Tortured
Today, it happened. I felt an a twinge that startled me. I stood still as he entered the room. I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine. Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years. In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed. Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder, what of his principles.
Early on, I knew that he and I differed in some respects. While we each loathe drama, I was never certain if he felt as I do; love need not be a tortuous trauma. Barry spoke of the need to work together. Yet, not necessarily in aspect of life. At times, he advocated aggressive actions I could not consider. This, for me, caused much confusion. Nonetheless, I liked the man I saw before me.
I recall the day we first met, face-to-face. We shook hands. He smiled. Barry was polite, not pushy. Amiable is the way I would describe him. Then, the second time we saw each other, we had a more extensive conversation. He took my hand in his. We each spoke with greater sincerity. As Barry and I chatted , he looked me straight in the eye. He listened to my personal tale. Visibly, he pondered the story I shared. Barry responded so genuinely to my inquiry, albeit an unconventional concern, I was surprised. Indeed, I was impressed, although less than I was when I read what he had written.
His books moved me. The more autobiographical tome endeared him to me. His notes on hope did not lack the spirit to inspire me. As one who "loves" to learn, which differs from the impulsive idea that I might be "in love," a person that can kindle my earnest thirst for knowledge truly electrifies me. I recall the moment I read the text that, all these years later, still resonates within me. Barry humbly offered, in a discussion of empathy . . .
Barry told tales of his mother, his grandfather, and how through his interactions with each he realized there is reason to think "about the struggles and disappointments" others have seen in their lives. Reflection helped the younger Barry understand, every individual is not solely right or wrong. If he were to insist that, his way was the only approach that worked, "without regard to his [or her] feelings or needs, I was in some way diminishing myself." Such awareness, such a superior soul; Barry showed what I believe to be a human's greatest strength, vulnerability. Were I to have a heart to win, the words of this gentle-man could have surely swept me off my feet.It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule – not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes.
Even his calm demeanor is as I desire and live. Those close to me wonder of my own emotional tranquility. From his manner and manuscript, it would seem Barry believes as I do. Empathy elicits equilibrium. Today, he seemed to embrace this notion once again. We can choose to love our neighbors. We need not torture "those who are different from us."
Near noon, on April 23, 2009, at the Holocaust days of Remembrance Ceremony, Barry, the now President of the United States, Barack Obama spoke of this belief again. Once more, I felt a pang for the person who oft-expressed a profound connection to the feelings of another. The sweet soul who can bring me to tears, did so once again. On this historic occasion, Barry shared a profound realization through a personal story. The subject; the Holocaust and the torture our forebears felt or beheld.
Stunned, by the saga, and the words that preceded the legend, I began to believe again. Perhaps the Barry I admire had a change of heart. Policies he never fully embraced, might not seem reasonable to him now.In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators -- someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence -- all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division -- the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.
During the campaign, Barry, Senator Barack Obama only promised to investigate, not to prosecute. Many months ago, before the August 2008 declaration, and thereafter, I had thought his stance reflected his vast ability to empathize. Yet, in the light of the ample evidence, most if not all of which affirms the Bush Administration engaged in extreme methods of interrogation, President Obama still supports or chooses to sustain a position that negates empathy for the victims. I shudder to think of how the Seventh Generation might be affected.
Hence, I am left to question what I thought was truth. Was the empathy I envisioned not as sincere as I hoped it to be? Perchance that is why, for me, love is as torture. I have faith no one has the power to disappoint me. Only my choices can be a source of much concern. For as long as I can recall, I have observed, once infatuation fades, we learn as I had before Barry entered the Oval Office. He is but another human. He embraces and then forgets, the power of empathy and the force of our past?
When, in homage to Holocaust victims, and survivors of a heinous hostility that forever stains world history, I sensed he knew. As I looked on, I forgot the setting. Intent on the torrent of news on torture techniques I read and heard throughout the day, I made an erroneous connection. As Barry, President Obama spoke of the deeds done in decades past, and those crimes committed by the previous Administration, I imagined the man I thought I knew meant to express empathy for those who suffered at the hands of Americans. The Chief Executive, on behalf of the United States avowed.
I cried. Tremendously thankful for the oratory, indeed, I must say, for a second, I was elated.. I wondered. Had the person many think beloved, the individual I at least treasure, decided to rescind his prior position?Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that "never again" isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?
I believe we start by doing what we are doing today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator.
In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.
Might he have rejected the thought offered recently; "nothing will be gained by our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Could it be the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony helped the President to renew his faith in his earlier expression; "(H)istory returns "with a vengeance . . . "(A)s Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried -- it isn't even past." I hoped.
Perchance, he had worked through a struggle I too experience. As one who has no desire to hurt others, even those who have physically and psychologically harmed individuals, and our country's image, how might I think prosecution is just?
I truly embrace such an honorable ability to seek no retribution. Indeed, I may not fall "in love"; nonetheless, I would hope to live love.
I feel harsh reprisals are never wise. I also accept the enduring wisdom of a finer balance. I have experienced the need to empathize and the conflict of what I might do if one I treasure intentionally injures another. I have come to discover, if deleterious deeds are allowed to stand, sooner or later the other, I, and perchance, society will be subjected to adulterations that individuals or a culture cannot endure.
Awful actions we accept, avoid, or merely do not acknowledge become a foundation for the future. Humans inure. Lest we forget the Milgram shock experiment of decades ago, or the knowledge that when repeated in the present, proves again, as a Psychologist, Thomas Blass, espoused in “The Man Who Shocked the World.” Milgram extrapolated, to larger events like the Holocaust, or Abu Ghraib. “people can act destructively without coercion." “In things like interrogations, we don’t know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results.”
