Not Another Year in Review

Well, it’s another end of the year and with it comes the onslaught of year in review diaries and analysis. So, in keeping with the spirit of the times, I’d like to offer mine. Rather than review a litany of stories and issues that have developed over the past year, I thought I would do just one. I wanted to find the one story that stood out over all the others. Of course this is a formidable task considering the sheer volume of information we are bombarded with on any given day. More information does not necessarily translate into better information. As our sources of information are being reduced by mergers and media conglomerates, it is easy to get caught up in the hype of what others want us to know.

I wanted to review the year and pick out the story that troubled me the most during the past year and after thinking about it, it wasn’t as hard as I thought it would be. While there were plenty of candidates to choose from:

1. Virginia Tech Shootings
2. Mortgage Crisis
3. The Surge in Iraq
4. Soaring Gas Prices
5. Chinese Export Recalls
6. The Jena Six
7. Global Warming Debate
8. Presidential Campaign
9. Immigration Debate
10. US Torture
11. Iran Nukes

While all of these stories were compelling and could be worthy of the top story, in my mind only one of them marked a dramatic change in our nation and in our standing on the world stage. In my opinion the most troubling story of 2007 to us as a nation is the acknowledgment of torture and the destroying of the tapes depicting its use. To me this is a turning point in the direction of our nation on a massive scale, we have not only crossed a boundary against international law, but also against humanity. The real crime is not the news of torture, it is the public acknowledgement of it. By going public the US has now legitimized its usage throughout the world and further alienated us from the civilized world.

I am not so naïve to believe that the US has not engaged in torture in the past and that this public pronouncement is a new development in American policy. On the contrary, the US has a long storied history of using “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Not only have we been partakers, but for decades have been instructors in the fine art of torture. I find it hard to believe that torture needs to be taught, but there you go. In all the hoopla surrounding the current torture debate a little reported fact was that torture was indeed a part of the curriculum at The US Army School of the Americas, located at Ft. Benning, GA. Many of the worst atrocities committed in Central and South America were done by graduates of the SOA.

It's a history exhaustively documented in an avalanche of books, declassified documents, CIA training manuals, court records and truth commissions. In his forthcoming book, A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy synthesises this evidence, producing a riveting account of how monstrous CIA-funded experiments on psychiatric patients and prisoners in the 1950s turned into a template for what he calls "no-touch torture", based on sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain. McCoy traces how these methods were field-tested by CIA agents in Vietnam as part of the Phoenix programme and then imported to Latin America and Asia under the guise of police training.

Does it somehow lessen today's horrors to admit that this is not the first time the US government has used torture, that it has operated secret prisons before, that it has actively supported regimes that tried to erase the left by dropping students out of airplanes? That, closer to home, photographs of lynchings were traded and sold as trophies and warnings? Many seem to think so. On November 8, Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott made the astonishing claim to the House of Representatives that "America has never had a question about its moral integrity, until now".[1]

The question now becomes if torture has been an ongoing modis operandi of the CIA and US military why does it warrant the top story slot? The reason it is at the top of my list is not the fact that torture is and has been practiced by the US and its proxies. No, the reason it makes the top is our response to it. Not only we’re there no protests in the streets or massive campaigns to Congress and the White House, it became a part of the campaign debate and the debate around the dinner tables and cafes of America. There was no national repudiation and condemnation; there was debate about its effectiveness. There was debate about which detainees were eligible for it and which ones weren’t. The Congress confirmed a new Attorney General who did not have to give a legal opinion on the use of torture for God’s sake, this on the heels of his predecessor writing legal opinions condoning the use of torture.

One of these days this country will have to wake up from 9/11. The truth is that 9/11 did change everything, but it didn’t have to. The thing it changed the most is that it allowed the fear-mongers, power-grubbers, and empire builders to take over without protest. It allowed civil and human rights to be violated. It allowed torture to become en vogue. It allowed neighbor to spy on neighbor. It basically gave cover to all the dark forces that have always been in America, but were kept in the crevices by common sense and dignity for human life. The goal of terrorists is to inflict terror and judging from the past six years, mission accomplished. At some point the lies will be uncovered and the insanity of the war on terror will end, then what? Will we look back in horror at what we have become or we will “whitewash” our transgressions as we have done so often in the past?

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1664174,00.html

Read more!

Did I Feel A Draft?

