename itself the Torquemada School of Depravity? Does the Law School no longer teach Constitutional Law? Has the Dean never read the Constitution? Did the Dean get his own law degree from a school that advertises on matchbooks? Does the Dean think that hiring Bush's henchmen likely to get the Dean awarded the inaptly named Presidential "Medal of Freedom"? Does the Dean hate America and all it once stood for? Doesn't the Dean think America has been embarrassed enough?
Come to think of it, why hasn't Consigliere Yoo's license to practice been revoked for unethical conduct? Lawyer are not supposed to assist clients in the commission of crimes. They are supposed to act at all times as Officers of the Court. And, if their clients insist on continuing to break the law, then the lawyer is supposed to report him to the police or courts. When Yoo gave Bush cover to conduct torture at whim, to search without warrants, to violate centuries old habeas corpus rules, to deprive defendants of counsel, to do much of the grievances that Thomas Jefferson decried in the Declaration of Independence and to lie about it, he became an unindicted co-conspirator and should never be allowed to be a model for students, unless Gestapo are the new models.
Yoo should be disbarred, not at the bar drinking with impressionable youngsters. Doesn’t anyone in California remember Yoo is teaching at a Law School, not a Liar School?
If the Dean at the UC Berkeley Law School refuses to answer any of the foregoing questions, does that mean we are free to waterboard him to get answers or at least lock him away without counsel until he talks?
2008/03/27
2008/03/26
2008/03/13
"TRULY TREACHEROUS TRAITORS"
Or, Why Perhaps Some of the Democrats in Power are Traitors Too
It’s an ugly word, not one to be bandied about lightly. But, if “traitor” is defined as those who violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution (which is sworn to by every elected member of Congress and every senior appointed member of the Executive Branch), then (except for maybe Ron Paul) most of those in the White House, Senate and House wearing a scarlet “R” engraved on their solid gold cufflinks are traitors. Certainly so if we go to war with Iran without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, if they vote to dismantle the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, if they have authorized unspeakable atrocities on interrogation victims such simulated drowning or if they enact any of the inanities our Generalisimo in the flight suit seems to come up with almost daily. If those actions are not High Crimes or at least misdemeanors deserving of impeachment, then what are?
The problem is that far too large a number of those sporting a blue “D” painted on their silver platted belt buckles who took the very same oath are committing the very same High Crimes.
The Republican office holders in charge since 2000 might be excused to a certain extent given their rather obvious insanity or at least mental defectiveness. They might even qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suffering as they apparently do from minimal intelligence, uncurious ignorance, sociopathic arrogance, perceived entitlement and ingrained, untamable aggression, they seem incapable of learning or obeying the law or even acting morally. We can pity them their disfunctionalities while simultaneously still fearing the unimaginable disasters they will no doubt perpetrate if left unguarded and unchecked. In some ways, they are not so different from fanged predators in the wild. Interesting to study, but dangerous when allowed to roam loose in a civilized society.
Not so the Democrats currently calling themselves leaders. They should know better. Consequently, they are not only traitors to their oath of office when they vote for tortures on suspicion, spying on everyone even without suspicion, and wars without declaration, they are the worst kind of traitor. Those who, fully knowing better, do it anyway out of timidity, laziness, personal gain or comfort deserve the universal condemnation of history.
It is not enough to assert as they do that the public allegedly “wants” supposed “security” over the basic freedoms the Constitution insists are necessary to a moral democracy whether the public values it or not. What shred of verifiable proof is there that such incremental surrenders of civil rights actually insure the alleged security? For instance, if the right to torture and spy is so purportedly effective, the proof should be available. I am not talking about the unsupported assertions of those who have been known to lie and stand to benefit from the dictatorial powers being usurped. I am talking about hard, quantifiable, court level proof that it actually works, especially since there is solid empirical evidence to the contrary. How do the Democrats allowing it explain that away. How do they explain away the history of our forefathers who managed to have both freedom and collective security (albeit hard fought) against far, far, far more numerous and worrisome foes? Where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that the short term gains (if any) from such insidious activities are greater than the inevitable long term cost in lives, treasury, good will, trust, and tyranny, not to mention the moral high ground which used to provide so much for us? The Democrats who are letting this happen to us should be required to explain how it is more worth while to do such things when our track record strong suggests the very countries we are now demonizing will likely be favored nation trading partners pampered with state visits and praise in the future as the Republicans have now flip flopped on Vietnam and China and until lately Russia?