I wonder how many Americans came to accept violence as a necessity on September 11, 2001. On that dreadful day, a date that now lives in infamy, all Americans were placed in a precarious position. With the threat of terror etched into our every cell, each of us had to ask, what were we to do. In the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father, the Barry, who I trusted to be so thoughtful whispered his woe for what might occur once the "world fractured." He penned . . .
Those are the words of the Barry I was inspired to meet, the person I was reminded of when he stood with an audience of individuals who never forget the agony of torture. Today, as that empathetic soul, the President referred to the future, the generations to come, he stated, "We find cause for hope" when "people of every age and faith and background and race (are) united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world." I thought of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay prison, and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the need to empathize with victims of "extreme duress."This collective history, this past, directly touches my own . . .
I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force, of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task. I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all.
Oblivious to the purpose of this particular speech, in my moment of stupor, I surmised Mister Obama had not only accepted the association, but perhaps had realized what could occur if the transgressions of the previous Administration were allowed to stand as if all was in the past.
"Barry," Barack, the Commander-In-Chief, further elucidated; "Those [persons] can be our future . . . (D)uring this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.
I imagined the reference was to empathy, to the paradigms I too embrace. Punishment offers no benefits for people. Yet, there is a need to prosecute the culpable, to ensure that people are answerable for the most atrocious aggressions. It is vital, if we wish to prevent the numbness that humans so easily adopt, we must bring torture to the full light of day. Torment executed in our names, I think Barry would agree, hurts us. Surely, General and President Eisenhower did. Mister Obama acknowledged this only hours ago.
Barry knows what President Obama. spoke of in his address at the Holocaust Day of Remembrance Ceremony Love needed not be tortured. Expressions of fondness are found in empathy, not extreme duress.Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity -- and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph.
What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence.
But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation -- it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war.
President Eisenhower understood as I had hoped, on this day, Barry Obama had. What occurs far from view is never truly unseen. Nor can avoidance erase the scars left on a heart. While as a country, or as individuals we may prefer to retreat to the attic as President Obama's great uncle did, in truth, it is impossible to forget.
People who participated know this to be so. A belatedly brave Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Ali Soufan, tell his tales of sorrowful love in My Tortured Decision. The mediator recalls how for seven years he has remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. Mister Soufan, as General Eisenhower did before him saw the need to "shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned."
I inquire; what will Barry do, and what of President Obama. Will the man who once held my hand and professed a need to be empathetic do as he declares his commitment? "(W)e have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges." Might he instead do as he hopes we will not, "wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own."
I can only hope Barry will encourage the President to heed his own call. "(W)e have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place . . ."
Let us never forget Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib, or any America penitentiary camp, need not be our holocaust. Tales of tortured love need not be an American truth.
References for tortured love . . .
- Remarks by the President at the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony. United States Capitol. April 23, 2009
- Our New Sort of War, It might be the most dangerous of all. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review. April 16, 2009
- Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'. Cable News Network. July 21, 2008
- Obama Challenges Grads to Cultivate Empathy, by Barack Obama. Northwestern University. June 19, 2006
- How Obama Did It, By Karen Tumulty. Time. June 5, 2008
- Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, By Barack Obama. 2004
- Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos. Office of the Press Secretary. White House. April 16, 2009
- On Interrogation Policies, Another Delicate Compromise From Obama, By Ben Pershing. Washington Post. April 17, 2009
- he Audacity of Hope, By Barack Obama
- Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture? By Mark Benjamin. Salon. August 4, 2008
- Science Chief Discusses Climate Strategy, Obama Adviser Hints at Compromise on Cap-and-Trade Emission Allowances. By Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. Thursday, April 9, 2009; A02
- A Guide to the Memos on Torture. The New York Times.
- Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?, By Benedict Carey. The New York Times. July 1, 2008
- William Faulkner.
- My Tortured Decision. By Ali Soufan. The New York Times. April 23, 2009
- In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture, Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said. By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick. Washington Post. Saturday, April 25, 2009
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 24, 2009 at 01:00 PM in Abuse, Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Prisons, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Iraq War, Lawbreakers, Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, War Crimes, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit] | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Faith; Legal Torture Need Not Be "Reasonable"
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Of this, I believe. I believe in honesty and empathy. I trust in reports that reveal in 2002, the Department of Justice assured the Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who violated anti-torture laws they would be safe from prosecution. Emissaries only need a sincere "faith they caused no "prolonged mental harm." I believe that neither branch of government cares for what I hold dear.
I trust that official organizations, allow for what are so innocently referred to as "Enhanced Techniques." Reasons for my view was revealed very recently. On July 24, 2008, Americans were presented with papers that affirm suspected terrorists are treated with disdain. Methods for inquisition are less than humane. Now, with certainty, I avow a belief, that for the United states government torture need not be "reasonable" to be ratified. Indeed, documentation verifies what I think to be true.
An inquisitionist cannot be charged with a crime if he, or she, is confident that they did not intentionally inflict pain on a detainee. Convinced that waterboarding is righteous, a representative of the Government can employ such a 'superior standard' to obtain information from alleged radical activists.
In an eighteen (18)-page document, ten pages of which are redacted, American Civil Liberties lawyers learned that American Intelligence agents were authorized to torment prisoners in custody. The August 1, 2002 memorandum just as the other papers delivered under duress to the American Civil Liberties Union, revealed “The Justice Department twisted the law, and in some cases ignored it altogether, in order to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project.