In what will surely turn out to be the largest case of CYA in recent memory, the destroyed CIA torture tapes are continuing to make headlines. As each agency proceeds to cover their respective butts, the question of torture will continue to go unanswered. It has become the giant elephant in the room that no one talks about inside the beltway, while outside the beltway it is a heated topic. Here we have another instance of the electorate and the elected being disconnected. But do we really? Are the majority of Americans against torture? I know that on many blogs there is never a shortage of commentators who advocate the use of torture and these are not wing-nut blogs, but so-called progressive sites. There are also mainstream political candidates who have advocated the use of torture. We seem to be a nation torn on this issue and that speaks volumes about who we have become.

“There is never any justification for destroying materials that any reasonable person would believe might be requested in a civil or criminal proceeding,” said Mr. Remes, of the law firm Covington & Burling. “The C.I.A. had every reason to believe the videotapes would be relevant down the road.”[1]

I beg to differ with Mr. Remes, but yes there is a justification for destroying evidence if you have been involved in illegal activities. It happens all the time and with the impotence of the current Congress it will probably go unpunished. Anyone remember the Justice Department subpoenas, the Dick Cheney missing emails, or how about that undercover CIA agent leak? I would not be surprised if there were still copies of these tapes floating around in Langley somewhere, probably being used for training purposes. I read these articles and it makes me sick, the MSM refuses to call the procedure of waterboarding torture. They say things like according to the critics it is considered torture. I say we take all the editorial boards and subject them to a little waterboarding and see if their views will remain the same.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we as a nation are moving more and more towards fascism. There are now stories being released about how torture has actually saved the lives of Americans, how convenient that these anonymous sources have chosen now to leak this information. In what is being referred to as an “unpleasant procedure”, the source says while he was not involved in the act, it was effective. Well, no sh*t. Here is the problem, I am not opposed to torture because it works or it doesn’t works. That should not even be an issue. I am opposed to torture because it is wrong, both ethically and morally. We can argue from now on as to the effectiveness of it, the fact they we are even having the conversation is what should be troubling to those of us still a part of the human race despite 9/11. Someone help me here; did 9/11 remove our obligations to the rest of humanity? Did it give us a license to torture, maim, and kill without regards to the victim’s humanity. If it did, then God help us.

Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda gave up valuable information after being waterboarded, a former CIA agent involved in other parts of his interrogation told CNN today. John Kiriakou said he did not want to perform the "entirely unpleasant" procedure branded by critics as torture, but added it brought results that stopped attacks and saved lives.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it. [2]

We are perched on a slippery slope and I hope that we are aware of the consequences of the decisions we are making. This isn’t about stopping terrorist attacks. If you have a determined person who is willing to commit suicide there is no defense against it, even with isolation, torture, and preemptive war. Our becoming fascist will not keep us safe; it will only isolate us more from the rest of the world. We now have an Attorney General who never had to give an opinion on torture, confirmed by the Senate. It’s like everyone wants to divorce themselves from it, like Mr. Kiriakou and yet we want the results. I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways, either we are torturers of our fellow human beings or we are not. A black man just got 23 months for torturing dogs and we torture humans with little more than a whimper.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html?pagewanted=2&hp
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html

Read more!

Torture No Longer Taboo

As the Attorney General nominee was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was questioned repeatedly about the use of the technique known as waterboarding and whether he considered it legal. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee continued to avoid giving a legal opinion on the practice. According to legal experts, he had no choice but to avoid the rendering of an opinion because of the legal ramifications of the Attorney General calling the practice illegal. By doing so of course he would open the floodgates of litigation from detainees that have been subjected to the practice. For all practical purposes let’s acknowledge that this practice constitutes torture.

So the real question is, does the Judge condone torture or not? Forget the legal semantics; I think the American people need to know whether their next Attorney General will continue giving legal cover to this administration for the practice of torture? The truth of the matter is that we won’t get an answer to that question and neither will the Senate. No nominee will ever provide such damning testimony against the person who nominated them. If the AG were to acknowledge the illegality of the practice, everyone would be liable all the way up to Mr. Bush himself.

