Torture

There is an awful lot of discussion going on these days regarding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of waterboarding and whether those involved should be prosecuted.

Let me give my short answer and then I'll discuss the issue a bit...

Waterboarding is torture and as such it is never acceptable under any circumstances. All of those who were involved should be prosecuted and it should not be only at the lowest levels. If those higher in the Bush administration approved or ordered those "techniques," they should be prosecuted as well... all of the way up to the president if the trail leads that far.

Yesterday, I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio and he had an exchange with a listener who said whaterboarding is wrong. Miller castigated the values of the listener saying something to the effect of, "you'd probably say that if it was a choice between 100's dying in a building that was attacked vs. waterboarding one known terrorist to get the information to stop the attack, that you'd have the innocent die. I don't want to live in that world. Do what you must do to get the information to save the innocent."

At the most simple level, I would say, "yes, let the attack happen if we must cease to be who we claim to be in order to stop it." But the simplest level is more than a little over simplified. It assumes that there is no other way to get the information and that torture works. Neither of these assumptions are accurate. All of the studies show that torture does not give accurate information. Those being tortured will say anything to stop the pain... and they do. Good police work and good intellegence efforts provide much more accurate and helpful information. But, let's allow thse two assumptions for a moment. Miller's argument begs us to follow his path to its logical conclusions as well... let me do that.

Let's assume we have chatter that an attack is imminent and we have in custody a terrorist who we are 100% positive has the information needed to stop the attack. (again, assumptions that are never accurate but for sake of argument...) So we waterboard the prisoner and he gives no helpful information. We know that waterboarding doesn't always give immediate information or those prisoners who were waterboarded would not have suffered the "technique" hundreds of times. So it becomes clear that the needed answers are not forthcoming. With Miller's argument, we would go the next step. After all, we are dealing with a clearly guilty person and trying to save the lives of 100's of innocents. So do we pull out fingernails? Or cut off fingers? Or electrocute? And then wat if the information still isn't forthcoming? We know the attack is coming and are sure he has the information we need to stop it. Do we bring the prisoner's wife in and rape her in front of him? Or do we begin to cut his 9 year old son's fingers off, one by one? After all, we are dealing with a known terrorist and we are trying to save the lives of 100's of innocents? What is the comparison between the family of one known terrorist killer and the lives of innocents? And so the argument goes to its logical conclusion... Do whatever it takes to get the information. The end justifes the means.

The question is where do we draw the line? The Bush administration tried to draw a line. Waterboarding is OK so many times. Slaming a head against a wall with X force in this way is OK but doing Y is not. Miller's arguent clearly leads to a conclusion that there is no line as long as the end can be construed as noble. I argue that there is a line that stands independent of the end and the line is clear in the law and in international treaties. No torture, ever, and waterboarding is torture.

There are those who argue that because the terrorists kill children, cut off heads, etc. that a little torture is not a problem. I refuse to allow terrorists to define for me what is right and wrong. I refuse to allow them to give me justification to break the clear laws of this country and the treaties we have signed in the past. I think America is and needs to be better than that. If we change who we are in response to their evil, then we have already lost the battle.

talk radio

When I'm in the car I usually listen to either NPR or to talk radio. We have an Air America affiliate here but neither their coverage nor NPR's reaches all of my roaming area so sometimes I find myself listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or another talker of that stripe.

I understand that they need to keep an audience and that means pushing things a bit, but... but... but...

I have to say that I am more than a little miffed when they say they hope Obama fails. Now I am no fan of the W. I think and thought the first election was stolen and possibly the second one too. I think he was a disaster as a president. But I never once wished he would fail. I fully expected he would, but I never hoped for it. Why? Because his leadership impacted the entire world. If he failed. We failed. Jobs were lost. Unnecessary wars were fought. People died. I didn't want him to fail.

Now, of course, had he succeeded, it would have been very difficult for the dems to get power and for a dem to get elected as president, but that was a price I was willing to pay if it would have made the world more stable and people's lives fuller.

No, when they hope for Obama to fail, they are hoping for people to lose their homes and their jobs. They are hoping for my neighbors to lose their healthcare and to have to make choices between medicine and food. They are hoping for the world to erupt in violence and for innocent children to die as collateral damage. They are being absolutely unpatriotic. They are sinning against all of humanity.

The second piece that I've been hearing makes me laugh. I can't tell you how many times I've heard these apologists for the Bush administration attack Obama and say, as good Republicans, they are for fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. Did they sleep through the last 8 years? Did they forget that Bush came into office with a surplus (left to him by a Democrat) and left with the largest deficit ever? Or did they forget that in large degree the last administration, a Republican administration, virtually did exactly what it wanted to do for 8 years and in doing so, put our economy in the toilet, decimated our military, shredded the constitution, and destroyed our standing in the world? Or maybe they just think their audience is so stupid that they have forgotten who got us into the current mess.