The 2002 communiqué, written by then Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee offers some insight into the "principles" that guided the Intelligence Agency.
Bybee outlined the definition of torture in Section 2340A of the United States code, focusing in part on its caveat that an act be "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Elaborating on his definition of the "specific intent" provision, Bybee narrows the definition to the point where it become functionally meaningless.All that is required to avoid prosecution is a CIA agent's "good faith belief" that his actions will not cause torturous pain and suffering. Such a belief "need not be reasonable," Bybee writes.
Other files may offer greater perspective. A specific discussion of waterboarding was perhaps, scrubbed from the 2002 correspondence. Clues are void. On most every page, paragraphs appear as opaque black boxes. Nonetheless, a hint of light affirms a long held belief. Torture was not only to be tolerated amongst agents. The authorities endorsed it. Through the Freedom of Information Act the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was able to acquire a 2004 memo from the CIA. This more recent record refers to . . .
The "classified August 2002 Department of Justice (DoJ) opinion stating that [redacted] interrogation techniques including the waterboard, do not violate the Torture Statute."
Oh joy, oh bliss; my beliefs are verified. Inhumane violence of any sort is sanctioned by government agencies meant to represent me. Of this, I believe. There is no Justice in the Justice Department and no Intelligence in the Central Intelligence agency. I have faith that fairness and astuteness are reflected in honesty and empathy.
Much to my sorrow, my country, presumed candid and compassionate, cares not for the rules of the Geneva Convention. Contrary to my most basic beliefs, cruelty is condoned in a country that prides itself on the principle that "all men are created equal," that is of course unless the man, woman, or child can be classified as an enemy combatant. Of this, I believe. There is reason for greater concern.
In another file, a 2003 communication from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Justice Department, offers further clarification. In this letter, my conviction is yet again confirmed. "Enhanced Techniques" are acceptable according to CIA headquarters. The memorandum speaks to the possibility of "even more coercive techniques." Apparently, less "timid" methods for torment could be "approved by Headquarters." While nigh on, all of the four-page dispatch is redacted, a reader can discover a touch of concern, although not for the detainee left to languish at the hands of an overly avid and aggressive interrogator. The angst expressed is for documentation. Regulations require that when Enhanced Techniques are employed . . .
"a contemporaneous record shall be created setting forth the nature and duration of each technique employed."
Although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all but a year earlier, destroyed at least two videotapes of enhanced interrogations the Justice Department has begun to take measures. An investigation, a criminal inquiry into the destruction of informative audiovisual accounts is underway. Yet, my belief in the depth and sincerity of the probe is tested. As I ponder the past and acknowledge, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first requested the papers released on Thursday, July 24, 2008 in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in 2004 my belief in the system wanes.
While the documents provide some more evidence of torture during George W. Bush's presidency, the ACLU says his administration continues to do all it can to avoid full scrutiny.“While the documents released today do provide more information about the development and implementation of the Bush administration's torture policies, even a cursory glance at the documents shows that the administration continues to use 'national security' as a shield to protect government officials from embarrassment, criticism and possible criminal prosecution,” Jaffer (Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project) said. “Far too much information is still being withheld."
Of this, I believe. Honesty and a love for humanity are not evident in the documentation the Central Intelligence Agency provided. Nor are compassionate qualities realized in Enhanced Techniques. The country, whose Constitution claims to honor the construct of equality exemplifies the contrary. ,I believe truthfulness and empathy must be embraced in more than papers if mankind is ever to achieve peace.
As I assess the recent disclosures, my faith in a shared desire for global tranquility becomes more fragile. Belief becomes hope. I hope that in a supposed inclusive society, Americans will not accept a belief in brutality. I yearn for a day when I can again state, "I believe in honesty and empathy," and trust that my government does too.
Torturous Terms . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 3, 2008 at 06:00 AM in Bush 43 Administration, Central Intelligence Agency, Policy, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Grim, Tortuous Fairy Tales, By Bush Administration; Ghost Writer, Justice Department
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Sit down my child and you shall hear the tale I tell of what was once revered. I know you are sleepy and need your rest. Perhaps, this parable will be the best anecdote for a body too busy to slumber. Close your eyes and count the sheep, as I whisper words that might make you weep. The fable is horrific, as most fantasies are. Nonetheless, my hope is the narrative will bestow great wisdom. When we contemplate the harsh realities of life we learn lessons. There are principles to digest, my darling. Too few discover; too many forget.
Two years earlier Americans were told the Justice Department forbade such measures. Yet, in truth they never had. This, dear one, is characteristic in a White house gone wild with power. In this our surreal Orwellian world, to torment is to be compassionate. To crush the body and spirit of a living soul is apparently considered conservative, neoconservative.
Americans in the year 2007 are as Alice in Wonderland. We observe ourselves in the looking glass, and we wonder. Is up, down; is the mission accomplished, or is this a protracted exercise extended indefinitely into the future. My child I sense you are confused and disheartened. So too am I. Take heed. In time, sleep will come. Dreams will fill your head. My hope is you will forget all the misery I speak of, just as others have done so many times before you.
I remind you of what we each experience daily. In recent years, the public has become dubious. Most suspect the current Bush Administration, our nation's leaders, falsify, tells half-truths, conceal, claim confidentiality, fabricate, or flounder. Nonetheless, citizens remain complacent. This recent October surprise is not treated as a revelation. It does nothing to excite or incite us into authentic action. As citizens, we do as we have done before, as you too shall do soon. We sleep. We utter barely a peep.
