One of the important things that professional bloggers like Glen Greenwald do is provide fact resources for understanding issues like torture.
In this recent post, Greenwald has assembled information regarding the over 100 terrorism detainees that the United States of America - God I hate to say it this way - Tortured to Death.
I'm sorry if some of you don't like hearing this - but it is true and I'm not going to sugar coat this truth to seem more patriotic. I think the Orwellian use of euphemisms on this issue is deeply immoral and unpatriotic. I refuse to participate.
Anyway, Greenwald's post is is highly worthwhile substantively, but it is also helpful to have specific information, and links to other blogs that have accumulated information, in one accessible place. People who defend the Bush administration's record on . . . what do they call them . . .oh yeah, "intense interrogations," try to dismiss our government's actions as effecting only a small number of hard core terrorists in "ticking time bomb" circumstances. Its very important that they be confronted with the facts. This information clearly proves otherwise.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
12 comments:
Isn´t it nice to pontificate on moral issues from afar, and not have to protest or place oneself in harms way for one´s beliefs, opinions, interpretations or perspectives? I do not intend this comment to be taken in a mean spirited sense, simply as a comment for thoughtful reflection, especially if one is really concerned with morality.
Mark,
This is utter nonsense (again, not meant as mean-spirited - LOL )
If we are willing to allow those who represent us to flush who we are as a nation down the toilet, then we really aren't the nation we claim to be.
Commentators could be broadcasting from the Moon as far as I'm concerned: if they speak the truth, then truth it is.
What is the saying that applies here...you know what your character really is when you're under the gun...and we appear to be proving that our stands on human dignity are just so much toilet paper we're willing to use and cast away when convenient.
Mark,
I'm not sure what to make of your criticism. Here are some intial thoughts.
"Isn't it nice" is condescending. It suggests, indirectly, that there's something wrong with someone "in my position" saying what I'm saying. It distracts people from what I said - which should be deeply troubling - by calling my character into question.
"Pontificate" suggests a "holier than thou" attitude. I'm not sure why pointing out the obvious - that our government has behaved in a criminal and depraved manner - conveys a "holier than thou" attitude. I don't feel superior. I feel mortified.
"Isn't it nice to pontificate on moral issues from afar, and not have to place oneself in harms way for one's beliefs, opinions, interpretations or perspectives."
Taken literally, the short answer to your question is yes, it is nice not to have to place myself in harm's way to point out our government's criminality. that's one of freedom's gifts for which I am grateful.
But you're question is suggestive, not literal. You're calling my character into question in order to give yourself a reason to dismiss what I've said.
I certainly cannot claim to be above reproach regarding my character. However, I sign my name to this blog. I express my opinions at the risk of offending my employer, prospective clients and prospective employers, judicial officials, opposing counsel, my friends and family members.
Granted, it is not like I'm staring down a tank in Tianamen square. But its not nothing.
My question to you is, why would you be more concerned about my character than the now undeniable fact that our government criminally tortured people to death?
Joe H.
Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice" comes out in September. The publisher, Harvard Univ. Press describes the content as follows:
"Social justice: an ideal, forever beyond our grasp; or one of many practical possibilities? More than a matter of intellectual discourse, the idea of justice plays a real role in how—and how well—people live. And in this book the distinguished scholar Amartya Sen offers a powerful critique of the theory of social justice that, in its grip on social and political thinking, has long left practical realities far behind.
"The transcendental theory of justice, the subject of Sen’s analysis, flourished in the Enlightenment and has proponents among some of the most distinguished philosophers of our day; it is concerned with identifying perfectly just social arrangements, defining the nature of the perfectly just society. The approach Sen favors, on the other hand, focuses on the comparative judgments of what is “more” or “less” just, and on the comparative merits of the different societies that actually emerge from certain institutions and social interactions.
"At the heart of Sen’s argument is a respect for reasoned differences in our understanding of what a “just society” really is. People of different persuasions—for example, utilitarians, economic egalitarians, labor right theorists, no-nonsense libertarians—might each reasonably see a clear and straightforward resolution to questions of justice; and yet, these clear and straightforward resolutions would be completely different. In light of this, Sen argues for a comparative perspective on justice that can guide us in the choice between alternatives that we inevitably face."
Amartya Sen, won the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics, and is Lamont University Professor, Harvard University.
interesting that Justice has leaked Attorney General Holder considering an investigation into CIA torture. You can read about
Holder's plans and let me know whether you think it's just a ploy to reduce the left's criticism of POTUS.
It's not a ploy - it's approved by the president. he's trying to straddle the fence between those who want to investigate and those who feel it will hinder this president's ability to protect the country without disclosing every secret we have. Obama is trying to have it both ways; now he can claim he's opposed, while giving his guy permission to do his investigation; pretty shrewd
Annoymous,
I hope you're right. However, while the strategy may be shrewd, its cowardly. This is a matter of national honor.
I also believe Obama would do himself much good in the long run if came before the nation and stated that the law requires this investigation, and that, however painful it turns out to be, it is essential for us to hold political leaders accountable for criminal actions. This is the only way to vindicate the rule of law.
He cannot do this now because he's compromised. Any call for prosecutions from him will be met with charges that he's being opportunistic, or worse. You can't say the law requires it when you were previously willing to ignore the law.
If this is the best they can do at this point - fine.
Joe
Oh, wake up. National honor - that is such bullshit! What the fuck is our national honor? They are all corrupt and they are all trying to cover their ass. National honor - next you'll tell us you believe in justice and democracy and the tooth fairy.
I didn't say "our leader's honor." I said "this [issue] is a matter of national honor." Our previous leaders dishonored the nation by their depraved conduct. Obama shouldn't deal with this in a schrewd political way. He should forthrightly say that "as a matter of national honor, we will not allow these actions to remain unpunished. Such conduct falls too far below our ideals to let it stand."
Something like that.
Joe
Which previous leaders? Bush Jr? Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Johnson? Kennedy? I think any honest review of these leaders shows they dishonored this country by their misconduct. And Obama will be no different - just give him time and he'll topple off the pedestal you put him on. The nature of the job and what these leaders have or want to do to ensure their "legacy" leads them to make amoral and immoral decisions. We only hear a little about what they have actually done and a few have their bigger misdeeds revealed. But they are all the same.
Annomyous,
Your cynism about public officials is impressive, but I don't share it. Instituting a torture program, while planting a hardened ideologue in the office of legal counsel to write legal opinions to cover one's ass, legally speaking, while prosecuting low level soldiers for conduct more benign than the conduct you yourself authorized, is far worse than getting a blow job from an aid, or breaking into a political opponent's psychiatrist's office and then covering it up - IMHO.
Joe
Berkeley law professor John Yoo explains in a Wall Street Journal piece why Congress (and if you take his argument to its logical end, the Courts), cannot limit the President's constitutional power to protect and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . .
Certainty is a good trait for an advocate, I suppose. . . .
Post a Comment