Now they also spend a lot of time talking up the Bush administration's legacy. They remind us that during the final 7 years of Bush's administration no terrorist attacks took place on US soil. That is true. But no aliens from outer space attacked us either. Is either one due to the diligence of the Bushies? Got me, but given the way they ran the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the economy at home, and took care of the constitution, I have my doubts they were responsible for fending off either attack. At the same time, we do know who was president when 9/11 happened and we do know that reports were ignored that gave warnings about Osama Bin Laden. They seem to forget that as well.

Well, I guess they do succeed in accomplishing their primary objective though. I get upset. And I listen some more.

War Crimes Trial

I believe that there are folk in the Bush administration who should be tried for war crimes. I'm not sure how high it should go, but perhaps as far as President Bush. I don't know whether he or anyone else should be found guilty but I think they should be tried. Here's why.

1. The data from Guantanamo seems to indicate that our government at the highest level is complicit in breaking international law.

2. If they are guilty, then a trial is the only way to restore the US's reputation.

3. If they are not guilty, a fair trial is the only way to restore the US's reputation.

It is critical for the moral standing of the US, to show that we do not see ourselves as above the law. Judge Patricia Wald, a judge in the War Crimes Tribunals for Yugoslavia, implied this question in her forward to Guantanamo and It's Aftermath, a study published by the Human Rights Center at the University of California at Berkeley, will the US hold itself to the same standards it imposes on other nations? It is critical for our standing in the world to restore our moral integrity. It is critical for our security to be able once again to say we are what we claim to be. It is critical that we put this dark history behind us. The only was to do so is to bring to trial those who are responsible.

Georgia on my mind

with the wedding last week and an impending move, I've had a bunch of blog entries building up and just waiting to be posted.

The situation in Georgia is one and I think represents one of the larges and most impactful costs of the Iraq debacle. The quotes from McCain and Bush would be laughable were the situation not so grave... "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations," and "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century" And there is the problem. We invaded 2 other sovereign nations and continue to occupy them both. Add to that torture and the blatant disregard for the rule of law and we have lost any moral authority that we had in the world.

two of a kind

I love paradoxes. Indeed, I think paradox is at the core of any Christian theology worth doing.

As I look at John McCain, I feel a paradox. As the funny video below says, he really promises to be just like George Bush. That represents my greatest hope - because if people actually know and believe that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected and my greatest fear - because if people don't see that he could be elected and we'd have 4 more years of the same. I don't think the world can take that.

In the meantime, have a smile courtesy of MoveOn...

Recount

I finally watched the HBO film, Recount this evening. It was painful to relive those days. As I watched, I kept wondering how those main characters feel now. Is James Baker proud that he engineered the election of W? Do the Florida officials feel that they were faithful to the law? Do the Supreme Court Justices still feel that they served the constitution? Does Al Gore still believe that he did the right thing by not continuing the fight? And I wonder how things would have been different? Would 9/11 still have happened? And if it had, how differently would Al Gore have reacted as president? Where would we be now?

Obviously, we cannot know how things would have been different. We do know how critical these kinds of decisions are not only for the United States but for the entire world. We do know that politics at the presidential level is not a game to be played and that ego, blind ambition, and partisanship are not worthy motivators when it comes to counting votes.

The Fall of the Soviet Union and Iraq

What do these two subjects have to do with one another? Let's first talk briefly about the Soviet Union. It fell not because of the strength of America but because of the weakness of its own economy which was overburdened by a military budget that bled everything else dry. Military spending is not productive spending. It doesn't provide infrastructure or goods to the public. Instead it is just a little better than throwing the money away. It is the epitome of the disposable product. So all of this wasteful spending as they tried to keep up with us in an arms race while sustaining a war in Afghanistan was more than they could afford. When their economy collapsed, as was inevitable because of the percentage of non-productive sending, the nation crumbled.

Last Thursday Joseph Stigletz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Robert Hormatz, vice chairman of Goldman-Sachs International, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of congress. Stigletz said that he believes the overall cost of the Iraq war will be around 3 trillion dollars with the direct cost to US taxpayers being at least $2 trillion.

Both men testified about the opportunities to make this country better that are rendered impossible because of this war. Stigletz said that for a fraction of the cost, Social Security and Medicare could have been kept easily solvent for at least 50 more years. Each day's spending could put 58,000 children in Head Start, make college affordable for 160,000 students, pay the annual salaries of 11,000 border patrol agents or 14,000 police officers. And that is one day's costs. Watch this little film from the American Friends Service Committee to see more of what could be done with just 1 day's expenditure for this war.