Granted, residents of the United States rant from the comfort of their over-stuffed chairs. Countrymen complain as they, we choke on the fumes from our grand gas-guzzlers. Yet, we drive. Millions of people fly inter and intrastate. Many travel abroad, just for fun, business too. Americans continue to pollute the skies. We resent the war for oil, the profits made on such a repugnant endeavor.
Citizens carp as we contemplate the cost of combat. The people are aware, that money could have been spent at home. The nation mourns the loss of life, American deaths and at times, the passing of an Iraqi. In cyberspace, communities clamor through their keyboards. Then we rest on our laurels.
Progressives say they elected a Democratic Congress. Certainly, that would make a difference. The 110th Congress, with Democrats in control, claim the first one hundred days a success. Yet, the war marches on.
For soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, time stands still. Families and friends hold their breath, fearful fathers, mothers, sons, and daughter will never return home. Those that have returned to native shores are not the same. Although, 'enemy forces' have not captured the American soldiers that found their way back to the States, the troops have been tortured.
Soldiers dressed in camouflage have stayed away too long. Each day American men and women awake in a land far from their native shore. Enlistees that once believed they had purpose; they could bring freedom to Iraqi have seen the cost of liberty is not cheap. The price is far greater than these young persons ever expected to pay. Children, barely out of high school have seen blood and the guts of their friends splattered on their shoes.
War on the streets of Baghdad is nothing like the battles on a video screen. Death, in the name of democracy, or G-d is not as holy as our leaders would want us to believe. American troops have witnessed an effective insurgency, one beyond imagination. Rebels that feel they have a cause are never as groomed in warfare as a trained soldier may be. Speaking on the resourcefulness of Iraqi revolutionaries Sergeant Benjamin Flanders, Army National Guard states . . .
It was very effective, and the thing they have us beat at is the human intelligence side. Maybe you can speak more to this, but they can use cruel and unusual methods in order to extract information from people that we couldn't use. There is sort of this, like, torture -- that word is getting thrown around -- well, the true torture is when you behead innocent civilians and throw them on the side of the road, which we came upon more than once. That's how they get their message across.
Torture is the topic of the day. It was in 2005. It has been the source of much discussion for years, ever since this strange, fantastic, dreamlike drama began. You my dear sweetness might recall, we read fables together so long ago. By candlelight, on another quiet evening, we gazed upon the pages and pondered.
I tucked those texts away. There they sit safe on the bookshelf. I sensed when we read these memorandums together they were too severe, too shocking; they upset you so. My darling the words on those pages, the images they evoked were too much for me. In truth, I was emotionally paralyzed by the verbiage. What I envisioned weighed on my heart. What have we wrought. The havoc, the harm, one human might do to another. It is unthinkable. Perhaps, one day we will wish to review the references again. For now, may they just remain close at hand.
Ah, but that was so long ago my adorable beloved. We studied that ghastly folio when you were but a baby in my arms. We cooed. We cuddled. In those, medieval days, the Dark ages, you and I were certain man would never be so cruel. Thus, we drifted off to dreamland and trusted. We had faith in our fair leader as we must today for the President, and his Cabinet, remain steadfast. "We do not torture." The words ring out and have for what must be eons, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Indeed, since the latest exposure the frequency of this rhetoric has increased. The volume is vociferous.
Only days ago, George W. Bush proclaimed, America does not persecute, cause undue harm, harass, or forcefully torment those in custody. The President postured, the United States does not torture. Our government captures, confines, holds enemy combatants in custody, and castigates forcibly in order to safeguard Americans from harm.
Bush Says US 'Does Not Torture'
By Jennifer LovenWashington (AP) — President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects on Friday, saying both are successful and lawful.
"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them," he said during a hastily called Oval Office appearance. "The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."
Bush volunteered his thoughts on a report on two secret 2005 memos that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said.
The adorable Press Secretary, Dana Perino substantiates the declaration. Defiantly, this wily and wondrous woman mesmerized the media as she denounced the conclusion, Americans torture. Secret decrees aside, we would never do anything that was not in the best interest of the people. United States Intelligence does as is necessary. Their mission is as the President's and the Justice Department's, to protect and defend the nation.
In this new war, which is an unprecedented war, facing an enemy unlike we've ever faced before, sometimes -- oftentimes the best information that you get is from the terrorists themselves. They know where the other terrorists are hiding and what the other terrorists are planning. And to win the war on terror we must be able to detain them, interrogate them, question them, and when appropriate, prosecute them -- in America -- when we capture them here in America and on battlefields around the world. The policy of the United States is not to torture. The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it.But he had done everything within the corners of the law to make sure that we prevent another attack on this country, which is what we have done in this administration. I am not going to comment on any specific alleged techniques. It is not appropriate for me to do so. And to do so would provide the enemy with more information for how to train against these techniques. And so I am going to decline to comment on those, but I will reiterate to you once again that we do not torture. We want to make sure that we keep this country safe.
"Safety" is the sanctuary that gives credence to what occurs in those corners of the law. It is for security sake that we retain the President, our protector. This magnificent man has decided to spread democracy aggressively, and we the people follow his lead, no matter where it takes us. George W. Bush is the law. He is the Commander-In-Chief. If this compassionate conservative thinks the mission is worthwhile, apt, or accomplished, who are we to argue.
Soldiers may see the war effort differently. However, if they do not understand the purpose and the profound contribution they make to the greater good of our society then they must be "phony soldiers." In a News Hour interview that aired just two years ago, we can sense the inner struggle a service man or woman might feel. Patrick Resta, a former combat medic was among those that spoke. Specialist Resta shared his thoughts.
