a statement of conscience

As I write this, the United States Senate is engaged in a bit of political theater, while they pretend to debate whether or not they will make torture an American value. They are pretending to debate whether or not to give one person -- in this case the president -- the ability remove rights that we've all taken for granted under our Constitution for over two centuries from anyone he (or she, someday) identifies, without any accountability or oversight. They are pretending to debate whether our Democracy even matters, any more.

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters. . . .

Today's vote will show more clearly than ever before that, when push comes to shove, the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight.

This is far too much power for one person to have, and is antithetical to everything America and freedom and Democracy stand for. In fact, this is the sort of power that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein had. Or Stalin. Or Pinochet.

I haven't written much about politics here in recent memory, because there are others who say what I want to say and they do it much better than I do: Glenn Greenwald, Josh Marshall, John Cole, and Digby, for example. But even though I've become entirely disgusted with what used to be my government and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the congress or the president to listen to me (actually, I don't have a lot of faith in the president listening to anyone who doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear,) I still believe in the underlying principles of Democracy. I still believe that it is the responsibility of every American, whether they feel adequately represented by the current congress or not, to stand up for their beliefs, even when they speak them to deaf ears in the halls of power. Even -- no, especially -- when those beliefs are unpopular.

My government is supposed to represent me, and as an American citizen, I must accept responsibility for the things my country does in my name. It is with that responsibility in mind that I feel compelled to write the following, not for congress who have already ignored my calls and letters, but for my own conscience, and for my children, should they one day ask me, "What happened then? Why didn't anyone try to do anything?"

What the House did yesterday, the Senate looks to do today, and the President will surely enact as soon as possible, is a direct assault on American values, and contrary to everything our country stands for. Though cynically and cowardly enacted as a purely political tool during an election, those who supported this bill do not speak for me, do not act in my name, and do not reflect my values.

Torture is not an American value. Torture is a totalitarian, sadistic value. Suspending access to courts and the right to face your accuser is not what Americans do. It is what tyrannical dictators and despots do, not a democratic republic like the one I was brought up in and love. Time and again, torture has proved unreliable to prevent or solve crimes, and it reduces our country to the level of the very terrorists we are supposedly fighting.

I believe in the right to a speedy and fair trial for everyone, even the most repugnant of defendants. No, especially for the most repugnant of defendants, because if we, as a society, can't guarantee the most hideously accused among us that right, what is it worth to the rest of us?

George Bush and his enablers in the congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has done more damage to our country, and our once impeccable moral standing in the world than all the terrorists combined. President Bush and his Republican allies in congress like to say that "they hate us for our freedom," but President Bush and his Republican allies in congress have spent the last five years working very hard to take that freedom away from the people they supposedly work for, and vest that power in something they call the Unitary Executive. If the Democrats won't stand up to stop torture, what will they stand up for? If Congress won't do its constitutional duty now, then when?

I am disgusted with, and ashamed of my government.

Shame on President Bush. Shame on his Republican allies in congress, and shame on the spineless, cowardly Democrats who did not stand up to them. Shame on them all, and shame on all of us if we do not turn out by the millions in the next election to put men and women into congress who will have the courage to do their constitutional duty, and defend the Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Comments

[Kari]

Amen, Wil!

[oedipuscomplextrekfannumbertenmillion]

Hear hear! But what is the alternative? Do we all vote for who, Independents? Damned if we do, damned if we don't, there's no one else on the political scene with a party machine and enough people to create a government. If indeed both the GOP and the Dems are not up to the task of running the country at this point, then who is? Who will get elected? Who can get elected and run the country in such a way as to restore some sense of decency back to it? Anyone?

We're fucked, Wil. Fucked.

[Wil]

I believe the fist thing we do is make sure at least one house of congress goes back to Democrats, so they get subpoena power, and can at least attempt to put some sort of check on the Republican dominance of government.