Besides, if the Democrats allow the dissipation of the protections granted by the Constitution in order to curry a few votes to remain in office, what makes them think they will remain in office? Either the voters will someday come to their senses or the dictatorial power the Democrats are giving away will someday bite them in the rear. Ask the Roman Senators in the first century. Ask the members of the Russian Duma and the German Reichstag early in the last century. Strongmen with strong tactics are not the way to national security. They are the way to ultimately eliminate both freedom and personal security.
It’s an ugly word, not one to be bandied about lightly. But, if “traitor” is defined as those who violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution (which is sworn to by every elected member of Congress and every senior appointed member of the Executive Branch), then (except for maybe Ron Paul) most of those in the White House, Senate and House wearing a scarlet “R” engraved on their solid gold cufflinks are traitors. Certainly so if we go to war with Iran without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, if they vote to dismantle the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, if they have authorized unspeakable atrocities on interrogation victims such simulated drowning or if they enact any of the inanities our Generalisimo in the flight suit seems to come up with almost daily. If those actions are not High Crimes or at least misdemeanors deserving of impeachment, then what are?
The problem is that far too large a number of those sporting a blue “D” painted on their silver platted belt buckles who took the very same oath are committing the very same High Crimes.
The Republican office holders in charge since 2000 might be excused to a certain extent given their rather obvious insanity or at least mental defectiveness. They might even qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suffering as they apparently do from minimal intelligence, uncurious ignorance, sociopathic arrogance, perceived entitlement and ingrained, untamable aggression, they seem incapable of learning or obeying the law or even acting morally. We can pity them their disfunctionalities while simultaneously still fearing the unimaginable disasters they will no doubt perpetrate if left unguarded and unchecked. In some ways, they are not so different from fanged predators in the wild. Interesting to study, but dangerous when allowed to roam loose in a civilized society.
Not so the Democrats currently calling themselves leaders. They should know better. Consequently, they are not only traitors to their oath of office when they vote for tortures on suspicion, spying on everyone even without suspicion, and wars without declaration, they are the worst kind of traitor. Those who, fully knowing better, do it anyway out of timidity, laziness, personal gain or comfort deserve the universal condemnation of history.
It is not enough to assert as they do that the public allegedly “wants” supposed “security” over the basic freedoms the Constitution insists are necessary to a moral democracy whether the public values it or not. What shred of verifiable proof is there that such incremental surrenders of civil rights actually insure the alleged security? For instance, if the right to torture and spy is so purportedly effective, the proof should be available. I am not talking about the unsupported assertions of those who have been known to lie and stand to benefit from the dictatorial powers being usurped. I am talking about hard, quantifiable, court level proof that it actually works, especially since there is solid empirical evidence to the contrary. How do the Democrats allowing it explain that away. How do they explain away the history of our forefathers who managed to have both freedom and collective security (albeit hard fought) against far, far, far more numerous and worrisome foes? Where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that the short term gains (if any) from such insidious activities are greater than the inevitable long term cost in lives, treasury, good will, trust, and tyranny, not to mention the moral high ground which used to provide so much for us? The Democrats who are letting this happen to us should be required to explain how it is more worth while to do such things when our track record strong suggests the very countries we are now demonizing will likely be favored nation trading partners pampered with state visits and praise in the future as the Republicans have now flip flopped on Vietnam and China and until lately Russia?
Besides, if the Democrats allow the dissipation of the protections granted by the Constitution in order to curry a few votes to remain in office, what makes them think they will remain in office? Either the voters will someday come to their senses or the dictatorial power the Democrats are giving away will someday bite them in the rear. Ask the Roman Senators in the first century. Ask the members of the Russian Duma and the German Reichstag early in the last century. Strongmen with strong tactics are not the way to national security. They are the way to ultimately eliminate both freedom and personal security.
2008/01/18
“FAILURE TO OBJECT”
Or, Why There Aren’t More Protests in the Streets
The problem with the Bush Administration is that it has been so bad, so often, in so many ways, for so long, it has nearly destroyed our ability to be appalled. What would have once utterly horrified us, torture by our people being but one example, now seems commonplace, even expected. What would have once had us out in the streets mad enough to do something about it, now seems impossible to confront because there are simply too many forms of evils and insanities to fight and on so many different fronts and levels. It feels almost like trying to keep the tide from rolling in. Where once there would have been youthful enthusiasm to oppose, the unrelenting nature of the disasters and attacks being perpetrated by Bush and his minions ultimately generates ennui, inertia, fatigue and hopelessness symptoms slowing our responses molasses-like. Worse yet, too many people who might once have been in the forefront of the opposition are now too embarrassed, conflicted or cowardly to do so given their earlier fear generated, mob frenzied complicity in the excesses and abuses occurring in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
It’s all so depressing, it cancerously overwhelms and paralyzes our ability to cure or even effectively combat the hideous disease emanating from the Capitol.