Margaret Warner:: All right, let me get Patrick Resta in here. And Patrick Resta, you were a combat medic with the Army National Guard. How did all of this look from your end in terms of the U.S. troops' tactics and, for that matter, equipment? Did it appear to you that the U.S. approach was making progress?Specialist Patrick Resta: No, it didn't. I was told I was going there to help the Iraqi people. And then once I got there, I found out that I could not treat them unless they were about to die and the injury had been caused either directly or indirectly by U.S. forces, such as an IED going off or a car bomb going off or somebody being shot at a checkpoint, or something like that. So I don't think that's really conducive to getting people on your side.
There was one night in particular where a local Iraqi walked to the gate of our camp after he had been beaten up pretty severely and pistol-whipped, and basically the people in town told him that if he came back to town they would kill him if they saw him in town again. And he came up to our gate begging for help. I went out there, you know, to dress his wounds and take care of him.
And he was begging me to save his life and he was just, you know, turned away and told, you know, "Go to the Iraqi police and they'll help you," which, you know, it's after nightfall and the police aren't functioning, especially not in my area. So it was that kind of callous disregard that really set in what's really going on over there for me.
Oh sweetness, I know this tale is hard to take. I see you are troubled. Breathe deeply my love. Take heart. Americans raged. They released the anger they felt. However, ultimately, they accepted. There was not time then; nor are there sufficient days now to impeach this President or his Cabinet. Congress cannot act. Such measures might detract from the broader coalitions purpose, to get elected in 2008.
I understand dear heart. There is much frustration. Sleep tight. This too shall pass. Signing statements, secret judgments that allow for torture, substantiation, Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11, nothing seems to prompt the people to act. Perchance they too are tired. Rest your head on my shoulder love. Soon, it will all be over.
Yes, yes, the Administration misled the public; citizens recognize this. However, no matter the depth of deception, most Americans choose to relent. Our countrymen believe they can do nothing to stop what this White House does. If a former Prisoner of War, one that avidly supports the war effort, cannot help this Administration see the light, what can a lowly citizen Progressive do. Possibly, those on the Right that now reject the need for this battle are too embarrassed to express what they also observe. The Emperor has no clothes. Nor do we, the jesters.
My child, the words of Senator John McCain were strong. He spoke from experience. McCain challenged conventional wisdom and the Commander-In-Chief. Yet, his profound assessment fell on deaf ears. You recollect.
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering.
There was a glimmer of anticipation, as improbable as it was. Publicly Progressive rejoiced. Even the hardened delighted. A legal decision was handed down in December 2004. The Justice Department publicly proclaimed the deliberate infliction of severe physical pain is "abhorrent." Politically astute, no matter the Party, citizens truly welcomed this judgment. Yet, we knew. The most informed among our countrymen were well aware that as day turned to night, we could not deny, nothing was different. Nor would it be in this nightmare of a novel.
Friend and foe alike were subject to torture. George W. Bush and the neoconservatives were and are on a mission. While they say it was accomplished, they also acknowledge without a win, we, the Americans will not leave the land we have destroyed. A legacy is at stake.
Americans hold onto hope. The President is expected to leave office in January 2009, G-d willing. Thus, the people of this country are encouraged.
My sweet child, the electorate must purposely delude themselves. Whimsy is the only action that might allow them to remain sane. People do not wish to think of the pain they, the American people inflict on soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, women, and children at home and abroad. Civilians prefer to ponder change will come when Bush exits the White House. Thus, the people wait patiently. They can, for Americans sleep well in their cozy beds.
Fluff the pillows. Snuggle up in the comforter. Bring another blanket into the room. It is chilly out there. Perhaps it is colder in our hearts.
When the Iraqi government felt a need to recess, for the temperature was one hundred and twenty degrees plus, Americans were angry. Plump people seated in air-conditioned rooms expressed their disdain for those that struggle to work in a war torn country with little to no electricity.
Understandably, Americans are distracted. They are excited. An election is on the horizon. A large percentage of the population longs for the 2008 appointment of a President. Each state can hardly wait to participate. The Primaries cannot come soon enough. From Florida to California, every region wishes to be the first to pick the "winner." With a sigh I state, I believe we are all losers. I wonder how we sleep. I can only muse.
The peaceful among us, those that honor humanity, and the rules of Geneva Convention chose to forget what they, we, wish were not true. Oh, they protested with vigor; however, ultimately, they had jobs to consider, bills to pay, a family to support. Their strength was quelled by the demands of life. Assertive pacifists understood as they have throughout the President's term, this White House deliberately and delicately defines the term "torture." In America, the Bush Bunch is the medium and the message.
The White House and the Justice department were kind enough to hide the truth for a time. Cognitive dissonance can be so wonderful; it allows for necessary rest. Peaceniks needed time to feel settled, to sense that they made a difference. The stress was too much for the non-combative. They, my dear were losing sleep. That would not do. In a Capitalist society, the everyday chump must be fit, fresh, and ready to take on the most routine of days.
In times of war, production is important. There are profits to consider. Ah, my child. Do not fret. Perhaps, this tale too is but a dream. Official opinions come and go. I know you heard as I did, the good President Bush Defend[ed] CIA's Clandestine Prisons. He said, 'We Do Not Torture.' Well, perhaps we do, just a pinch. Nonetheless, it was good to stay in the dark. The light hurts my eyes. Does it not bother you my little love? What is it they say, "ignorance is bliss?" Ah, to be joyous again. However, the real news invades our space once more.
The Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.
Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.