Then we make sure that there are serious primary challengers to every one of the eleven Senators who voted for torture, regardless of how long they've been there. I'm not suggesting we all abandon the Democratic party; I'm suggesting that we reshape it from within.

[SAL9000]

To jo:

The two party system is inherently adverserial IMO; Nonetheless, the current political "climate" is what the electorate chose by proxy. The call for unity is the calling card of those who have lost (can't say as I blame the notion).

The proffering that a revolution, demonizing the Bush Administration, or leaving the country is a solution to what you (and others) see as a problem is the anti-solution so characteristic of the American left, and is in no small measure why the DNC is all but a husk of wacko fringe groups united in their hate of the president.

[jo]

To Sal9000:

Huh?

That's not what I said- I suggested reintroducing conscription, not demonizing Bush or the two party system. I don't even know what the two-party system is; I'm not an American.

I don't criticise the US system. I don't know enough about it. I think that part of the reason there is so much nonchalance and/or nonaction about perceived ills in the US is because people don't have a personal experience of it. It doesn't hit close enough to home. So, I say, let people experience it, or put them*selves* at risk in order to advance their agendas.

Whether one perceives that agenda as good or evil is irrelevant. The point is, I think people will think differently about the whole war and political situation much differently if they themselves had to be the ones pointing the guns-- and being pointed at.

Simple human nature?

[JSc]

Re: whether or not the Constitution gives the same rights to non-citizens as citizens.... Keep two things in mind when discussing the Constitution....

First, it has traditionally been upheld as an exclusionary document, as have the various amendments--unless it explicitly states that "the power to do X is attributed to branch Y of the government," then it has been assumed that the Constitution doesn't allow branch Y to do X (the 11th amendment states it pretty explicitly, in fact). That this long-time perspective on the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at over the past several decades (that is, that the idea of "framer's intent" is being replaced with the idea that if the framers didn't explicitly prohibit X, then X is OK) should be a HUGE red flag....

Second, the Bill of Rights is really just a codification of the fundamental spirit of our country's Declaration of Independence (with a few additional things tacked in, of course). "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

Note that the Declaration of Independence makes no distinction between Americans, Brits, Germans, Spaniards, etc., etc., etc. The Constitution makes no distinction between Americans and non-Americans, either. In fact, given that the 11th amendment explicitly uses the term "people" rather than "citizens", there is a definite implication that the framers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution never intended that those documents applied only to how the US treated Americans....

Just my thoughts....

As a sidenote, btw, it's good to see that you're actively addressing politics again Wil (aka Mr. Wheaton, SIR!)

[alicein1derland]

Does anyone else, when a political discussion ensues, get horribly depressed???

[SAL9000]

Hi jo:

Pleaser forgive my assumptions.

The "let them experience it for themselves" mantra is a false premise of course. The US Constitution put military control under civilian rule for some of the reasons you and your ilk suggest is an elixir for the Iraq War.

I also find it mildly amusing that anti-war/anti-military types (not saying that is you) love throwing the seemingly impenetrable "it's easy if you're not there" club around. Aren't these types all about NOT conscripting; NOT reinstating the draft? I'm not necessarily shoving you into this category, but it's often used by the hysterically auto-piloted American left.

It's all just another corollary to the Great Paradox of Liberalism IMO.

[me_ow]

Wil,

I am so glad you brought up this topic. While it is in the best interest for people to vote and elect representatives who have similar value systems and speak for those who elected them, let's not forget the judicial review. If this bill passes and the president does not veto it, a defendant or complainant can challenge the law's constitutionality. On the upside, the judge can determine that it is unconstitutional to expand the executive branch's powers or that the bill did not clearly define how the law was to be executed. Federal judges are appointed for life so they shouldn't care if either branche doesn't agree with their decision since the judges will still have their jobs. They are supposed to be educated individuals who will base their decisions on prior court rulings on cruel and unusual punishment and due process. On the downside they can't agree on how to interpret the Constitution. Should it reflect the way society feels today, or the day it was ratified, or on the Framers' intent. In addition, how long will an individual have to wait to get their day in court and under what hardships?
I think our system of checks and balances is fascinating, however, it still has managed to let the government commit horrendous acts against our citizens (ie segregation laws) and to other countries. I'd like to remain hopeful that because of the political climate people will be more inclined in the future to vote, run for an office, or educate themselves and eventually this society can focus on how not to destroy this world.