The biggest problem for Mr. Mukasey remains his refusal to take a clear legal position on the interrogation technique. Fear of opening the door to criminal or civil liability for torture or abuse, whether in an American court or in courts overseas, appeared to loom large in Mr. Mukasey’s calculations as he parried questions from the committee this week. Some legal experts suggested that liability could go all the way to President Bush if he explicitly authorized waterboarding.[1]

So, now the question is no longer whether the nominee supports torture, the debate has now been refocused to political cover for those who authorized the torture. How will we ever know if this nominee supports the legal precedence or not? How do we know if he will cave into the political pressure as the previous occupant did or will stand firm against such practices? It appears another legacy of this administration will be that we can no longer ask our AG nominees their views on torture, or this form of it anyway. If they answer, it could be used to open prosecutions of past administration officials. Once you open the door to torture, I guess there’s no turning back.

Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.[2]

Then of course there are the international courts, which we have no problem bringing other despots in front of, but disavow their jurisdictions when our despots are accused of wrongdoing. This was demonstrated when Donald H. Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense was visiting France and had to make a hasty retreat when a criminal complaint was filed against him for torture by human rights groups. Because of our public entry into the torture arena the concept of “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes and torture is no longer in play. The US which once stood as a bulwark for human rights and continues to make allegations against other countries (Iran most recently) is now displaying its hypocrisy in full view of the world.

Mr. Specter, who said he was briefed on the interrogation issue this week by the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, noted that human rights groups had filed a criminal complaint on torture against Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, while he was visiting France this month. Such cases, based on the legal concept of “universal jurisdiction” for torture and certain other crimes, have proliferated in recent years, though they have often posed more of an aggravation than a serious threat.[3]

With no threat of prosecution and with the former watchdog now engaged in the practice, what is to prevent every nation from participating? So now not only can we thank this administration for shredding the US Constitution, we can also include the dismantling of the Geneva Convention treaty. Who needs communism and fascism, we have neo-conservatism and it is a whole lot more effective at dispensing with those inconvenient human and civil rights.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01mukasey.html?hp
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

Read more!

Wake Up America, The Holocaust Has Begun

I wonder if the people living in those fascist countries during WWII knew when they crossed the line. I mean was there a single moment in time that crystallized in their minds, that oh boy we have reached a new level. I wonder if the lines had become so blurred that they could not distinguish when they had crossed the line. As history has shown, once that line was crossed there was no turning back, anything was possible. Well, for those who don’t know or are too blurred eye to notice, we have crossed a dangerous line. The Bush Administration has badgered, lied, and coerced the American public and lawmakers to turn a blind eye to torture. Make no mistake about it, we are torturing people.

President Bush today delivered a stern defense of the nation's detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, saying that lives have been saved by the aggressive questioning of suspects and that any interrogation tactics have been in compliance with the country's "international obligations" and been fully disclosed to "appropriate members" of Congress.

Faced with a backlash over a secret Justice Department memo that some lawmakers say authorized the use of torture, Bush said in a brief statement today that Americans expected the administration to protect them from future terrorist attacks.[1]

Using the justification that we are saving lives, this President has placed us on a kamikaze flight that will only end in our self-destruction. The destruction won’t come from some unnamed faceless terrorists, but from the cancer that has been created from within. Fear has replaced rational thinking and so everyone has turned a blind eye to the ugliness that the war on terror has become.

"I have put this program in place for a reason, that is to better protect the American people," Bush said. "There are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. We have professionals who are trained in this kind of work that are going to get the information to protect the American people."[2]

The President is not being truthful when he makes this statement because we had no professionals trained in torture techniques, remember we didn’t do torture until the President authorized it. We had to contact our more nefarious allies to get some torture tips and instructional videos. And once again he is hiding behind the disingenuous lie that torture saves lives. How long are we going to live under the threat and the fears of 9/11, yes Americans were killed but not to the level that we have to accept these measures quietly. The death of 2,000 Americans means we have to give up our rights and our freedoms, that we now condone torture? I don’t think so, the death toll would have to be a lot higher for me to surrender these quietly.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.

“We were getting asked about combinations — ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?’” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.[3]

If we allow this to continue in our name, then we are no better than those we prosecuted after WWII. They also claimed to just be following orders. We have crossed the line of morality and just because they parade out “Christian leaders” who condone it doesn’t make it right. Remember the Nazis had religious people excusing their behavior as well; they were good Christian folk who allowed the destruction of millions. There will always be those who will misquote scripture to condone their own agendas in the name of God. God does not condone torture of any human no matter what their race, culture, or religion. It amazes me how silent the voices of God’s ambassadors are as America continues its rapid descent into the abyss. They meet in Salt Lake City to discuss abortion, but can’t spare a moment to discuss the torture of God’s creation and their brothers.

