opa-opines.net

The question of whether the US should torture (enhanced interrogation) any “detainees” keeps bubbling. Some commentators insist there are two issues: Is torture legal, and does torture work to get us vital information.

I strongly disagree! There is only one question: Does the US believe that torture is the “right” thing to do. Do we believe a human – even an enemy – should have the “right” to NOT be tortured. Is there any possible justification for the “beacon of freedom”, the symbol of human rights, to ever stoop to inflicting pain and near death to another human just to make ourselves “safe”?

There is only one principle and it is a moral one. This nation was founded upon human rights. In our Declaration of independence we say “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.” In the Constitution, in our “Bill of Rights”, we insist that each person has freedoms and should be protected from cruel punishments*. We say in the fifth amendment that we cannot lose our rights without “due process of law”.* Due process includes the right to not incriminate ourselves.

Does the Constitution limit these rights to American Citizens? No. The Constitution does not say that the rights are limited to citizens, nor should it. When our founders created this nation they saw it as an exception to the abusive countries of the rest of the world.

Do we want this nation to become like the countries that abuse people? I think not. Liberty such as we have in this country must be carefully protected. It was worth the sacrifices of the Wars we fought to ensure our rights. Those rights must not be surrendered now just to gain a little information.    

* Constitution of the United States

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It seems that every time I try to listen to a cable news channel I hear argument concerning whether President Obama should prosecute senior Bush Administration officials. During press briefings, news reporters even attempt to push Obama into saying he thinks they are guilty of violating US and international laws concerning torture. This is irritating.

A brief review of history suggests to me that Presidents do not tend to prosecute their predecessor . Historically congress has investigated presidents, for example Andrew Johnson. The Department of Justice has appointed special prosecutors, for example to investigate Nixon and Clinton.

I don’t think it is the President’s job to investigate or prosecute a former President. Further, I don’t want a sitting President to think he has such power. To me that kind of power reminds me too much of a monarchy.

A sitting President must focus upon the needs of the nation, and especially now, we need the President to try to lead concerning the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the looming entitlement mess. I think the President should not be sidetracked by political investigations.

Frankly, if it is necessary to prosecute a prior administration, I believe that congress should appoint an independent special prosecutor. There must be some attorneys who are independent people of principle, driven by the law itself, and not involved in political wars. Hopefully congress will pass a law mandating such an appointment. Then we can concentrate on moving the nation forward.

What do you think?

Yesterday an attorney from Canada petitioned the Canadian government to deny entrance into Canada to former President George W. Bush. Seems that there is a Canadian law that prohibits entrance anyone who has been suspected of war crimes, especially torture. Allow entrance of deny it, either decision could cause international ripples.

Some pundits in the US are pushing President Obama about investigating and prosecuting possible war crimes of the Bush administration. Some talk show programs have already judged Bush and Cheney of war crimes.

I understand that action on the war crimes subject could affect President Obama’s “unity” and “go forward” themes. So, I have a suggestion: appoint a veteran that is also a republican to lead any such investigation. Maybe a retired general officer with a positive reputation. Possibly a republican member of Congress who has spoken out against torture. If not a person in congress, then perhaps a conservative republican prosecutor known for integrity.

I believe that an investigation is inevitable. Why not get to it quickly to protect America’s image?

A recent article in Newsweek mentioned that an increasing number of politicians are trying to pressure the administration to avoid their districts when relocating Gitmo detainees.

Two weeks into office, President Obama has said that he intends to close Gitmo within the next year, but has not detailed what he intends to do with the prisoners. That is not surprising because the Bush administration, other than using them as intelligence sources, was unable to decide what to do with these people 4 to 6 years after capturing them.

Who are these detainees? How “dangerous are they? What crimes did they commit? Does their native country wish them returned? The news media have not given us a clear report on the subject, and there is much debate. If we have cases against them, why not try them where they are and dispose of them within the year?

Currently there is no way Obama can be certain about the cases in Gitmo. His Attorney General just took office. The heads of CIA and other security forces have only recently been approved for their job. And, of course, considering the issues in the recent election, Obama may not have decided who he can trust on these issues.

I can understand that no politician wants terrorists incarcerated in their district or state, but I have yet to hear a constructive suggestion concerning the location they suggest. It is all “not in my backyard”. Someone needs to yield on this subject.

I do have one suggestion. How about Alcatraz? I know it is a national park now, but that means the nation owns the land. It would need some remodeling, but that would provide a few jobs. Alcatraz is an island in the middle of San Francisco bay. It was once considered escape proof as the water is too cold for a long swim.

If anyone else has a suggestion, comment on this blog. We will need an acceptable solution.

Lately President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been speaking out concerning the torture of American prisoners. Cheney was quoted as saying that they had lawyers in the Justice Department review the matter and determine, essentially, that it is ok to torture people who are not members of a recognized armed force of a nation that signed the Geneva Accords. Cheney further claimed that “water boarding” is not torture.

Shame on them and shame on us for allowing this practice.

Water boarding has been specifically named as torture in international law for many years. The Geneva Convention, at the request of the United States, does not just talk of prisoners of war, it talks about moral behavior, and condemns torture of anyone, regardless of their military status. The United States insisted upon trying war criminals after World War II, and convicted several of “Water boarding”.

As I wrote in a commentary this summer, The New York Times reported July 3rd that the United States government used an old study from the 1950’s to establish their interrogation procedures for prisoners in the “war on terrorism.” Seems that the Chinese, during the Korean conflict, developed techniques to get American prisoners to confess to “war crimes”. The Chinese were able to force American POWs to confess to crimes they did not commit (like mass use of poison gas).

What possible reason could lead any American official to exploit such materials? The excuse would probably be utilitarian – it worked for the Chinese. But did it? The Chinese purpose was propaganda not intelligence gathering. Some government officials claimed that using these techniques would provide valuable information and save American lives. I fail to see the logic. How could we make the inductive leap of suggesting that techniques useful for obtaining admission of false information would be successful in gaining accurate (true) information? And how would we check the validity of information gained?

Vice President Cheney claimed that torturing one prominent terrorist provided “most” of our actionable intelligence concerning terrorist threats. FBI sources recently verified that more that 90 percent of the information gained by torture led to “false leads” that wasted valuable time. Further, the FBI director reluctantly stated that to his knowledge torture yielded no security benefit for the US and did not prevent any terrorist actions.

The larger concern, however, is ethical and moral. The American nation has long seen itself as an inspiration. We have democracy, freedom, protected human rights, and the rule of law. Ever wonder how that image is now viewed abroad?

As a people, we must stop this activity. Maybe a prisoner will tell us tales after being isolated, subjected to cold, starvation, ridicule, and “water boarding”. Could the information obtained be worth our becoming like our enemies, possibly worse than our enemies?

American soldiers are taught about the Geneva Convention rules, but Cheney never served and Bush probably missed the class. Neither the Vice President nor the President has the authority to revise law – they “administer” laws passed by congress, and if congress passed a law authorizing torture, I can’t find it (neither can Senator McCain). Is it possible that a sitting American President can violate the law? Can the President be tried and found guilty of a crime? It may be possible to prosecute this case, but will that fix our new reputation abroad?

As a people, we must stop this activity. Maybe a prisoner will tell us tales after being isolated, subjected to cold, starvation, ridicule, and “water boarding”. Could the information obtained be worth our becoming like our enemies, possibly worse than our enemies?