The problem with the Bush Administration is that it has been so bad, so often, in so many ways, for so long, it has nearly destroyed our ability to be appalled. What would have once utterly horrified us, torture by our people being but one example, now seems commonplace, even expected. What would have once had us out in the streets mad enough to do something about it, now seems impossible to confront because there are simply too many forms of evils and insanities to fight and on so many different fronts and levels. It feels almost like trying to keep the tide from rolling in. Where once there would have been youthful enthusiasm to oppose, the unrelenting nature of the disasters and attacks being perpetrated by Bush and his minions ultimately generates ennui, inertia, fatigue and hopelessness symptoms slowing our responses molasses-like. Worse yet, too many people who might once have been in the forefront of the opposition are now too embarrassed, conflicted or cowardly to do so given their earlier fear generated, mob frenzied complicity in the excesses and abuses occurring in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
It’s all so depressing, it cancerously overwhelms and paralyzes our ability to cure or even effectively combat the hideous disease emanating from the Capitol.
2007/11/07
"WHAT IF JACK BAUER IS WRONG?"
Or, The Alternative Torture Scenario
The Neocons’ favorite justification for legalizing torture is the now infamous “we’ve captured a terrorist who won’t tell us where the bomb is hidden.” That rationalization is popular and persuasive to some probably because it contains an unstated false premise - that we actually have captured a genuine terrorist who has useful information. This "Jack Bauer Scenario" also presupposes guilt, a determination our founding fathers insisted should be determined in a more methodical process, notwithstanding the brilliance of "24" tv scriptwriters in eternally ferreting out all terrorists.
Given the Keystone Kops the Neocons tend to put in charge of things, the likelihood of them really catching a competent terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere rather than just setting it off immediately is probably less than you being eaten by a shark in Kansas. Moreover, both studies and anecdotal information from professional interrogators indicate that physical torture seldom produces reliable information. It is not that the torturee won’t talk, it’s that he or she will say absolutely anything to stop the pain or drowning, true or not. In addition, other techniques, including drugs, have proven more productive even in the short run when circumstances frighten those who say all our rights must be violated.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the Neocons their fantasy scenario, but change one aspect of it. Let’s suppose there is a genuine terrorist and he personally hid a bomb under the White House. Hmmm. On second thought, maybe we should say it’s hidden elsewhere since many wouldn’t mind it going off there unless it was big enough to take out the Smithsonian and National Museum of Art as well. No, let’s say instead the bomb is buried under an orphanage somewhere and we discover proof positive (as opposed to this Administration’s usual mere suspicions, assumptions and ideology). Let’s assume for once we got lucky and traced the unknown evildoer who buried it to a high rise residential building with a thousand people in it, 666 of which are innocent women and children and 332 of which are innocent men. We don’t know who among them is the bomber, but let’s say Jack Bauer has discovered the secret bomber has been residing on that particular street.
What do you do now Neocons? Torture everyone in the building? The Neocons insist it is okay to abandon the Constitution if it is just one foreigner. Is it okay to abandon it for a thousand people? Or, should we torture just the men? (Yeah right. No one under 21 ever was recruited to cause harm and no woman ever had a grievance against our society.) Torture just those who are of a darker skin tone or foreigners with an accent on the assumption that only they would bomb a building? (Oops, forgot about Timothy McVeigh, didn’t we?) Torture only the non-Christians? (I don’t think any of our abortion clinic bombers though claimed they were Muslim.) Torture just those wearing turbans? (That’s going to irritate pretty badly the entire country of India and all its Hindus and turban wearing Siekhs, not to mention everyone of that religion living in this country.) Torture only those who have guns in their homes? (Wow, that would be a tough one for the Neocons who also tend to be almost pathological when it comes to defending the portion of the Constitution regarding freedom to have guns. Their willingness to abandon almost all other Bill of Rights Amendments is almost amusing considering that Neocons insist even one regulation or hinderance of the right to own armor piercing 50 caliber rifles capable of bringing down passenger liners puts us on a “slippery slope.” ) So, what about torturing only those who have a two days growth of beard and non-blond hair? In other words, Central Casting’s concept of villains?
Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them. Neocons though seem to be saying that torture is still a good idea even then because we save more lives than will be lost. That is an unproven conclusion, but okay, suppose we know the bomber is somewhere in a city of a 100,000 and we know the bomb is a nuclear one which might kill 100,001? Still a good idea? The cost/benefit ratio is greater on the side of benefits by one. (Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them.)
