SENSE AND NONSENSE – A PERFECTLY DESTRUCTIVE STORM
From the editor: The influence of neo-conservatism could not have progressed so far and the political pendulum could not have swung so far to the right were it not for the almost unbelievable merging of social and psychological trends into a perfect political storm that is rapidly moving our country toward self-destruction.
The storm consists of many influential forces, but those forces can be grouped into a few key categories:
The influence of money upon the formulation of public policy. In other words, elected representatives “sell out” to campaign contributors.
A popular belief that the end of the world is near (the “Rapture” myth). Any destructive trend is viewed as being one step closer to “heaven” and “everlasting life.” This also relieves a “true believer” of any responsibility to solve problems in this world.
The movement toward “privatization” and the “demonization” of government. This movement allows corporatists, free-traders, and misguided globalizationists, to feed at the public trough of taxpayer funds all while blaming a single mother with two children of “living off welfare.” The corporate media, a.k.a. Rupert Murdoch etc, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, third-party health insurers, Blackwater, Halliburton, are key examples of the “public trough hogs.”
The movement toward an “Imperial Presidency” engineered by Dick Cheney and company coupled with a movement toward a not-so-secret fascistic government that uses warrantless wiretaps (even before 9/11) to spy on its own citizens. This movement tosses aside our forefathers constitutional emphasis upon the importance of “checks and balances” as well as “separation of powers.” In 1926, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis explained that “The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.” (Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52)
And finally, a world view that war is the natural state of mankind and any movement toward peace in the world is a sign of “weakness” rather than strength. In this world view, a belief in “survival of the fittest” is viewed as “realistic,” while a belief in a civilized, peaceful world is labeled “naïve” and “unattainable.” The philosophical underpinnings for this war-mongering world view can be traced back to the militaristic and imperialistic expansion of the Roman Empire and the more recent ramblings of the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes. For all those who subscribe to this world view, one should remember that the Roman Empire not only rose to power – it also fell from power, as do all warlike imperialistic nations.
The good news is that there is a way to combat this “perfect storm of war and destruction,” but it requires a populist movement that favors peace over war; a balance of power over a concentration of political power; a fair opportunity for all citizens to move out of poverty and away from hunger; an understanding that “profit” cannot be at the expense of “the common good;” and that our country’s true self-interest lies in establishing allies rather than creating enemies.
Unilateralism, imperialism, and paranoid facism are destructive. Democracy, the common good, and the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are constructive. Specifically, Democracy as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America;” a sense of social responsibility to “the common good,” as practiced daily in this country by using taxes to pay for police and fire protection; safe roads; accessible parks and protected wilderness; exploration of space; scientific research and public education.; as well as freedom from the abuse of concentrated power are all constructive forces. It’s our choice. Although November 4, 2008, (the next presidential election) is the institutionalized day for exercising that choice, we need to realize that every day we draw a breath marks a new opportunity to make that choice.
Maynard Chapman
Editor, The Compass Newsletter
THE ‘DEVIL’S DETAILS’ ON TORTURE
From the editor: Two recent events have brought the subject of torture back into the headlines: 1) The Senate confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey; and 2) the disclosure in The New York Times of two secret Justice Department opinions authorizing severe interrogation techniques including head-slapping, simulated drowning (waterboarding); and subjecting detainees to frigid temperatures.
The Compass first covered the Bush Administration’s unimaginable record on torture in the Sept. 26, 2006 (vol. iii, no. 22) issue. I am taking the unusual step of attaching that issue as well as the current issue because of the background information on torture covered in both newsletters.
This issue alone, in my opinion, has enough legal justification to merit impeachment proceedings against President Bush. However, the chances of impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney are zero to none. They (by “they” I mean the current weak Democratic “leadership” in Congress) reason that such a proceeding would be a “distraction” for voters.
Given the certainty that Bush will not face impeachment, it is more imperative than ever to educate ourselves on just how far the United States has moved away from the legal principles of our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and any reasonable standard of human rights that a civilized nation might embrace.
Following is a review of the laws against torture and of the Bush administration’s stream of lies by omission and commission, misleading statements, equivocations, and admissions regarding the shameful and ineffective practice of torture by the United States of America. It must be noted that Bush has authorized torture with the cooperation of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article 3, is signed by the United States. Article 3 forbids “outrages upon personal dignity and “mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.”
In 1987, the United States signs the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
In 1994, the U.S. Congress passes The War Crimes Act which criminalizes violations of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The language of the War Crimes Act is found in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code. This language defines torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful actions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.
In Feb., 2002, President Bush says Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not apply to Al Qaeda captives.
In August, 2002, Jay S. Bybee, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issues the infamous “torture memo” which maintains that the CIA. has the authority to use harsh interrogation techniques. The memo was drafted by then Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo who argued that physical torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” The Bybee/Yoo memo was prepared at the request of Alberto Gonzales who was serving as General Counsel to the President. John Yoo is currently Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley’s Boalt Hall Law School. He also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1994-95 after his stint at the Justice Department.
In June, 2004, Jack Goldsmith, Mr. Bybee’s replacement as head of the Office of Legal Counsel rescinds the torture memo after it becomes public, and submits his resignation the same day.
In February, 2005, Steven G. Bradbury, appointed by newly confirmed Attorney General Gonzales as acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel signs a secret opinion that provides explicit authorization to subject terror suspects to a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning (waterboarding) and frigid temperatures. Mr. Gonzales approved the classified legal memorandum over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after clashes with the White House.
In June, 2005, Bradbury is formally nominated for the permanent job, but Democrats in Congress block the nomination. Bradbury issues a second classified opinion that the CIA.’s harshest tactics are not “cruel, inhuman or degrading.”
In December, 2005, Congress passes the Detainee Treatment Act which bars “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world. But, at the urging of the White House, this legislation contains a broad immunity loophole (Paragraph 1004) that is designed to protect CIA. operatives from prosecution. In Paragraph 1005, this act also severely curtails a detainees right to habeas corpus (the right to trial by judge or jury). Congressional members are not told that the Justice Department has already exempted the CIA’s use of torture.
In June, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees held by Americans including Al Qaeda.
In September, 2006, the Bush administration makes it clear that it wants the following interrogation techniques to be legal: induced hypothermia; long periods of forced standing; sleep deprivation, the “attention grab” and the “attention slap,” and sound and light manipulation. It is disclosed that the U.S. Army field manual bans water-boarding, but the manual does not apply to the CIA.
On Oct. 17, 2006, Bush signs the Military Commissions Act which makes several broadly defined abuses of detainees illegal – while still giving the President the authority to establish specific permissible interrogation techniques. In signing the law, Bush states, “As I’ve said before, the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values.”
In July, 2007, President Bush signs an Executive Order that allows the CIA to use interrogation techniques banned for military interrogators. Bush bases his authority to allow “severe interrogation” on the still classified Justice Department memos signed by Richard Bradbury.
On October 4, 2007, The New York Times discloses the existence of the two secret Justice Department legal memorandums on torture. These two classified documents essentially give the CIA. full authority to torture detainees.
On October 18, 2007, Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey equivocates on the issue of torture in general and waterboarding specifically. When asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, “Is waterboarding constitutional?” Mukasey replied that he didn’t know what is involved in the technique of waterboarding. “If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,” Mukasey replied. “I’m very disappointed in that answer,” Whitehouse said. “I think it’s purely semantics.”
The Compass Society Newsletter
Maynard Chapman, Editor
Copyright © 2007, The Compass Society