Progressives did not doubt that this truth would be exposed, eventually. Still, they do not act as they might. Perchance, they are too war weary to do what they no longer think possible. Too much time has passed. In late 2007, the public says there is no time to impeach this President or his Vice. Liberals listen to interviews. We mumble and crumble. We hear the words and yet, we sit still.
In defense of such an odious offense, Homeland Security Advisor, Fran Townsend speaks to the media. Journalist, Wolf Blitzer of The Situation Room inquires of the torment inflicted on a previous guest.
Blitzer: We're joined by the White House homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend. She's joining us from the White House. You just heard this former inmate -- this former detainee at Guantanamo Bay say I was beaten, shackled, spat at, kicked, punched, stripped naked, left in isolation sometimes naked, hog tied. What do you say to that charge that he's making? In effect, experts say, that amounts torture.Fran Townsend, White House Homeland Security Advisor: OK. Well, let's back up and be very clear. You've heard Dana Perino say it today. You heard the president say it numerous times -- the United States does not torture. Do we have a program?
Yes, we do. It is -- it is very limited. There have been fewer than 100 people in it. But it has pro -- and the people who participate in that program are carefully trained, with more than 250 hours of training. The average age of an interrogator is 43. They're not just interrogators who are part of the team. There are also subject matter experts and individuals who are there to monitor the health and psychological well-being of the detainee himself.
We start with the har -- the least harsh measures first. It stops after it -- if someone becomes cooperative. And let's be clear, Wolf, this -- this is a -- this is a program that was used when Abu Zubaydah was in custody and not being cooperative. He had clearly been trained in resistance techniques to interrogation. This -- this -- and these techniques...
Blitzer: All right, well, let's go through...
Townsend: Well, wait a minute, Wolf.
Blitzer: Yes.
Townsend: These techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah. It produced actionable intelligence that resulted in the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh. This is -- this -- these programs stop attacks.
Blitzer: All right, well, let's go through some of the specifics and you tell us if you're doing that. For example, the "New York Times" says these memos authorized not only slaps to the head, but hours held naked in a frigid cell, days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music, long periods manacled in stress positions or the ultimate -- water boarding. "Never in history," the "Times" says, "has the United States authorized such tactics." Is that true?
Townsend: Now, Wolf, obviously I'm not going to talk about each individual and specific technique that we used. The director of Central Intelligence has talked to members of both Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate. He -- what he did was he understood this was not just a legal question, but there was a policy issue and there's a political willingness question.
Frankly, Wolf, if Americans are killed because we fail to do the hard things, the American people would have the absolute right to ask us why.
We inquire, then, we wait. Americas do not move en masse to the streets of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, or Des Moines. Small town USA remains quiet. While boulevards are bustling, the sounds are not of crowds up in arms. What we hear is commerce in action.
Congress may be in session; however, they continue to be disconnected. Americans, distrustful and with reason, do not telephone House Leader Nancy Pelosi and state, "Impeachment must be on the table." Those proud to be labeled rebels excitedly await the 2008 election. Most are so overjoyed by the prospect that they might throw the Bushies out.
I know my love, 'tis true, as the Democrats dance and dicker, people in foreign lands fight for their lives. Again, the ability to hold two distinct beliefs simultaneously is quite the art. It calms the soul and lives large amongst all of us. Many think one of the three lovelies is their only hope.
If George W. Bush is the sinister character in this drama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are the dynamic duo or trio. Surely, one of these three will save the day. Hillary is high in the polls. She is strong, savvy, and brings Bill with her. Obama supporters purport he is the one. This man has style. Barack is smooth, article. People gravitate to him as they would a rock-star. Edwards is as a prince to those enamored with his casual charismatic manner, his broad grin, and his profound gaze. He has charm, chutzpah; and a wife that won the hearts of a nation.
People throughout the nation presume to believe they can pick a winner and will before the November 2008 general election. Thus, impatient Americans gather together to support the sole candidate that they trust to prevail, regardless of the fact that the war will not end under her, or his leadership.
Dems can't make guarantee on Iraq troops
By Beth Fouhy
Associated Press
Wed Sep 26, 9:26 PM ETThe three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they could not guarantee that all U.S. combat troops would be gone from Iraq by 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Nonetheless, the public does not pause or blink. Presidential hopefuls pander in their attempts to explain what they truly meant, or at least some do. It matters not. When charmed, captivated, and determined to believe the Democrats must and will conquer the eyes glaze over. Ear cavities close. Brain cells become numb. People refuse to give up that dream; the troops will come home if a Democrat is in the Oval Office.
I suspect my love, those that truly yearn for peace long to sleep through the night. That is the only thought that might explain why people that profess peace happily embrace the notion of five more years of battle.
I have to trust numerous Americans tossed and turned too frequently in the dark of night since America attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq. I did. Perchance, some are so desperate for relief they say, anyone but Bush. I do believe war can wound the psyche, planet wide. When soldiers and civilians die, I have to believe sensitive souls feel the pain, consciously or not.
Perhaps, my beloved I am in error. I observe brutal battles among those that claim to be Progressive. In cyberspace, communities crumble under the weight of differences. Defiance in the name of self-defense thrives. On the street corners, I hear peace protesters scream with delight as they dodge and weave the barbs thrown at them. Often, those that march in the name of harmony aggress against those that support the wars.
Maybe sweet one, some genuinely catch a snooze. For a few, peace protests may be a crusade. Professed pacifists, some, also wish for victory. Possibly, they sleep when they sense blood in the water. Could it be, for such Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals a win at any costs is the mantra they embrace just as those on the Right do? I know not young one. I only wonder how those that think, triumph is strength, sleep. Perhaps the answer is obvious. Americans when distressed; find respite in drugs. A Pharmaceutical stupor might explain why we the people are willing to accept what we do.