Heck, let’s say the bomber is in Portland and the nuclear bomb is a hydrogen one shipped into the port of New York or LA. Now the saving ratio is perhaps ten to one. As to Portland, should we say . . . too bad? That’s the risk you take of living in a “war zone?” Collateral damage so to speak?
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston.
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston. The way to combat such nonsense is to counter with something Scott Adams suggested in his blog as a possible way to negotiate a settlement with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb. He suggested we offer Iran the testicles of Bush and Cheney in exchange for a permanent inspection right to insure no bombs are being made. IF THERE IS EVEN A 1% CHANCE THAT IT WOULD WORK, WE MUST TAKE IT!
The Neocons’ favorite justification for legalizing torture is the now infamous “we’ve captured a terrorist who won’t tell us where the bomb is hidden.” That rationalization is popular and persuasive to some probably because it contains an unstated false premise - that we actually have captured a genuine terrorist who has useful information. This "Jack Bauer Scenario" also presupposes guilt, a determination our founding fathers insisted should be determined in a more methodical process, notwithstanding the brilliance of "24" tv scriptwriters in eternally ferreting out all terrorists.
Given the Keystone Kops the Neocons tend to put in charge of things, the likelihood of them really catching a competent terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere rather than just setting it off immediately is probably less than you being eaten by a shark in Kansas. Moreover, both studies and anecdotal information from professional interrogators indicate that physical torture seldom produces reliable information. It is not that the torturee won’t talk, it’s that he or she will say absolutely anything to stop the pain or drowning, true or not. In addition, other techniques, including drugs, have proven more productive even in the short run when circumstances frighten those who say all our rights must be violated.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the Neocons their fantasy scenario, but change one aspect of it. Let’s suppose there is a genuine terrorist and he personally hid a bomb under the White House. Hmmm. On second thought, maybe we should say it’s hidden elsewhere since many wouldn’t mind it going off there unless it was big enough to take out the Smithsonian and National Museum of Art as well. No, let’s say instead the bomb is buried under an orphanage somewhere and we discover proof positive (as opposed to this Administration’s usual mere suspicions, assumptions and ideology). Let’s assume for once we got lucky and traced the unknown evildoer who buried it to a high rise residential building with a thousand people in it, 666 of which are innocent women and children and 332 of which are innocent men. We don’t know who among them is the bomber, but let’s say Jack Bauer has discovered the secret bomber has been residing on that particular street.
What do you do now Neocons? Torture everyone in the building? The Neocons insist it is okay to abandon the Constitution if it is just one foreigner. Is it okay to abandon it for a thousand people? Or, should we torture just the men? (Yeah right. No one under 21 ever was recruited to cause harm and no woman ever had a grievance against our society.) Torture just those who are of a darker skin tone or foreigners with an accent on the assumption that only they would bomb a building? (Oops, forgot about Timothy McVeigh, didn’t we?) Torture only the non-Christians? (I don’t think any of our abortion clinic bombers though claimed they were Muslim.) Torture just those wearing turbans? (That’s going to irritate pretty badly the entire country of India and all its Hindus and turban wearing Siekhs, not to mention everyone of that religion living in this country.) Torture only those who have guns in their homes? (Wow, that would be a tough one for the Neocons who also tend to be almost pathological when it comes to defending the portion of the Constitution regarding freedom to have guns. Their willingness to abandon almost all other Bill of Rights Amendments is almost amusing considering that Neocons insist even one regulation or hinderance of the right to own armor piercing 50 caliber rifles capable of bringing down passenger liners puts us on a “slippery slope.” ) So, what about torturing only those who have a two days growth of beard and non-blond hair? In other words, Central Casting’s concept of villains?
Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them. Neocons though seem to be saying that torture is still a good idea even then because we save more lives than will be lost. That is an unproven conclusion, but okay, suppose we know the bomber is somewhere in a city of a 100,000 and we know the bomb is a nuclear one which might kill 100,001? Still a good idea? The cost/benefit ratio is greater on the side of benefits by one. (Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them.)
Heck, let’s say the bomber is in Portland and the nuclear bomb is a hydrogen one shipped into the port of New York or LA. Now the saving ratio is perhaps ten to one. As to Portland, should we say . . . too bad? That’s the risk you take of living in a “war zone?” Collateral damage so to speak?
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston.
Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston. The way to combat such nonsense is to counter with something Scott Adams suggested in his blog as a possible way to negotiate a settlement with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb. He suggested we offer Iran the testicles of Bush and Cheney in exchange for a permanent inspection right to insure no bombs are being made. IF THERE IS EVEN A 1% CHANCE THAT IT WOULD WORK, WE MUST TAKE IT!