The destruction that resulted in the Holocaust wasn’t started all at once, I’m sure there was a gradual progression from a little “enhanced interrogation” to “holocaust”. Once we accept torture as an acceptable treatment of our fellow human beings what is there to stop of us from committing more heinous acts. Where will it end, after we have destroyed a million Arab heathens (terrorists) for the sake of democracy? Oh and by the way they won’t be needing this oil they so generously left us.

I’m sorry, but just taking the word of George W. Bush is not enough for me. If he says we are not torturing people, this will ease the consciences of some enough to sleep at night, I on the other hand am not so trusting of a man who deliberately lied to invade a country so he and some of his Neo-Con friends could experiment with their empire building ideas. Well, if the President said it; I’m sure there were those in Germany who said the same thing. No my friends we have to let this President and any future President know that we will not stand for torture of any humans, not because it does or doesn’t work but because it is wrong, immoral, and inhumane. We raise a giant fuss about Michael Vick and his dogs, yet allow people to be tortured by our government and let out not a yelp. I’m sure those dogs went down with more bark and bite then we are. We all should feel a little bit ashamed by all of this, I know I do.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100500443.html?hpid=topnews
[2] Ibid
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Read more!

Is This Racism?

LOGAN, W.Va., Sept. 11 — A 20-year-old woman was held captive for more than a week in a mobile home, where she was raped, stabbed and tortured by at least a half-dozen people, the police said. Sheriff’s deputies rescued her on Saturday, and she remained hospitalized Tuesday in stable condition.

“I’ve been in law enforcement for more than 30 years, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen anything of this nature,” the Logan County sheriff, Eddie Hunter, said.

Six people, including a mother and her son and a mother and her daughter, have been charged in the case.[1]

The internet is abuzz with this story and how it represents the state of racism in America. While it is easy to draw that conclusion from the early evidence, I think it would be an oversimplification of the situation. It is alleged that some of the suspects used racial epithets to taunt the victim during her ordeal. While I believe that race was a factor in this case, the overriding factor is the dehumanization of another human being, regardless of race. I believe that as the evidence unfolds in this case the suspects will have a history of cruelty to all humans they have encountered.

For instance, Mr. Bobby Brewster the son of the owner of the trailer supposedly shot and killed his stepfather at the tender age of 12 and spent time in a juvenile facility. Race in this case would be a convenient place to hang your hat if that is your agenda. God knows there is plenty of evidence to do so, but in doing so you will miss the far greater issue in this case. For these sick individuals it would not have mattered if the victim were man, woman, child or animal. It would not have mattered if the victim were black, white, red, or green and it certainly wouldn’t have mattered if the victim were straight or gay. I mentioned these because they reflect the current extenuating circumstances for hate crime enhancement of sentences.

If charging these people with a hate crime will increase the likelihood that they will never see the light of day, so be it. But let’s not turn this into a cause célèbre about race, if we do we cheapen the true nature of racism and cover up the truth of how it permeates our society. There will be those who will show up at the bedside of the victim pontificating on how this represents American race relations, but they will only be trying to exploit this incident for their own personal agendas. We must be wary of those who will try to limit this to some personal crusade for justice.

If the suspects were black or the victim white would it make this act any less heinous? I would venture to say no. This says more about the state of American cruelty and how our society is becoming more savage with the passing of time. That there are people who would take advantage of this young woman because of her mental capacity speaks volumes about how we dehumanize each other to the point of this being acceptable to anyone. It is similar to the phenomenon we have seen in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the fact that the victims were Arab was secondary to the fact that those who perpetrated the crimes were able to exert power over another human. I have no doubt that those who are guilty of these types of crimes would commit them regardless of the racial makeup of their environment. Much like the crime of rape it is not so much about the victim as it is about the ability to project power over another human being.

I hate to say it, but this is more than racism. This is the embodiment of evil in our society and we must confront that fact as much as we must confront the racial aspects of this case. To ignore that fact is to ignore who and what we are becoming. To me that would be a greater injustice to the victim than whether this is a hate crime or not. It is definitely a hate crime, but it is a hate crime against all of humanity. So I end as I began, “Is this racism?”