War through 2013 is now wonderful, practical, and Presidential. Torture is not a high crime nor is it a misdemeanor. When without slumber, a prolonged war is peace. Poverty is prosperity. What was grim is welcome. Yes, my dearest, Americans have been down so long it is beginning to look like up and we have been up too long.
Oh precious one, I know this tale is distressing. The trauma, the drama, the dreadful torture, and the time, it all slips away as we watch and wait for more what, Godot. We heard the President, his Press Secretary, and the homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend say "America does not torture." We are not reassured. Americans may ask, "How do they sleep at night?" The answer must be as the question, "How do we!"
I wish you pleasant dreams little one. Say your prayers. "Now I lie me down to sleep. Pray the Lord my soul to keep, for if one more person dies before I wake, if another individual is tortured as I slumber . . . Oh G-d, Allah, the Almighty, the greatest powers within the universe let the planet sleep. Please bring serenity and peace to us all.
Little love, I promise, tomorrow will be a better day. I will share the story of a Don Quixote Dennis Kucinich. The miracle man tilts at windmills. He imagines what others think the impossible dream. The Kucinich tale is inspirational. The narrative uplifts the soul. As the big business bullies battled with Dennis, decades ago, when they demanded he give up his principles and bow to them at the expense of the common people, dreamer Kucinich remained strong and resolute. This magnificent man did not allow the brutes to intimidate him. Muny Light remained the people's utility.
Years later as a nation declared war. Dennis Kucinich spoke only of "Strength through peace." This Presidential aspirant helps us believe in man's humanity to his fellow man. My child, you will wake and all will be well. With Dennis Kucinich in your mind, heart, and in the Oval Office we can bring the troops home, cut the funds, and truly cast the President and Vice President aside. If only I had read the Kucinich legend to you long ago, perhaps we could have removed the scourge before they had done so much damage.
Perchance, with the wisdom I share when you awake, my dear heart, you too will feel empowered. Honey Bun, might the legend of Don Dennis Kucinich help encourage us all to impeach our present rulers, to be the change we imagine. The time left in their term is already too long. I cannot endure more tales of torture; can you?
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 8, 2007 at 04:23 PM in Abuse, Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General , Bush 43 Administration, Central Intelligence Agency, Domestic Security, Ethics, Humans, Self-Destructive, Impeach GW Bush, Iraq War, Lies, Military Missions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
General Hayden Nominated. Hope Reigns For Rumsfeld Resignation? ©
Will the General work well with his associates? One can never know. The past cannot always be a predictor, though this time I hope it is.
Negroponte, the man that watches over the nation’s 15 intelligence agencies, and Goss, former Director of the Central Intelligence agency, were friends for decades. They were even fraternity brothers at Yale. However, in recent months, they have become adversaries.
A year into his tenure, Porter Goss was forced to relinquish some of his powers to Director Negroponte. CIA Director Goss would no longer oversee the president's daily intelligence briefings. Negroponte would. Negroponte would bring CIA personnel under his wing; analytical functions of the agency were also turned over to his burgeoning control. Directors Negroponte and Goss began to fight regularly; the screams echoed loudly throughout the Capital. Morale was low. Ultimately, Goss resigned his post, but not in accordance with the President’s plan. The President preferred a smoother transition.
Nevertheless, Goss is gone. Whether the reasons are mysterious or not and Hayden can now become his successor. Oh joy, oh bliss, Bush believes, though there is much dissent. I am among those with have misgivings; yet, I am elated, even encouraged. Could this appointment originate theatre of the absurd?
I do not want the Director of Central Intelligence to be military strategist. A man with a mind for war does not seem the best choice for a country that claims to want peace. The thought frightens me. I disdain the idea of appointing a person that favors spying on the public. This scares me more than his military expertise might. That this General believes the best way to alleviate terrorism is to eliminate the right to privacy is, to me, unforgivable. Hayden’s declarations and distrustful posture causes me to shiver; still I have hope. You might wonder why that would be.
After all you know, as do I, in December 2005, Michael V. Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Agency and now Deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, spoke in support of a contentious plan, one that violates the civil rights of citizens, and is, in fact, illegal.
General Hayden was among those that crafted and executed this controversial eavesdropping scheme. He and his cohorts thought the mission worthy; therefore, they saw no need to obtain official warrants before breaching our rights. They chose to indiscriminately intercept domestic phone calls and electronic mail messages without regard for the laws of this country. Yet, I think there is anything good that might come from his appointment; never you say.
You might wish to remind me of what I do recall, Hayden and the White House claim if one of the parties is thought to have links to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations then actions must be taken, no matter their legitimacy. General Hayden declared these unlawful measures were apt, and even necessary.
Dear reader, are you now offering me these words of wisdom? In January 2006, Air Force General Hayden stated openly at a National Press Club meeting, "It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused.”
Yes, I know and I too wonder, “Targeted and focused” on whom and with what certainty. I can only ask and likely, I will receive no answer from the powers that be; however, ‘Can we trust the intelligence of those that showed none prior to September 11, 2001, or after?’ I do not. I am confident that you think believing in these bullies is unwarranted. I do too. Yet, I do not believe in these bandits, but in their ability to self-destruct.
As I expressed early on in this exposé, I fear this appointment. However, I am still inclined to think this nomination might be best.
