The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Do They Really Oppose Torture? http://ow.ly/FQmAU
written by
The Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on CIA torture of detainees and the reaction has been strong. While some still maintain that torture is justified, the emerging details of the program have left most of the country disgusted and ashamed.
Many in the current Administration blame the Bush people for this dark chapter, claiming that President Obama finally put an end to what his predecessor started.
Senator John McCain, an advocate for war and an interventionist foreign policy, has nevertheless been one of the strongest voices opposing torture. He has recalled his time as an abused prisoner of war in Vietnam to argue the importance of facing up to the recent behavior of the US government and making necessary corrections.
He said he knows from personal experience that torture does not produce good intelligence, as the victims will say whatever they believe their captors want to hear to gain some relief from their agony. Torture is morally wrong and it doesn’t work, he maintains.
I believe the Senator is sincere and that his intentions are good when it comes to the torture outlined in the report. I also believe that President Obama is sincere when he denounces the practices outlined by the Senate Committee.
But I think both President Obama and Senator McCain are being disingenuous and selective in their opposition to torture.
It is one thing to argue that people should not have their feet broken and be forced to stand cuffed to a wall, to oppose rectal force-feeding, and to condemn water-boarding a detainee 50 or 100 times. Most of us reject this kind of torture for both moral and practical reasons.
But is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions? Is endorsing pre-emptive war, knowing that thousands of civilians are sure to be “collateral damage,” not support for torture?
Both Senator McCain and President Obama take the moral high ground with regard to CIA torture, but both are enthusiastic supporters of past and current US military interventions that have the same effect on millions. It is one thing to oppose horrific practices that leave perhaps dozens killed or maimed. But what about practices that do the same for tens of thousands or millions?
A consistent anti-torture position would also reject sanctions, “humanitarian” interventions, regime change, and pre-emptive war. Anything less is missing the whole point.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Cal Says:
December 11th, 2014 at 5:19 am
I am planning on coming. They are asking that all who support the US Constitution, our legitimate government, and (my words) not the traitors to the USA and her people come and sign this. One day this too will hang in the people’s house – after we fumigate it and prosecute the debris found within it and within Washington DC.
Declaration of Affirmation. December 13th 2014.
We The People hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, each endowed by their Creator with natural, irrevocable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property and the defense thereof. As such, we re-affirm these birthrights for us and our posterity, refusing any and all attempts from those who would infringe upon them.
We declare that the right of self-defense is natural. As the framers affirmed and sealed with blood, so we affirm that our right to keep and bear arms is granted by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and may not be restricted in any fashion.
We the masters of a government by the consent of the governed, armed and ready, declare to our legislators and fellow citizens that no act of government, nor vote of the public carries any authority to remove, dilute or hinder any of the people’s rights. Not today. Not ever. We will no longer allow our rights to be altered, touched or approached. We stand and we call upon all creation to stand with us. We call on all officers and representatives to uphold their oath and refuse unlawful actions. We call for peace and principle, but we will not back down and we will no longer tolerate those who trample our absolute and indisputable rights. We pledge our blood. We will not comply.
“It is the nature of a right that it is – and must be – absolute. If there are codicils, appendices, restrictions, however, and buts, then it is a privilege, granted and controlled by others”. Unknown (I wish I knew who to give credit for this!)
Molon Labe!
Be Safe All and may God Bless You.
If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?
Politicians, like all public servants, take an oath to serve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. They don’t pledge allegiance to a political party, and ideology or and a specific group or individual.
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves”
We are NOT slaves.
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “… the equal right of every citizen … is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.
Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.” (End Quote)
Chip Murray Says:
December 11th, 2014 at 5:36 am
Support your local sheriff because…http://shutupnsing.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/support-your-local-sheriff-because/