2006/10/21
“A TORTUROUS ALTERNATIVE”
Give our “Jack Bauers” a Medal. Then, Jail ‘Em and Throw Away the Key
Necon Republicans and the unthinking supporters they terrify into voting for them keep trying to justify their demand for broad general power to be granted to Presidents (i.e. Republican ones) to torture anyone anytime for any reason. Their “justification” is invariably the often filmed (but never happened) TV-Land standard plot device relied upon time after time in the 24 series where hero Jack Bauer supposedly has only hours left to keep a nuclear bomb/deadly virus/poisoned reservoir from happening.
In the first place, we have not needed it to date even though there have been lots of Nazis and other equally nasty, devoted, persistent enemies. Even since 9/11, the so-called 1% possibility has not required routine torture. Second, the government as currently run is too incompetent anyway to ever find a genuine suspect in time who might have such information (unless everyone with a different skin color or religion is routinely tortured “just in case”). In the third place, the information obtained from torture is of doubtful reliability. Besides, haven’t we learned by now from our recent experience in Iraq, that when Bush and his buddies start acting as if movie plots are useful to predict what will happen with real people, we get in trouble? But, most importantly, even if the fictional scenario recited actually occurs and torture actually works for once, why must the Prez be handed such broad torture power so anathema to everything we used to believe? Here is an alternative.
Give the torturer a medal, maybe a Medal of Freedom. Salute him. Then, give him a ticker tape parade straight to jail where he should spend the rest of his life so that society need not worry about a sociopath torturer like him continuing to roam around loose in a civilized society. Maybe he proved himself useful for that one time, but after all, he has revealed his own pathology. He has shown he does not really believe in the Constitution. By torturing a fellow human being, he has proven there is nothing he won’t do if he feels thwarted on some other matter. Do we want him free to act on whim again?
So, let’s jail him along with his boss who let things get that far, that late. That way, the torturer can continue to think of himself as a hero. He can write books from his cell. And, we can all thank him for his courage in deciding to lose his own freedom to save others.
But, there is no need to grant what the Neocons want, especially when it might be used for other less trustworthy purposes, purely political ones such as perhaps torturing journalists to find out who leaked embarrassing information. In any event, for that one theoretical, rare or never event, there is certainly no need for America to suddenly become the world’s bulk delivery torturer.
Necon Republicans and the unthinking supporters they terrify into voting for them keep trying to justify their demand for broad general power to be granted to Presidents (i.e. Republican ones) to torture anyone anytime for any reason. Their “justification” is invariably the often filmed (but never happened) TV-Land standard plot device relied upon time after time in the 24 series where hero Jack Bauer supposedly has only hours left to keep a nuclear bomb/deadly virus/poisoned reservoir from happening.
In the first place, we have not needed it to date even though there have been lots of Nazis and other equally nasty, devoted, persistent enemies. Even since 9/11, the so-called 1% possibility has not required routine torture. Second, the government as currently run is too incompetent anyway to ever find a genuine suspect in time who might have such information (unless everyone with a different skin color or religion is routinely tortured “just in case”). In the third place, the information obtained from torture is of doubtful reliability. Besides, haven’t we learned by now from our recent experience in Iraq, that when Bush and his buddies start acting as if movie plots are useful to predict what will happen with real people, we get in trouble? But, most importantly, even if the fictional scenario recited actually occurs and torture actually works for once, why must the Prez be handed such broad torture power so anathema to everything we used to believe? Here is an alternative.
Give the torturer a medal, maybe a Medal of Freedom. Salute him. Then, give him a ticker tape parade straight to jail where he should spend the rest of his life so that society need not worry about a sociopath torturer like him continuing to roam around loose in a civilized society. Maybe he proved himself useful for that one time, but after all, he has revealed his own pathology. He has shown he does not really believe in the Constitution. By torturing a fellow human being, he has proven there is nothing he won’t do if he feels thwarted on some other matter. Do we want him free to act on whim again?
So, let’s jail him along with his boss who let things get that far, that late. That way, the torturer can continue to think of himself as a hero. He can write books from his cell. And, we can all thank him for his courage in deciding to lose his own freedom to save others.
But, there is no need to grant what the Neocons want, especially when it might be used for other less trustworthy purposes, purely political ones such as perhaps torturing journalists to find out who leaked embarrassing information. In any event, for that one theoretical, rare or never event, there is certainly no need for America to suddenly become the world’s bulk delivery torturer.