[wolfger]

Wil, you rock. This is exactly the way I've been feeling lately, but I just couldn't express it very well. Every time I try to, I get too filled up with rage to communicate coherently. I love my country dearly, but I've become increasingly ashamed of it since about 9/18/01, when they started protecting the country by destroying the freedoms that make it worth protecting. It was a very shallow slope, though, until we learned (yes, some of us didn't know it from the beginning) that the Iraq invasion was a complete sham. The president swore, publicly and repeatedly, that we had PROOF of weapons of mass destruction, and I believed him, but I couldn't understand why, if he had proof, he didn't just show it to everybody and shut all the doubters up. Shame on me for being gullible. Five years later, Americans are still dying, and for what? To distract voters from the realization that we have been powerless to find Osama bin Laden. To *promote* terrorism, and increase its ranks. To "spread" the very freedoms that we are quietly and rapidly eroding on our own shores.
.....
Okay, remember that rage thing I spoke about? It's here now. Time to stop writing. Thanks again, Wil.

[Dave]

Obviously, I'm in the minority here, but rather than articulate a shallow thinking, morally simplistic position - a safe position - on the topic; wouldn't it be better to really THINK about what's happening?

This isn't a debate about the rights of a neighborhood criminal sticking up the corner Citgo. Hanging that guy by his thumbs is of course appalling, both prior to and after the recent legislative action.

Untie your pretty little bow of morality and open the box a bit. Everything is nice and tidy until you know you've got a terrorist, that has planted a dirty bomb, in the city where your kids go to school, and he's not talking. Where's your morality now? Where's his? Does he really deserve yours? How righteous are you really you leave him comfortable in his cell as hundreds, thousands, die?

Hand me the lead pipe please.

No one is contemplating torture for Boy Scouts. Can we live in the real world people? Please?

Wil, perhaps a second thought?

[Pookie]

To Alice:

Yes, it does. I come from an extremely political family and when politics come into play, my eyes glaze over.

Regards,

Pookie

[oedipuscomplextrekfannumbertenmillion]

As a f/up to my earlier comment, I saw this today in the Wash Post and think the author is right on target. This is some scary $hit, people. Excepting the state of the union right before the Civil War, I don't think America has been in as worse a shape (in terms of its internal politics) as this any time before this current era. America, if an isolated republic, can afford to have plenty of internal messed-up-ness. But we are not an isolated republic; we're a huge looming world power that needs to keep itself together if not for our sake then for everyone else's, too.

Anyone here read about life after the fall of Rome? It took 100s of years for law and order to return to many parts of Europe and northern Africa. The Romans were pricks but they were pricks who brought uniform standards of justice, etc. to many people (whether they wanted them or not). America has a similar role in history and like old Rome, our decline is a harbinger of disorder and chaos not just for the American people but for many others as well. The Pax Americana cannot last forever, but an orderly decline and replacement is a far better scenario than a sudden fall-through. At the rate we're going, a sudden fall-through is where we're headed.

I envy my parents. They won't live to see this. The rest of us (Gen-Xers and those born after us) will, though.

[oedipuscomplextrekfannumbertenmillion]

Does anyone else, when a political discussion ensues, get horribly depressed???

Posted by: alicein1derland | September 29, 2006 at 01:46 PM

Yes, Alice. I do, for one.

[JSc]

Dave,

I think you're missing an important point--the simple reality is that many or most of the people who have been swept up by the government are not terrorists. Given the government's / current administration's abysmal track record and obstinacy re: listening to dissenting opinions (like, say, those in the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, etc.), it doesn't look like the government's hit rate on catching "real" terrorists is going to improve any time soon.