Karen Burton – charged with malicious wounding, battery, assault during the commission of a felony.
According to a criminal complaint filed in Logan County, she pulled the victim’s hair, choked the victim, cut her ankles and told her “that’s what we do to niggers around here.”

Bobby R. Brewster – charged with kidnapping, first-degree sexual assault, malicious wounding, assault during commission of a felony.
According to the criminal complaint, Brewster forced to victim to have sex with him, threatened to kill her, stabbed the victim and forced her to eat rat and dog feces and drink from a toilet bowl.

Danny J Combs – charged with first-degree sexual assault and malicious wounding.
According to the criminal complaint, he forced the victim to have sex with him at knife point.

Frankie Lee Brewster - charged with giving false information, second-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, malicious wounding.
According to the criminal complaint, Brewster forced the victim to have oral sex with her, threatened to kill the victim and withheld information from police when they arrived at her residence to investigate a missing person report.

Alisha Burton - charged with assault during the commission of a felony, battery.
According to the criminal complaint, Burton beat and choked the victim.[2]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/us/12captive.html
[2] http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=28706

Read more!

Who Are We?

The next President will have many challenges ahead of him or her. They will inherit our nation at arguably its lowest point in history. We have lost respect abroad and consensus at home. The most important challenge this person will be faced with is to help us as a nation decide just who we are.

Who are we? Are we a nation that respects the rule of law or are we a nation that ignores laws that do not fit into our vision of the world?

Who are we? Are we a nation whose justice system is based on “habeas corpus” and “innocent until proven guilty” or are we a nation where everyone is “guilty until proven innocent”?

Who are we? Are we nation that believes in humane treatment of prisoners no matter what their combat status or are we a nation the practices and condones torture?

Who are we? Are we a nation that seeks to live in peace with the rest of the world or are we a nation that shoots first and ask questions later?

Who are we? Are we the nation that helped to liberate the world from fascism and tyranny or are we a nation that will impose imperialism at the end of a gun?

Who are we? Are we a nation who believes that everyone has a right to health care, a decent wage, and food and shelter or are we nation who believes that our only obligation is to ourselves and our own comforts?

Who are we? Are we a nation that believes in freedom for its citizens from a repressive and secretive government or are we nation that believes all is fair in the war on terrorism?

Who are we? Are we a nation where everyone does and pays his fair share or are we a nation where the wealthy are shielded from their responsibility?

Who are we? Are we a nation that demonstrates the principles of democracy and courage or are we a nation that cowers in fear and paranoia?

Who are we? Are we a nation that learns from its mistakes or are we a nation that has never made a mistake?

Who are we? Are we a nation that leads the fight in solving climate change or are we a nation that buries its head in the sand?

Who are we? Are we a nation that stands united and falls divided or are we a nation that allows politics and demagoguery to keep us separate?

The next president will inherit this country at one of its most important crossroads ever. The next president will have to help this nation define who we really are. Not who we proclaim to be, but who and what we truly believe in. We, as a nation must do some soul searching about some real core issues that supersede red and blue. The answers to these questions will define who we are as a nation for the next generation and beyond. It is time for a national conversation and discussion as to what type of nation we want to be. The choice for now is ours to make. I don’t know how long the decision will be ours at the rate we are going. There are forces at work that want to limit our freedoms and our choices. There are forces at work that want to define for us, who we are.

We as a nation must unite and get past the rhetoric of politics and division and come together to solve the many issues that are facing us. We may not agree on every issue, but we should be able to build a consensus on most. We must all be ready to sacrifice and compromise for the sake of unity and country. First and foremost, we are Americans, any affiliation after that is supposed to be secondary. We are to overlook our petty differences and come together for the greater good. How many of us can truly say we have done this? How many of us can look beyond politics, race, and economics and put America first for a change?

The next president cannot solve all that ails us, but they can be a unifier. They can be a catalyst for the debate we so desperately need. They can keep the discussion on point and steer it away from partisan agendas. If the Dems win back the White House it will be difficult to not dismiss the losing party out of hand, but we must not do it. Our country is greatest when we use all of our assets. My position is made stronger by the opposition not weaker; my ideas must be able to stand up to critical review. Our next leader must have the strength of character to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. There is no strength or wisdom in being stubborn and blind to changes taking place around us.

America…who are we? The answer to that question begins with, who are you?

Read more!