2006/09/22
“TORTURING OUR CONSTITUTION”
Or, Liberal Republican Is Apparently an Oxymoron
Some have been praising Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner for “standing up” to the President and defending the Geneva Conventions. Any praise was premature. From the reports available on Friday September 22, it looks like they too finally sold out human rights. They apparently want the right to be inhuman. In fact, it sounds like the entire Republican Party now has a pro-torture plank on its platform which is being built out of the scrap lumber it has made of the Constitution.
As far as the so-called “torture-lite” concessions supposedly wrung from the Prez by the so-called “liberal Republicans” (an oxymoron if there ever was one), it still depends entirely on what regulations he chooses to write, on his honesty in reporting and on his willingness to actually obey the law as written, none of which he has ever shown any inclination.
Moreover, has any of the national press stopped to consider that we are now speaking about “legalizing” things that before Bush's election would have been deemed truly unspeakable. Even before their brief “rebellion,” which appears to have only been for show, the three Senators were only opposing a relatively small part of Bush’s plan to dismantle human rights and civil liberties across the board by warrantless searches, automatic assumption of guiltiness of suspects, secret prisons, permanent imprisonment without trial, denial of counsel and prevention of judicial review.
For instance, captives are now supposed to finally be able to see the evidence that convicts them, at least a heavily redacted version blacking out anything deemed "classified." But, throughout our entire nation’s history prior to Bush, it was a right, not a privilege, to see it all. Besides, Bush has long demonstrated a preference to go so far as to “classify” almost everything to be “classified,” “top secret” or “confidential-restricted” information. He would probably like to declare public phone books and even street signs classified to “protect national security.” I am indulging in hyperbole, but barely.
In any event, in just five unjust years, we have morphed so far from the Land of Liberty we once were, that the place is almost unrecognizable. How ironic that all the Republican violations of liberty, democracy and freedom are being done in the name of those goals and allegedly being justified as necessary to save them. Shame on the Republicans for doing it. Shame on us for letting them.
How come only former Communist countries like Hungary seem to care enough about election honesty to riot in the streets when it is proven their leader deliberately lied to the voters?
Some have been praising Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner for “standing up” to the President and defending the Geneva Conventions. Any praise was premature. From the reports available on Friday September 22, it looks like they too finally sold out human rights. They apparently want the right to be inhuman. In fact, it sounds like the entire Republican Party now has a pro-torture plank on its platform which is being built out of the scrap lumber it has made of the Constitution.
As far as the so-called “torture-lite” concessions supposedly wrung from the Prez by the so-called “liberal Republicans” (an oxymoron if there ever was one), it still depends entirely on what regulations he chooses to write, on his honesty in reporting and on his willingness to actually obey the law as written, none of which he has ever shown any inclination.
Moreover, has any of the national press stopped to consider that we are now speaking about “legalizing” things that before Bush's election would have been deemed truly unspeakable. Even before their brief “rebellion,” which appears to have only been for show, the three Senators were only opposing a relatively small part of Bush’s plan to dismantle human rights and civil liberties across the board by warrantless searches, automatic assumption of guiltiness of suspects, secret prisons, permanent imprisonment without trial, denial of counsel and prevention of judicial review.
For instance, captives are now supposed to finally be able to see the evidence that convicts them, at least a heavily redacted version blacking out anything deemed "classified." But, throughout our entire nation’s history prior to Bush, it was a right, not a privilege, to see it all. Besides, Bush has long demonstrated a preference to go so far as to “classify” almost everything to be “classified,” “top secret” or “confidential-restricted” information. He would probably like to declare public phone books and even street signs classified to “protect national security.” I am indulging in hyperbole, but barely.
In any event, in just five unjust years, we have morphed so far from the Land of Liberty we once were, that the place is almost unrecognizable. How ironic that all the Republican violations of liberty, democracy and freedom are being done in the name of those goals and allegedly being justified as necessary to save them. Shame on the Republicans for doing it. Shame on us for letting them.
How come only former Communist countries like Hungary seem to care enough about election honesty to riot in the streets when it is proven their leader deliberately lied to the voters?