Let's flip your scenario--suppose you or your kid (boy scout or not) were arrested under suspicion of terrorism (something which isn't beyond the realm of possibility even for suburban white guys like myself, given the recent upswing in "domestic" terrorism). Suppose the authorities are sure that you're guilty, if only because they tortured a little bird enough that he/she gave the authorities your name. Suppose they hang you by your thumbs, electrify your testicles, shove a cattle prod up your arse, shove needles under your fingernails, beat you daily with a rubber hose and keep you cold, tired and hungry. Accepting it as given that you're probably an upstanding citizen by all accounts, I'd still bet dollars to doughnuts that you would confess to everything short of assassinating Lincoln. In the meantime, there could be REAL terrorists planting REAL bombs and REALLY killing people.

[Odwin]

Dave, I've seen many similar sentiments and I just wanted to say that I think they represent the worst kind of cowardice. If that's truly what you believe, then you, sir, are a coward.
Nobody will ever be safe from terrorism. Not truly, not ever. That's the way terrorism works, they slip one dedicated lunatic through the cracks to kill a bunch of people. Make everyone else scared. And it's clearly working, because we suddenly have enough fucking cowards who are willing to sacrifice their rights, their principles, ethics, dignity, and maybe even a little of their humanity, just so they can feel safe. So they can hide under the bedsheets while big daddy government makes the monsters go away.
You're not any safer for it. None of us are. Instead we've merely lost something that once had the potential to make us great, and it fills me with rage and shame.

[Shannon_B]

A few responses to a few posts......

cryssyer
I agree that there is a growing majority who don't really think about how their vote will affect thier own political landscape and vote on the basis of a good speech or through confusion and this is not unique to the USA, it happens here in Australia which has a multiple party system and compolsary voting.

Superhobo
I do agree that some European politics and Judiciary system (e.g. Scotlands guilty or not proven non adversarial criminal system case in point) are superior to the American system but they are not perfect either.
I do agree it would be better to have an improvement in all Democracies on a system for the people to force new elections if the majority is disattisfied with thier current governments policies.

BobApril
I do agree that the current outcry over humiliating pictures and hosing down of prisoners as torture is overated.
Until I hear that these prisoners are being raped, maimed or injured I am not as inclined to cry out.
But that said I also agree with you that torture in 99% of cases is wrong and legalising it is criminal.
Also I would like to back up
JSc point that none of America's primary founding documents destinguish between American's and Non-American's, they clearly state people which can be clearly be interpreted as any person irrelevant of race, creed or citizenship.

cbvance
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeous corpus in the name of humanity and to end slavery of which a more despicable trade cannot be found, so of course the constitution survived but to do so in efforts to enable acts of torture can only damage the constitution and mabye in the end lead to its downfall.

Banzai
As you have pointed out that the law is very clear that anyone who they cannot determine a status for is a POW and must be treated as such which everyone seems to have forgotten.

Marti
I fully agree with you but hold little hope that people will do the right thing and use thier power of the vote to make a change or lead a revolution. It seems the days of mass protests and people daring to try and make a change went out after the 60's and 70's

Chris Kessel
Unfortunatly I have to agree with you that without a great act of evil or a near complete loss of liberty or mass coruption followed by a civil war nothing will change.
Just look at history, Rome anyone.

KaliAmanda
I agree with you about a lack of real opposition and again here in Australia we are having the same problem with opposition parties failing to really make a stand.
For goodness sake someone have the balls to stand up and damn political correctness and conventions and fight for something.

jo
As much as I despise the notion of conscription and would fight tooth and nail to prevent it being instituted in my own country, I do agree that we are all too comfortable with the notion that it will not truly affect us.
I too decry the lack of people taking these issues truly to heart.

ToddCommish
I take exception to part of your comments specifically point 1.

