Americans may or may not oppose torture.
But they are sure not doing anything about it.
Torture is un-American, ineffective, and illegal. That hasn't stopped President Bush, but the next president would be wise to adopt policies that not only adhere to the rule of law and U.S. treaty obligations, but also the strong views of the vast majority of Americans. "America stands against and will not tolerate torture," said President Bush in 2004. He was right about that, even if he didn't practice what he preached.
That fact is vividly demonstrated in a recent national poll of likely presidential election voters -- conducted for the ACLU by the Washington, D.C. firm of Belden Russonello & Stewart -- that documents a broad, bipartisan consensus on the issue of torture: Americans are against it, pure and simple.
The poll shows that 81 percent of Americans -- including 80 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of independents -- believe the U.S. should obey the law and oppose the use of torture. These strongly-held views underscore the pernicious deceit of the Bush administration's secret torture policies -- as revealed in this week's New York Times article.
The Times reported that just a few months after the Bush administration publicly declared in December 2004 that, "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms," it secretly and explicitly authorized the combined use of brutal physical and psychological techniques -- torture techniques -- on detainees in U.S. custody. As I recounted yesterday, l Alberto R. Gonzales' Justice Department endorsed the most barbaric interrogation practices ever used by the CIA and wrote another secret memo in an attempt to shield interrogators who tortured people in U.S. custody from criminal liability.
It's not a surprise that these memos were adopted and carried out in secret. Apparently even the Bush administration knew it was doing something terribly wrong, something it felt it needed to hide. And it remained hidden for over two years (the 2005 opinions are still in effect today), until this week's revelations.
Perhaps they tried so hard to keep it secret because Americans oppose torture. The poll also found that a substantial majority of Americans also oppose a whole host of attacks the Bush administration has leveled on our civil liberties. Voters also want our next president to restore habeas corpus, stop warrantless eavesdropping and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. Fifty-nine percent of all voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- want the next president to do more to protect civil liberties.
And it is not just presidential candidates who should take note. Nearly half of likely voters -- including 74 percent of Democrats -- believe that the Democrat-controlled Congress has not done enough to check the power of President Bush. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and Americans expect Congress to protect the Constitution -- including protecting it from presidential attacks.
Democratic voters are angry because they expected the new Congress to act as a real check on the executive branch, which has been running roughshod over our Constitution. Instead, this Congress has been negligent and timid when it comes to protecting our civil liberties, caving in to the Bush administration out of fear of looking "soft on terrorism."
This Congress has thus far failed freedom. They have given president a blank check when it comes to warrantless spying, torture and other violations of our civil liberties. Americans are more than just disappointed: they are livid. Sixty-eight percent of all voters say the president should not be acting on his own in deciding how to fight terrorism without the checks and balances of the courts or Congress.
Congress has an opportunity right now to start standing up for the Constitution as they prepare to vote on a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and possibly permanently grant vast new spying powers to Bush and all future presidents, with no meaningful oversight by Congress or any court. Nationally, 58 percent of Americans -- including a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- want the government to get a warrant before eavesdropping on our telephone calls.
As the election heats up, I encourage you to ask the candidates -- both for President and for Congress -- where they stand when it comes to the Constitution and the rule of law. Ask them:
o Will you oppose torture - Yes or No?
o Will you define "enemy combatant" - Yes or No?
o Will you require the government to get a warrant to listen to Americans' phone calls and read Americans' emails - Yes or No?
o Will you restore habeas corpus - Yes or No?
o Will you close Guantánamo - Yes or No?
Let's not give them room for platitudes and broad policy statements. Demand a "yes" or "no." Some things really are that simple.
There is a mandate for change, and the presidential candidates as well as members of Congress should take note: voters want the attacks on the Constitution to end now.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Americans may or may not oppose torture.
But they are sure not doing anything about it.
Democrats are fuming over revelations that Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department issued memos ruling the CIA's tough interrogation techniques to be legal.
Never have so many saved lives caused such anger.
