In a not-so-surprising turn of events, evidence last week shows that the Obama administration may continue the failed Bush policies of illegal detention and torture.
As per this Times article
, the Obama administration is using the same “national security” excuse employed by the Bush administration to illegally detain prisoners who they deem a threat. Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, sued Boeing for assisting in the Bush administration in its “extraordinary rendition” program, where Mohamed and four other men were expedited and tortured abroad. The case was dismissed by the Bush administration on the notion that it threatened national security and international relations.
Instead of carrying out the “change” that he has been preaching, the Obama administration is following in the notorious footsteps of the Bush administration. In regards to Mohamed’s case, the same “state secret” excuse is being used by government lawyer Douglas N. Letter to keep Guantanamo open.
To further the damage, Solicitor General Nominee Elena Kagan said to a key Republican senator that she believes the government has the legal authority to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely and without trial. It is clear that the Obama administration is trying to appease a wide spectrum of people and to forge political allies instead of keep the promise of “change”.
Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has called for an independent investigation into the Bush crimes, regardless of support from the Obama administration. Knowing that the Obama administration will carry on these crimes leaves for an unpromising overall outcome. In a meeting with the White House, Leahy said:
I would hate to see us take the attitude that that was then and this is now, let’s not worry about any of the mistakes or the abuse of the law and give it a pass … because it is my experience that you continue to make mistakes until somebody calls you on it.
The Obama administration knows that the legacy they are carrying on is illegal. They are becoming increasingly accountable of campaign lies and the same failed policies of the Bush administration. It’s only time until the masses who fell for their savior’s pretty talk will realize that he is just another false hope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is perhaps this overarching issue -- extraordinary rendition, torture, water-boarding, aggressive interrogation, indefinite detention of unlawful enemy combatants -- and the drug-decriminalization issue that alienate more Americans from libertarianism in general and the Libertarian Party in particular than all other issues combined. While there is compelling and principled libertarian rationale to support the latter, there is very little to support the former.
ReplyDeleteFree will and liberty are anathema to radical Islamists and Islamonazis -- especially the adherents oh Sayyid Qutb, the father of Wahabism -- who wish to destroy democracy and its institutions and, hence, the United States. They don't call us The Great Satan for nothing. Extending constitutional protections to unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield defies most people's understanding of common sense.
The Constitution of the United States of America is arguably the greatest political document ever written guaranteeing liberty and limiting the powers of government, but it’s not a suicide pact.
While I'll admit that torture is not illegal, it's important to never condone it. The reality is that the President will always engage in these practices. However, the moment people start giving approval to torture, it can set a very bad precedent. By slowly giving the President leeway, you allow him (or her) to think that torture can be used at anytime, under the guise of national security, liberty, etc. We have to be the opposing force to keep the Commander-in-Chief in check. We have to make the point that every time the president uses torture, we are giving him a "shame on you." Without this balance, what will stop the Federal government from extending these practices to U.S citizens? Citizens may be detained and tortured, without being able to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. What will stop the President from eventually torturing citizens that engage in things like seditious libel?
ReplyDeleteIn the same sense, there is nothing in the constitution that bars the government from torture. I don't think non-citizen enemy combatants deserve the same rights as citizens. Constitutional rights should not be extended to these types of people. From a realist perspective, I don't think its possible to stop torture completely. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. However, I think the overall idea of torture is just something that needs to be discouraged. This can ensure that it is used in only the most dire situations.
You seem conflicted, B -- as you should be, as you should be.
ReplyDeleteNot all torture is morally equivalent -- just as not all wars are morally equivalent. And I'm not talking merely about methods and gradations of barbarity and brutality. We can all agree that sleep deprivation is different from water-boarding, which is different from severing the fingers of a prisoner's hand, which is different from being forced to listen to Abba's "Dancing Queen" continuously.
I'm talking about motive for torture. There is no moral equivalence between, say, the president's authorizing the aggressive interrogation of a terrorist who is believed to possess knowledge of an imminent attack -- the so-called ticking time bomb justification -- and what Uday and Qusay Hussein did to their hapless victims, who were tortured merely as a means to terrorize and oppress the community and satisfy the bloodlust of the Hussein brothers. The former is done to protect life and liberty, while the latter was done to destroy life and liberty.
An exception to a general no-torture policy has to be made for exigent circumstances -- the so-called Jack Bauer exception. But it must be done lawfully, if we are a nation of laws and not merely of men. It is unacceptable -- not to mention oxymoronic -- to say the president must never authorize torture unless, wink-wink, he must authorize torture.
We have three branches of government, and we should use them. The Congress needs to draft legislation outlining the circumstances under which torture and less aggressive techniques are acceptable, and the president should be required to seek a warrant or some other authorization from the Supreme Court. That would address the slippery-slope arguments and concerns you expressed.