Stigletz also noted that 40% of the vets from the first Gulf War are eligible for disability benefits which will go on for decades. Imagine, he asked, what the numbers will be for this war which will involve 2 million troops and go on for at least the 5 years we already have under our belt? Imagine with me the social costs when the safety net for them fails as it did for the Viet Nam vets - remember how many of them ended up homeless on the streets? How many of these young men and women will end up discarded? And what will happen to their families?

And finally they testified that because of tax cuts during war and what was an already growing deficit, this war is financed almost entirely by deficit spending. Bush has worked to try to hide the costs of the war by bypassing the normal budget process and using emergency appropriations for the funds. The costs will be hanging around our necks like an albatross for decades to come.

And John McCain says we should expect to stay there another 100 year!

Let me make a prediction. If we do, we will fall just like the Soviet Union did and for essentially the same reasons. It will have nothing to do with the strength of our ideals or the beautiful vision upon which this nation was founded. It will be because of a poorly planned and completely unnecessary war that strangled our economy.

A vote for McCain will virtually insure that end. Actually, I think a vote for Hillary will too. It is only Obama who is talking about seeing security in a new way - of building coalitions and negotiating before dropping bombs.

Moyers on Rove

Bill Moyers is one of my heroes. I think he exemplifies the best of the Baptist tradition.

Here is his commentary on Karl Rove.

Keith Olbermann on Iraq

I don't watch much TV and almost never MSNBC so I missed this comment when it was aired. I came across it today on Mike Leaptrott's blog. It is long and perhaps not quite as timely as when it was delivered a few days ago but still very much on target and worth watching and sharing.

Thanks Mike!

Arlington West

This photo of is of the Arlington West Memorial at the beach in Santa Barbara. There are 3000 crosses in the sand, most with names, many with photos. Of course there is also a sign that recognizes that as of this writing there are actually 3497.

Memorial Day is always an ambivalent day for me. I am a pacifist. I always think there is another way to solve conflict than with military might. The Iraq War itself involves no ambivalence. I think Bush, Cheney and the rest of them should be tried for war crimes and imprisoned. Now we know that they told yet another lie when they tell us that nobody could predict what has happened. Before the invasion they had received intelligence estimates that predicted exactly what happened. Of course, they ignored those predictions. They must be held responsible for the death and destruction they have caused.

My feelings about the casualties are very different. (here's a link to the names, details, and photos of those who have died). Some who have died signed up for the military because they truly believed in this mission and believed they could make a difference in the world. Some were in the reserves because they believed it was an easy way to supplement their income and never dreamt they would be in combat. At worst they expected to be deployed to help clean up after a natural disaster. Some were confused young people who joined the military in hopes of finding direction for their lives. Someone had told them that "joining the army will make you a man."

The men and women represented by those crosses in the sand, many of whom were too young to really know who they were or where they were going, gave their lives at the bequest of the nation. It is a noble act to be willing to sacrifice your future for the greater good. It is an act to be honored. At the same time, it is an act that should not be required without the most serious of discussion and not until every other option has been exhausted. In this case there was no serious discussion and much of what there was was laced with lies. It wasn't a case where every reasonable option was exhausted, it was a time when the option chosen should not have been on the table at all.

These men and women did not waste their lives. They sacrificed for their country. Still, their lives were wasted. George Bush wasted their lives. They died for his macho fantasy in an unnecessary war that cannot be won.

I seriously doubt that he will be held accountable for his actions in this life, but I believe he will stand before God and listen to each name read, see each face of each soldier who died, of each one who has come back without limbs, of each one who cannot adjust to life after having seen what they saw and done what they did. He will see each face and hear each name of each Iraqi citizen who died as "colateral damage" or in the sectarian violence we fomented. He had better pray that his view of God is not accurate. If we do have a God of violence and vengence, as George Bush seems to believe, he will surely pay for what he has done. I imagine him standing and saying, "But I thought it was the right thing" with that goofy look on his face and God responds, "Go away from me. You never knew me."

mission accomplished

4 years ago Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed to the world that major combat operations were concluded. How many have died since then? And what could have been done with the nearly $1trillion spent thus far?

Yesterday, seated behind me on a flight from El Paso was an Army officer recently back from Iraq. I overheard him tell the man sitting next to him that "there is no military solution to Iraq." What he didn't imply but should have is that there is no military solution to any international conflicts. We spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined and even with that plus the help of over 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq, we still can't beat that little country!?!? War doesn't work any longer. Terrorism cannot be defeated by bombing a village. Economic development, education, medical help, talking... these are the only techniques that can make a difference in today's world.

It may be that military might is needed to contain violence, but as a long term solution, it accomplishes no mission. All one need do is look at the quagmire that is Iraq to see that.