First my quote of the comic / film (V for Vandetta) was an example of the potential nightmare future the actions of your goverment could lead to.
I quoted it rather than a more academic or obscure reference exactly because many if not all of the readers would understand the conentation.

I would also like to point out that if it wasn't for Sci Fi and Fantasy writers many of the technology you take for granted wouldn't exist so there for quoting from these sources is valid in any debate.

As for your critisim of the lack of taking action and planing, I don't see you giving us a link to a website you have created to get the ball rolling. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

As for your point 2. regarding not calling Bush a 'despot' or 'dictator' because there is no comparison between Bush and the likes of Hitler.
You are right in that in many ways there is no comparison, however I will point out that Hitler did in the begining start out by trying to do what he considered was necessary to protect his people.
The greatest horrors can start with good intentions (e.g. nuclear wepons).

Finally on point 3. I agree that his 2nd term has been all about 9/11 but I disagree that he has been dealt a bad hand.
A good leader recognisies the real need to take effective preventative action, rather than waste the momentum generated on petty political issues.

Lastly people should be angry and make others angry about these issues to begin to take action as a group to change.

oedipuscomplextrekfannumbertenmillion
I agree that the Americans lack an alternative to the 2 major parties and I have long been an advocate of a multi party system but in the end you will always at some point reach a time when there are no real viable alternatives even in a multi party system.

Dave
I do agree if you have definate proof that a person has brought a dirty bomb into the country that I would turn a blind eye to torture to obtain information on where it is.
But I also recognise that this is a slippery slope, what would be the ammount of proof required for this type of action and what happens if proof is fabricated at the time in the name of expediency ?
It is a merry go round that will never stop and also why it must be outlawed.
Then it will only ever occur as a very last resort in a desparate situation where those involved understand that they may lose everything even thier lives for making the decision to do so.

That said I am not opposed to shadow opps queitly assasinating individuals responsible for terrorism actions be it planning or implementing because in the end if someone had taken this action with Osama Bin Laden after any of his attacks prior to 9/11 these arguments may have been moot and we would not be in this situation today.

oedipuscomplextrekfannumbertenmillion
I fully agree with your urging people to heed history like the fall of Rome or even the fall of the Soviet Union.
After Russia collapsed the effect was devestating on the people and economy of many neighboring countries as well as allowing many weapons from small to large to go missing into the hands of terrorists, rebels, militia and many more undesirable organisations.

I too dread what would happen if USA were to collapse if the slide into decline is not reverse.

Envy thise who came before who do not have to see what will come.

Odwin
In the end you are right. There is nothing you can do to stop a truly determined terrorist or psycotic from performing a terrible act no matter what measures or laws you put in place.

Since the dawn of civilisation the basic maxim has held true that any individual who truly wants to kill another will find a way if determined to do so even to the point of sacrificing thier own existance.

You cannot stop a terrorist or assasin.

You can only try to prevent the thinking that leads to someone taking this kind of action and so far America has failed abismally at this.

If you have read this entire response good on you and have a nice day.

Shannon

[Darth Unagi]

Man, I could type about a million comments referring to your blog, agreeing and disagreeing with it; but since I am only 15, and therefore no body really cares what I think or believe, I won't waste my time typing an essay on a subject that I “know very little or nothing about.”
I will say however, that I am very strongly agenst our Monkey-President-Boy-Shrub, and that I believe that democracy has already been taken away from America, and that I live in a horrible country... But hey, I'm just a kid-nothing I say matters.

And as I kid, I'd also like to let all the adults out there know that your kids are going to understand when our economy blows up. They'll know why it did, and that it was not your fault (unless you were the one to blow it up, then it is your fault and I do not congratulate you.)

[Dave]

JSc
I might be missing a couple points, but this isn't one of them. Please enlighten us all and post your manifest (include sources) of the people that have been, "Swept up by the government."

What? You don't have one? You don't have first-hand experience with any detainees either? Then it might be prudent to refrain from regurgitating all the crap you've been spoon fed and choose to believe.