Remember the reason torture is OK? If we've captured a terrorist operative who knows the secret of when a WMD is going to blow up and destroy a US city and must get the information within a day or so, then it's OK to torture the terrorist operative to get the information. Right?
Then how come we torture Iraqi insurgents, Taliban members, and anyone else? Do all of them know when a WMD is going to explode in the US?
It seems there is a public/private partnership used as part of a US policy to torture. We have our own torturers on the public payroll sanctioned by Bush. We have private corporate torturers on the public payroll from Blackwater. And we have torturers from allies on the public payroll.
Are all of those being tortured involved in conspiracies where WMDs will explode in a US city within 24 hours? I realize our courageous operatives have taken on some serious threats to vital US interests -- Iraqi insurgents from a country that is allied with the US who have no air force, body armor or sophisticated weaponry capable of hitting the U.S. Taliban members with similar abilities.
So our rationale for using torture is just bogus, designed to scare the public into supporting torture based upon a scenario that never is even close to happening when we actually torture people.
But that's OK. As long as there is a scenario, we simply use torture on anyone we feel like using it on. And as the Right to Torture Act (Military Commissions Act) had a large number of Democrats voting in favor of it, torture is a bi-partisan instrument of US policy, rationalized by a scenario that has never happened and likely never will.
The answer -- let's have a meaningless hearing so the Dems can rail against torture while they are as complicit as the Republicans for its use. And let's have progressive vote for Dems because they conduct meaningless hearings and don't move simultaneous impeachment/removal despite the overwhelming evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors conducted by Bush/Cheney.
I don't even watch the televised debates because the questions are *soft*.
Why can't someone like you ask the questions of those running for president. I'd really like answers to some concrete questions such as the ones you posed.
On the debates, are the questions vetted by the candidates or their staff to make sure they aren't questions the candidates would prefer not to answer?
That poll the ACLU had conducted for them by a DC lawyer group should have included questions like:
Do you feel the ACLU is subversive to American ideals? Yes or no.
Do you trust the ACLU? Yes or no.
The above two questions illustrate how agenda driven groups, right-wingers this time, fashion surveys to first influence the survey and then report their findings. Surveys without unimpeachable background information to set up the questions are worthless for gaining actual opinions. For example, (say) the ACLU has undeniable proof that three detainees in Gitmo have been tortured to death and has filed suit to stop torture. Or, (say) prosecutors believe ACLU used torture evidence testimony from former soldier named J.MacBeth. Clearly, how any polled individual responds to a question depends on the info at hand, like that merely fashioned for the poll from my two examples.
Mister Romero you gave your opinion based questions for the poll, anything unimpeachable to back up the opinions? And the ACLU poll is political in nature, so why use a DC based, politically surroundered, firm to conduct it? Doesn't this clearly indicate the poll is "fashioned?" (Forgive me adding my own "fashioning," but did Gonzalez endorse prisoners hurled from helicopters with the flimsiest of parachutes [similar to loose Viet Cong pajamas], as an example of the CIA'S' most barbaric torture ever used?)
(Oh BTW, my answers to the example questions are no and no. )
What's your problem with the ACLU Casey? Isn't an organization devoted to protecting the rights of Americans, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, conservative enough for you? I thought conservatives were devoted to preserving tradtional American values? That's exactly what the ACLU does. Here's a question for you: Do you think people like CaseyBabes support American values? Yes or no? You know my answer.
Ah, you jumped to certain conclusions about me. I believe the ACLU does need be to watch over our Constitution, but they do go overboard at times. I'm not a conservative, once was republican, but am now somewhat apolitical/independent......make sense? To me it does, considering the miscreant dems and feckless repubs. In answer to your question, yes. Your answer is based upon poor attention to detail.
Perhaps if you had read my contribution fully, instead of scanning to find an opportunity to strut, you'd have seen my answers to the yes or no questions beginning my response and admonition to Romero. I answered no and no (at the BTW last sentence). I do not believe the ACLU is subversive, but I don't trust it because of the liberal bent.
My challenge to Romero's article cited a couple places where you could have gone "au contrair" on me but you merely took up space. So, as they say, ivqii.