2006/04/05
“50 WAYS TO TWIST A TORTURE INVESTIGATION”
Or, How Bush Can Ignore the Ban Against Cruel, Unusual & Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners
1. Pretend it didn’t occur, Sir
2. Let’s modify Webster, Hester
3. Change the law, Ma
4. Blame it on others, Brothers
5. Have someone else do it, Louis
6. Don’t let them know, Joe
7. Hide the man, Stan
8. Use a poison pill, Bill
9. Bury the bones, Jones
10. Call it just partisan bias, Tobias
11. Pretend it’s all phony, Tony
12. Attack the press, Bess
13. Tighten the lid, Sid
14. Be quite contrary, Harry
15. Say it was a Democrat, Pat
16. Certainly wasn’t me, McGee
17. Ignore the rules, Jules
18. Burn the photo, Toto
19. Erase the tape, Jake
20. Destroy the rest, Les
21. Wear ‘em down, Brown
22. Delay and delay, Mr. DeLay
23. Give prosecutors the ax, Max
24. Trim their staff, Taft
25. Cut their budget, Bridget
26. Replace the jury, Drury
27. Use party hacks, Jack
28. Slip them money, Honey
29. Lie on the stand, Man
30. Take the 5th, Cliff
31. Don’t solemnly swear, Jer
32. Intimidate the judge, Drudge
33. Declare a security alert, Bert
34. Claim new kind of enemy, Jiminy
35. Trick ‘em slick, Dick
36. Pull a “Caesar,” Geezer
37. It’s none of their business, Dennis
38. Arrest any protester, Lester
39. Talk about traitors, Tater
40. Put a bag on their head, Ted
41. Strip ‘em naked, Jacob
42. Use the water board, Ford
43. Throw ‘em in jail, Gail
44. Proclaim we’re never inhumane, Jane
45. Start a new war, Fillmore
46. Blow them away, Jay
47. Show them no pity, Liddy
48. Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you, Lou
49. Give them the finger, Inger
50. Trust in voter ennui, Henry
(with profuse apologies to Paul Simon)
1. Pretend it didn’t occur, Sir
2. Let’s modify Webster, Hester
3. Change the law, Ma
4. Blame it on others, Brothers
5. Have someone else do it, Louis
6. Don’t let them know, Joe
7. Hide the man, Stan
8. Use a poison pill, Bill
9. Bury the bones, Jones
10. Call it just partisan bias, Tobias
11. Pretend it’s all phony, Tony
12. Attack the press, Bess
13. Tighten the lid, Sid
14. Be quite contrary, Harry
15. Say it was a Democrat, Pat
16. Certainly wasn’t me, McGee
17. Ignore the rules, Jules
18. Burn the photo, Toto
19. Erase the tape, Jake
20. Destroy the rest, Les
21. Wear ‘em down, Brown
22. Delay and delay, Mr. DeLay
23. Give prosecutors the ax, Max
24. Trim their staff, Taft
25. Cut their budget, Bridget
26. Replace the jury, Drury
27. Use party hacks, Jack
28. Slip them money, Honey
29. Lie on the stand, Man
30. Take the 5th, Cliff
31. Don’t solemnly swear, Jer
32. Intimidate the judge, Drudge
33. Declare a security alert, Bert
34. Claim new kind of enemy, Jiminy
35. Trick ‘em slick, Dick
36. Pull a “Caesar,” Geezer
37. It’s none of their business, Dennis
38. Arrest any protester, Lester
39. Talk about traitors, Tater
40. Put a bag on their head, Ted
41. Strip ‘em naked, Jacob
42. Use the water board, Ford
43. Throw ‘em in jail, Gail
44. Proclaim we’re never inhumane, Jane
45. Start a new war, Fillmore
46. Blow them away, Jay
47. Show them no pity, Liddy
48. Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you, Lou
49. Give them the finger, Inger
50. Trust in voter ennui, Henry
2006/04/04
“A TORTUROUS DEBATE”
Or, The Top Ten Reasons Why Those Who Approve Torture Deserve To Be Tortured
10. Bothersome Historical Reminders. Monty Pythonites notwithstanding, we grew up reviling historic instances of torture such as the Spanish Inquisition. Our fathers fought against the Germans for torturing victims. A major part of at least the current justification for attacking Iraq was the torture used by Saddam. Yet, the only difference from those horrifying examples and what the White House has encouraged through its chain of command seems to be a matter of degree; i.e., the Administration justifies its own barbarism on the grounds that we are not quite as nasty as they were. Since when however is the lowest common denominator the standard by which such practices should be judged?
9. Bad Precedent. If government employees find out they can get away with torture in secret, at best it sets an extremely bad example. How do we even know if those gleefully following White House’s “nudge nudge, wink wink” about interrogation techniques are torturing the "right people" since there are no trials to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt first? Do we automatically assume everyone who disagrees with state policy should be tortured just in case? What will our newly empowered torturers feel they can get away with next? Lying, theft from the treasury, and character assassination seem almost innocent in comparison.
8. Biblical Sanctions. For the religious, they need only ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” Has no one presently in the West Wing heard of the “Golden Rule,” let alone ever actually read the book from which it was derived?
7. Bill of Rights. Even if “thou shalt not commit premeditated torture” is not one of the top Ten Commandments, it’s certainly against almost everything our Bill of Rights stands for, not to mention every single court case that has ever interpreted it. Do a million words of condemnation of the practice mean nothing to those in charge these days?