Instead of flipping the scenario so quickly, why don't you respond to the same? WWJScD? I never said that we, as a nation, should torture indiscriminately. I submitted to the notion of torture less tremendous oversight and review. I never said that there shouldn't be severe consequences for misuse or in fact, overuse.

I did say that there may come a time, indeed there has come a time, when such methods are required. That time is now. Odwin mentions the sacrifice of humanity; humanity is the first thing we must abandon when our aggressors have done the same. War is hell, and hell leaves little room for humanity. However, the loss of humanity and the abandonment of one's ethos are entirely separate (see the Geneva Conventions). Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few; or the one?

Torture is effective. There are no effective alternatives. In dire circumstances torture should be used to save ourselves. Those that are forced to employ such measures should know that they have approval and indemnity granted by their peers, by you. That is what we have done. Your elected representatives represented the majority of us.

I agree that we are sliding on a slippery slope. That's why we brought an ice axe along: the morality of our citizenry. Public oversight is required. You need to keep your government in check. However, if we do agree that there might possibly be a time when torture is required (again provide an alternative if you've got one) those required to perform that action must also know that they are within their legal bounds - otherwise their fate is uncertain. It would be immoral of us to leave their status unknown.

Instead of squirming from a difficult scenario (seems a common tactic though) I'll comment on yours: oversight. There would be plenty in the scenario you posit - and plenty of repercussion if the initial oversight and approval process failed.

Now, Orwellian fear mongering aside, and again flipping the scenario, to mine: What would you do JSc?

By the way, I've suffered through half of your eight brutal tortures in order to earn the privilege of defending your freedoms. I've contributed. Have you?

Odwin
I agree. None of us are safe from terrorism - fundamentally. We might be able to stop some terrorists, some of the time; but we'll never be able to stop all of.... you get the idea.

I believe that we should rely on government for as little as possible. I believe that if my hypothetical scenario were enacted, the terrorist would be dealt with well if he were released into the population that he's threatening. Which one of you would protect him?

Since the government is involved, both in prosecuting the terrorist and the possible vigilantes that threaten him, it only makes sense to clarify the rules by which everyone will play. Let's do the hard work and make our limits public.

As for the coward comment, let's explore that a bit? In my opinion, the coward is the one that refuses to codify his beliefs. A coward is someone who spews rhetoric without applying his stones, taking a stand, and solving the problem.

How far are you willing to go Odwin. You may have seen, "Similar sentiments," but have you ever applied them to your standard of civility? How exactly would you handle the situation? It takes a brave man to define, publicly, his actions and his limits. To say that this is what he's willing to do and this is what he won't; even if his actions might prove unpopular. It's easy, even cowardly, to pick the nits in a plan. So, what would you do Odwin?

If you've got a better idea, let us know. Let the world know. You might revolutionize our humanity. Be brave and reshape our thinking. In the meantime, the majority will do what works.

By the way, another mark of cowardice might include resorting to name-calling in a friendly debate. I'll accept the Sir, because I've earned it; you'll have to back up the, "F*cking coward," next time we meet.

[Democritus]

I joyfully served my country for four long arduous years during the height of the Cold War. That's the period of time wherein for about 20 odd years we only killed people in military "responses" and "police actions."

My primary job was locating Russian Nuclear submarines, and a more interesting job can not be found today. I did it well and was happy to aid in defeating the USSR without firing a shot.

I originally entered the military with the intentions of bettering my life and society without ever picking up a gun. I achieved my goals. Killing people is the cowards way out. Dead people don't shoot back, start new governments, or deny your theology.

It is my military opinion that Ghandi is the greatest General who ever lived. He overthrew a nation without a single weapon. The second greatest military leader to live in modern times was Admiral Richover. You know him - he's the guy that the Joint Chiefs of Staff forcibly removed from Naval service because he thought that the military should abandon religion [and its blinding effects] in the pursuit of pure science. He too believed in the future, and the potential to win wars before they start.