Strut on, but try it down the line someplace.
The administration kept it secret because that is what they do. They don't want anyone to know anything about anything but the selected few things they think will make them look good.
At this point these guys could be angels but everyone would still assume they were doing bad things because of thier secracy. Ok that and everything we do know that points to evil doing.
Bush's position is that he will NOT define torture, but he assures us that he is not conducting torture. He assures us that he has 'fully informed' Senate Intl Committee, while committee members assert they have never seen the memos in question and are NOT adequately informed. Razzamatazz.
I agree that the majority of US citizens are against torture. But they do support doing whatever is necessary to obtain the information we need to protect American lives.
We have been torturing prisoners just like every other country ever since we had prisoners. In every war, under every president whether Democrat or Republican. Ineffective? The only info not credible from torture is a confession. Everything else is verifiable in a short time.
When I was in basic training at Ft. Dix, we were assured that if we were captured in combat, we would be tortured. Officially, we were told to only give our name, rank and serial number to the enemy. Unofficially we were told to tell them whatever you have to if you were about to have your testicles hooked up to batteries.
War is hell. Terrible things happen. Terrible things are done sometimes purposely, sometimes by mistake. But let me assure you that no nation can survive moral, in this immoral world.
"But let me assure you that no nation can survive moral, in this immoral world."
Absolute BS Mr. bean22. If we claim that we hold the moral high ground then we must behave that way. We must fight with one hand tied behind our back - so to speak. Otherwise we can claim no distinction from our enemies. By doing so we actually gain support and respect from the world community and, in the long run, we win. BTW, I trained at Ft. Dix too (Oct. - Dec. '65) and was never told what you were told.
First off Eoin45, if you didn't hear that advice at Dix, you must have been sleeping through that class because everyone I ever met was told the same thing.
Second, ever since the 2nd world war we have been fighting with one hand behind our backs, and you can see what it gets you. Korea, Nam and Iraq II.
Third, there is no moral high ground in war. Everyone tortures their prisoners and always has. Wars are not fought by clergymen, but by tough, miserable, sons-of-bitches who know that all that matters is winning. The winners write the history books. The atrocities the members of the "greatest generation" committed during World War II would make Nam look like kindergarten play. We just left that crap out of our history books. And we were the "good guys!!"
Right now, there is an enormous distinction between us and our enemies. We have a respect for human life, they have none. The world knows this and it hasn't gotten us an eyedropper of support and respect from the world community.
So don't think fighting with one arm behind our backs is going to get us any.
I'm sorry, to use death or organ failure (aka death) as the definition of torture is absurd. That's murder, not torture. And I'm sick that we are talking about this. Shame on this administration...they are truly evil. "Fascism will come to America wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." CS Lewis
Unfortunately, "ineffective" may be the only tone of those terms to have a chance of resonating. And even that, sadly, may fail, as many Americans do seem to relish the idea of torturing some non-English speaker, as long as he's far enough away that they don't need to hear him scream.
Then there's the twisted minority that would like to hear the screams...
Bush I, "Read my lips, no new taxes." Bush II, "We don't torture!" Depends on what you mean by the word "torture."
The definition in the dictionary was not good enough.
"I do torture the English language," would mean to mispronounce but to torture a human being? I know torture when I see it.
The definition of "organ failure or death" was taken from language in a statute dealing with when a person must be given medical care by the federal government, according to Goldsmith in his testimony to Waxman.
Yes, we should pin these candidates down - figuratively speaking.
Today, Barack Obama posted a message to supporters on my.barackobama.com about the...
ASPEN - I took part in an interesting panel last night at the...
US News and World Report printed a short piece about GOP fears that the...
I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in...
On June 10,...
The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations...
Just in case the revelation that American torturers took their cues from...
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A $300,000 payoff to a teenage mistress. Thousands...
The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John...
President Bush's economic stimulus package, which appears so far to have been ineffective in...
Today the New York Times reports on a jaw-dropping addition to the medical spa trend. Now comes...
No one has gained more from the new net-based political organizing than...
Posted October 5, 2007 | 05:42 PM (EST)