Torture – How does that work again?

Torture – How does that work again? 4/30/09
I have been frustrated lately about the limited discussions that have taken place regarding the torture issue. Not that there hasn’t been a lot over coverage. Every Op-Ed or News show has discussed it. The issues I have had, is that the editorials only outline one side of the issue, and no one has dedicated enough time to have a discussion that allows for open conversation.
David Gregory from “Meet the Press”, George Stephanopoulos “This Week”, or any of the cable news programs have all opened the discussion, and after 3 to 5 minutes of uncontrolled discussion, there does not seem to be any substantial discussion.
The Cliff May discussion on Jon Stewarts “The Dailey Show” was the single deepest discussion I have seen, and that is a comedy show.

We all understand the arguments. First we have to get the semantics correct. No one is supporting torture. The discussion is around several key definitions:
1) What is torture and what is not?
2) Who is protected under US Law and who is not
3) Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines.
Once we have some how agreed to these issues, we can then think about how we go about holding people accountable.

My Bias: Just so we all know where I am coming from: I believe that water boarding is torture. I believe that anyone who is incarcerated is subject to a standard of human rights. While I believe there can be a simple line drawn between the rights that are afforded to a US Citizen and those that are afforded to a foreigner, there can not be lines drawn on what “class of foreigner” is afforded different standards of human rights. I am not saying these are absolute or right,.. only that this is how I interpret the situation.

With that said, I will try not to use language that will inflame or try to goat a reaction.

What is Torture and what is not?
I heard a lot of conversation about what is torture. Is a slap to the head torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is over exposure to cold, torture? With each of these there is an obvious is not almost silly line of yes or no types of answers. For my definition, If I am sleep deprived for 4 days,.. Yes Torture. If I am left in a cold room for two days without cover and no idea if I am being monitored or not,.. Yes Torture. Strip me naked for any length of time,.. Yes Torture.
If I am unwilling to give you information, and you attempt to extract the information by placing me in a “Perceived“ situation where I am compelled to believe that my life, limb or well being is at risk, that is torture. I understand that many people will think this to be very liberal of me, and I will agree. But here is the point. If I rob a bank, or person or place, and I hold a gun, or if I say, suggest or imply that I have a gun, I am guilty of assault. It is law. Perception is reality.

Who is protected by US law and who isn’t?
I was intrigued by the discussion around the qualifiers that were used on detainees for the application of enhanced interrogation procedures. Have we exhausted all other alternatives? Is the detainee and Al-Qaeda operative? As I mentioned before, I have no issues identifying a person as a US Citizen and someone who is not. That makes sense to me. As US Citizens, we have a number of rights and freedoms that are not afforded to people of other countries. But no where do we suggest that other nations are less than human.
I do not need a US law for me to understand that I am expected to treat people humanly. I don’t consider it a US law, that all men are created equal. I don’t think that a right to an attorney is only for US Citizens. I can not believe that detainment without a hearing would be considered.

The push back is: “Well, they will get off” or “We do not have enough evidence to support the charges”. If you read that last sentence and still think that I am just an ideological liberal, we will never come to a compromise. But we still may be able to come to an understanding. If there is not enough supporting evidence that it can provide credability to any claim, then there should not be a claim. Please note, I did not refer to a jury of their peers. But if you do not have enough evidence to convince a competent and honorable judge that someone is guilty, how did you come to a conclusion of guilt.

Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines?
This final issue seems to be less troublesome than the other two issues. I would only suggest that what ever lines are considered to be the line is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. For US Citizens, that is easy. We have the legislative & executive branches for authorizing such rules of engagement. As for international, there would be a body of different governments that agree on common standards. If the acting President wants to edit or withdraw from an existing agreement,. I believe that Congress be required for authorization.

I will save the Accountability discussion for the next blog. But this has been one sided until now. Please let me know your opinions and objects.

GOP Can Survive

Even as the Republican Party faces it's darkest moments, it continues to engage in divisive misinformation as its only tool to combat the predominately popular President Obama. It appears that the Republicans are embracing opposition for oppositions sake.
That is not to say all Republicans have taken this position. However, if you are a Republican and you find yourself supporting President Obama, you also need to watch carefully how the RNC interprets your choices.

As with Arlen Specter, the Republicans were already planning to oust Senator Specter before he shifted to the Democrat side simply for supporting Obama. It should be clear that Republicans forced Specters hand. With the RNC backing a hard Right Conservative to compete in the Pennsylvania Republican Primary, it was a foregone conclusion: Specter could not win. If Specter was to keep his job, he, as with most Americans, made a change. Not a change to the far left. A change to the center.

We still do not see clear leadership within the GOP and that only dilutes any vision or direction. As Republicans continues to shift hard to the right at the same time as the country continues to shift to the center left, what will remain of the GOP for the 2010?.

This is not all doom and gloom. The democrats were is a similar position just 5 years ago. I believe the Republican Party will recover. It may take place in 2010, or it may take longer. But when it does recover, it will come back stronger for its efforts.

To survive, the GOP needs to be more inclusive. The southern, old, white Christian men can not carry the day. They need to tap into the growing Hispanic population. They will need to include other religions. They will learn to temper their opposition with less divisive rhetoric. If they want to bring on new members, they have to first make sure they do not insult them.

They will still be able to hang on to core beliefs. They will just sell it from a different point of view. The new Republican Party can no longer demonize any and all opposition. Republicans need to find a way to deliver their message in a manner that does not first assault everyone who does not already share a specific value or position. They need to position a value or idea so that people can be persuaded to join, not forced adhere. The “it’s my way or the highway” mentality will not survive the 2010 elections.

Once the message has been tempered, and the audience expanded, the GOP will be better positioned to address the issues that are truly core to their image: fiscal responsibility, self-reliance, smaller government, states rights, lower taxes, less regulation. While I may not share these ideals, these are the discussions worth having.