I see people here slinging words around carelessly, which isn't surprising given the education levels of the good ole USA. I take immediate dislike to people who overuse the word "Coward." It takes a hell of a lot more guts to face an armed enemy when you have no weapon. It takes courage beyond courage, a form of pure selflessness, to walk up to someone who is firing at you and offer them peace. It takes a great deal more intelligence to win a war before it starts.

That said: I too am disgusted with our current Dictator, and ASHAMED of any military man who stands behind this Congress and this President.

One of the duties of the Armed Forces intended by the earliest Americans will soon become evident. That duty is to remove the government when it becomes corrupt, and restore Democracy. If our Admirals and Generals weren't so busy praying to gods for ideas and assistance, they'd get up off their knees and take a hard look in the eyes of our imbecile President.

I've met some of these people face to face, and they are to-a-man faith driven. Not that there's anything wrong with faith, but I'd like to have military leadership that isn't going to permit atrocities, bomb schools and hospitals, torture, and assist in the systematic elimination of Civil Rights in America. The few resigned Generals who now stand up in protest, though largely ignored, are the only men deserving of any respect in todays military forces.

The entire US Forces should make a decision, and either resign en-masse, or take down the Fatherland. The average citizen believes that the next election will restore order if the people vote in the necessary numbers. That's not going to happen. It's actually far too late for an election to make much difference since the Demopublicans have largely joined forces in signing over a blatant violation of the Constitution known as The Patriot Act, and its evil siblings.

The Armed Forces are charged with upholding the Constitution ABOVE obeying the President.

I move for a coup. Those assenting, Rifle Salute. Those dissenting, resign.

Given the current mood of the JCoS, this may not be as unlikely as it seems, but any such action would be equally unlikely to make it into the press. I'd just be happy to wake up one day and read that Congress has been subjected to a "Military Tribunal" of the very sort that they personally authorized.

Demo

//crossposted from ungoth.com/b2e because it's not public.

[Scott]

There is a very cogent statement of why our current approach to 'fighting' terror is so wrong at http://qntm.org/terrorism. It's worth a read if you have a couple of minutes. When you're done with that, be sure to check out http://qntm.org/destroy for a final solution.

[JSc]

Examples, Dave? Roger that...firing up Google....

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/innocent-man-sent-to-syria-and-tortured/20060918232609990016?ncid=NWS00010000000001

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/346251.shtml

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/iraqis_say_security_forces_use_torture.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440134.stm

That's just a brief slice, in which three of the articles give names which you can no doubt track further using Google or the like. A couple of them also conveniently address your argument that "torture works."

And so far as what I'd do, it's pretty straightforward--instead of further pissing off / pissing on the world and engendering more distrust / dislike / hatred of the US, address the issues which motivate people to attack the US. Quit invading countries and changing governments for our own short-term convenience. Quit dropping bombs to fight "terrorists," who are fundamentally a tiny fraction of any given population spread throughout a large group of innocents. Quit attaching godawfully idiotic strings to our international aid, such as the "abstinence-only" rider that made Bush's pledge of $15 billion in African anti-AIDS aid utterly useless and ineffective.

Lastly, re: humanity, oversight, and morality. Anyone who imagines that the US or people in generally are inherently "good" is living in a dream world. The same is true of anyone who imagines that the current US government will allow anything even vaguely approximating oversight.

Now, regarding the flipping of your scenario: You have yet to answer the question. If you or your children (however innocent) were arrested under suspicion of terrorism (just as many Iraqis, at least one German, and at least one Canadian have been), how long do you think you would be able to put up with torture before saying whatever your captors wanted to hear?

[Thomas Paine]

I believe President Bush has done more to destroy The Constitution and The Bill of Rights then any other President in history.And he did it under the guise of protecting this country during the 2002 attack.The man should have been impeached..But the Dems were afraid to impeach him