Defending the Indefensible

Here is an excerpt from one of the confessions of an “enemy combatant” that claimed to be tortured by US interrogators. Read it and then please consider how it makes you feel as an American, not a Republican or a Democrat, but just as an American.

“PRESIDENT (of the tribunal): Please describe the methods that were used.

DETAINEE: (CENSORED) What else do I want to say? (CENSORED) There were doing so many things. What else did they did? (CENSORED) After that another method of torture began. (CENSORED) They used to ask me questions and the investigator after that used to laugh. And, I used to answer the answer that I knew. And if I didn’t replay what I heard, he used to (CENSORED).”[1]

Officials defended this censorship by arguing that interrogation methods are so secret that they cannot be discussed, even by the prisoner. But they also said that Al Qaeda members are trained to claim torture and that Mr. Nashiri lied. If so, why censor the transcript? His answers can’t help Al Qaeda. Tragically, the most likely answer is to spare United States intelligence agents and their bosses, who could face charges if the Military Commissions Act is ever repealed or rewritten. The law gives a retroactive carte blanche to American interrogators for any abuse they may have committed.[2]

How can any person who respects the freedom and rights of humans defend this type of behavior? Have we become so afraid after 9/11 that we are willing to condone any type of behavior in the name of fighting terrorism? If we continue to follow this path; what will separate us from them? It is a slippery slope that we are on folks and I believe that once we start down this slope it will be difficult if not impossible to turn back.

While the loss of 2,973 Americans[3] is tragic and unjustified under any conditions, can we now justify holding 6.6 billion people hostage as a result? We have declared war not only on the terrorists but on the whole world as well. When we start using the language of “either you are with us or against us” we force the world and ourselves to either accept everything we do or “embolden the terrorists”. Life despite what some in this administration would like us to believe is never that black and white. By defining the struggle in those terms we declare war on ourselves and our democracy. No one said having a democracy would be easy, no one said defending a democracy would be easy either. Living in a democracy we put our beliefs to the test every day. Those beliefs include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that these are unalienable rights granted by a beneficent Creator.

I do not believe that the way you defeat evil is with evil. I do not believe that the way you save a democracy is with a dictatorship. We have to kill the democracy to save it? I am not following that logic. As a democracy we have to maintain the high ground even when that high ground is difficult. I submit that it is when democracy is the toughest to defend, is when it must be defended the more. There are those who want to take shortcuts and easy outs to defeat this invisible enemy, but there are none. It is frustrating fighting a war without borders or an enemy with no state, but we will not defeat this enemy by might. We can only win this war by our ideals and our leadership, not by torture and injustice. This administration has lost the high ground in this war. By condoning torture and turning this into a war of cultures they have lowered our standing not just with our enemies, but with our allies as well. In the long run how we choose to defend our democracy will determine if we save our democracy. You will never know love, until the unlovable shows up. Anyone can love the cute kitten, but it is the wolf that truly tests our doctrine of love. Some people believe that democracy cannot survive terrorism; I believe that terrorism cannot survive a true democracy. One thing that the fall of communism should have taught us is that everyone wants to live in freedom. That freedom is defined in different ways by different people, but isn’t that what freedom is. We cannot expect everyone’s freedom to look like ours nor compel them to make it so. All that we can do is to promote an atmosphere where freedom in any form can flourish. That process though must begin at home with us, we must say no to those who want to lead us astray from democracy in the name of war. Torture can never be condoned under any circumstances in a democracy. By resorting to torture we are demonstrating to our enemies and our friends that democracy does not work or that our belief in it is not real. They can then tell their potential converts, “See we told you it was not genuine or that it will not work.” Our country has been the greatest experiment in human history. Can people from so many different backgrounds come together for a common cause and live in peace?

There is a principle in our system of justice that states it is better to let nine guilty men go free, than to punish one innocent man. We do not always live up to that ideal, but it is that goal that separates us from those who choose to attack us. The system of secret prisons, torture, and state sponsored kidnappings must end. Our continued use of places like Guantanamo and imprisonment without any redress undermines our democracy not only in the world, but at home as well. Our domestic policies that place everyone under the umbrella of suspicion are not the answer to terrorism. I say that it is these policies, not the questioning of them, which in fact are emboldening the terrorist. The more they can change our democracy into a fascist system the more they win. We must stop defending the indefensible.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06fri1.html

[2] Ibid

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Read more!