6. Burdensome PR. Practicing repugnant methods of intimidation and interrogation makes everyone in the country, not only appear to either be international thugs or supporters of thuggery, but rank hypocrites as well. That severely weakens whatever moral authority we once had for persuading others. Perhaps we should be returning the Statute of Liberty to France with apologies.
5. Benefits Unproven. Worse, there is no proof that any convictions or even most confessions could not have been obtained other, less odious, ways. Over the years since American became a Torturers ‘R Us franchise, there have proven to be fewer average annual felony convictions obtained as a result of such tortures than a double amputee can count on his fingers and toes. Plus, any information gained must automatically be highly suspect.
4. Brotherhood of Man, or at least, International Law. Besides making our word on treaties like the Geneva Convention worthless, it jeopardizes our soldiers in the field giving the enemy the belief that the they need not obey the Geneva Conventions either as to those captured. No wonder enlistments are dangerously low.
3. Back to the Future. If it is permissible to use against outsiders, then why wouldn't it be permissible to be used against our own citizens at some point? Dehumanization tends to be catching, even addictive to practitioners.
2. Boundless Costs. Its costs wildly outweigh whatever “benefits” might occur whether we are looking at dollar, psychological or ethical costs. What price can be put upon our souls after admitting to torturing others, especially those later found to be innocent?
1. It’s Just Plain Wrong. Stay after school and write that on the blackboard ten times for each “detainee.” If they jailed Martha Stewart for a few thousand dollars in stock fraud, then why aren’t those who wrote the memos approving torture facing jail time?
10. Bothersome Historical Reminders. Monty Pythonites notwithstanding, we grew up reviling historic instances of torture such as the Spanish Inquisition. Our fathers fought against the Germans for torturing victims. A major part of at least the current justification for attacking Iraq was the torture used by Saddam. Yet, the only difference from those horrifying examples and what the White House has encouraged through its chain of command seems to be a matter of degree; i.e., the Administration justifies its own barbarism on the grounds that we are not quite as nasty as they were. Since when however is the lowest common denominator the standard by which such practices should be judged?
9. Bad Precedent. If government employees find out they can get away with torture in secret, at best it sets an extremely bad example. How do we even know if those gleefully following White House’s “nudge nudge, wink wink” about interrogation techniques are torturing the "right people" since there are no trials to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt first? Do we automatically assume everyone who disagrees with state policy should be tortured just in case? What will our newly empowered torturers feel they can get away with next? Lying, theft from the treasury, and character assassination seem almost innocent in comparison.
8. Biblical Sanctions. For the religious, they need only ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” Has no one presently in the West Wing heard of the “Golden Rule,” let alone ever actually read the book from which it was derived?
7. Bill of Rights. Even if “thou shalt not commit premeditated torture” is not one of the top Ten Commandments, it’s certainly against almost everything our Bill of Rights stands for, not to mention every single court case that has ever interpreted it. Do a million words of condemnation of the practice mean nothing to those in charge these days?
6. Burdensome PR. Practicing repugnant methods of intimidation and interrogation makes everyone in the country, not only appear to either be international thugs or supporters of thuggery, but rank hypocrites as well. That severely weakens whatever moral authority we once had for persuading others. Perhaps we should be returning the Statute of Liberty to France with apologies.
5. Benefits Unproven. Worse, there is no proof that any convictions or even most confessions could not have been obtained other, less odious, ways. Over the years since American became a Torturers ‘R Us franchise, there have proven to be fewer average annual felony convictions obtained as a result of such tortures than a double amputee can count on his fingers and toes. Plus, any information gained must automatically be highly suspect.
4. Brotherhood of Man, or at least, International Law. Besides making our word on treaties like the Geneva Convention worthless, it jeopardizes our soldiers in the field giving the enemy the belief that the they need not obey the Geneva Conventions either as to those captured. No wonder enlistments are dangerously low.
3. Back to the Future. If it is permissible to use against outsiders, then why wouldn't it be permissible to be used against our own citizens at some point? Dehumanization tends to be catching, even addictive to practitioners.
2. Boundless Costs. Its costs wildly outweigh whatever “benefits” might occur whether we are looking at dollar, psychological or ethical costs. What price can be put upon our souls after admitting to torturing others, especially those later found to be innocent?
1. It’s Just Plain Wrong. Stay after school and write that on the blackboard ten times for each “detainee.” If they jailed Martha Stewart for a few thousand dollars in stock fraud, then why aren’t those who wrote the memos approving torture facing jail time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)