My hope may be fleeting for I recall, on December 11, 2000, the day before George W. Bush was selected President of the United States by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I was reflecting upon the possibility. I theorized if Bush were imposed on a reluctant public, and the rightful candidate, Albert A. Gore was refused his due process, “How bad could it be?”
At that time, I never imagined what Baby Bush could and would do. I had no conception of what he would create or more accurately destroy. Who knew the Constitution itself could be threatened and finally defeated? Then, I did not. Now, I do and I regret that statement.
Currently, I realize reality can be far worse than any fiction or fable. I acknowledge that I am likely to be repentant after I make this assertion; nevertheless, I will state it. Hayden might be the catalyst for a Rumsfeld dismissal or resignation and that, I think, cannot be bad. Granted this is a hope and probably not a possibility. Yet, each time I hear a report discussing this nominee, there is discussion of how the two men disagree often.
There are those that tout the "natural leadership qualities" of Hayden and this causes me to dream. Others surmise that since Hayden is technically an agent of the Defense Department, Rumsfeld will remain the stronger; he will have the upper hand. Nevertheless, there are still others that speak of General Hayden’s strong will and outspokenness.
Many suggest he resign his commission; a large number say his military title will have no influence. It is his demeanor that matters. For me, I hope that he is de-meaner of the two and that his strong will and persuasive hand will out force out his foe. A girl can dream. I can hope that the Secretary of Defense will fall. However, I must be prepared for what may follow. I remember when I reflected and thought how bad could Bush be.
For your review . . .
• Profile: Michael V Hayden BBC News, May 8, 2006
• Top C.I.A. Pick Has Credentials and Skeptics, By Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti. New York Times. May 6, 2006
• UPDATE! General Formally Named to Lead CIA, By Peter Baker and Charles Babington. Washington Post. Tuesday, May 9, 2006
• White House Begins Push for C.I.A. Pick, By Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse, New York Times. May 9, 2006
• Hayden May Replace Goss at CIA By Scott Simon and Mary Louise Kelly. National Public Radio
• Goss Forced Out as CIA Director; Gen. Hayden Is Likely Successor, By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus. Washington Post. Saturday, May 6, 2006
• The Next Head of the CIA? By Mike Allen AND Timothy J. Burger. Time Magazine. riday, May. 05, 2006
• Bush Faces Fight in Nominating Hayden as CIA Head, Reuters. Monday 8 May 2006
• George W. Bush, Petitioners v.
Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Supreme Court of The United States
• Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• GORE, Albert Arnold, Jr., [1948-]
• Election 2000 Timeline
• White House tries to allay concerns about Hayden, By Mark Silva and Stephen J. Hedges. KansasCity.com, originally published in The Chicago Tribune. Monday, May. 08, 2006
• Remarks By General Michael V. Hayden National Press Club. Monday, January 23, 2006
On May 8, 2006, the day of this writing, minds met unexpectedly.
Please peruse another editorial . . .
With thanks to ksh01 for sharing this link and the author, Steve Clemons.
Misreading Michael Hayden's Role in the Intelligence Bureaucracy Wars: Negroponte Wants Hayden to Battle with -- Not Help – Rumsfeld The Washington Note
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 8, 2006 at 05:37 PM in Central Intelligence Agency, Civil Rights, Current Affairs, Director of Central Intelligence , John D. Negroponte, Director National Intelligence, Porter Goss | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Civil Disobedience, Thoreau, Anti-Iraq War Tax Resisters, Mary McCarthy ©
The topic was, “Refusing to Pay Taxes: Civil Disobedience and the Iraq war.” I read. Then I began pondering the actions of these “defiant” peace protesters. Many of the persons discussed in this essay were not willing to contribute their tax obligation to a country engaged in war; yet, they were willing to give their funds to charities. These individuals consciously choose to donate their tax duties to organizations that embody a civic-minded philosophy. However, society labels them civilly disobedient. I wonder.
Since that day, my mind has been absorbed in the idea of Civil Disobedience. Today, I think of the dismissed Central Intelligence agent, Mary McCarthy. I read the papers, listen to the news, and I ponder. Is the phrase a misnomer? When we peacefully act in accordance with the founding principles of our forefathers, are we civilly disobedient or caring and concerned citizens? I believe we are the latter.
Currently Mary McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer once assigned to the White House, is in the battle of a lifetime.
This Central Intelligence agent, and analyst, was recently released from her post and accused of leaking classified information on the rumored CIA prisons. Mrs. McCarthy was given a lie detector test, failed, and then confessed. On Thursday, April 21, 2006, McCarthy was escorted by agents from her CIA offices, This woman was publicly humiliated, while only a week earlier, Washington Post reporter, Dana Priest was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her reports on the prisons.
The dichotomy is fascinating. Mrs. Mary McCarthy is also accused of civil disobedience. Dana Priest is praised for disclosing the same information. Some think McCarthy and her disclosures are treasonous. Yet, they think the public has a right to know and they applaud Ms. Priest. I question these cross-judgments. Why would one woman be scorned as “civilly disobedient,” and the other praised as socially dutiful? How do we define the term “civil disobedience?”
I feel certain some would consider both women wrong; others might think them each saintly. Even the phrase civil disobedience can be defined as a good or bad. I think this needs to be discussed. I am asking for discourse. I pose my belief. When acted upon peacefully, with intentions to better the system, not abolish it, I consider the phrase my definition of “principled lessons in civics.” I think the apathetic disobedient
I believe if we truly care about our country, we participate, peacefully. We communicate and ask for a dialogue, or present circumstances that create one. I think citizens have a right and duty to improve our nation. We must commit to excellence. We must work towards a peaceful union. I think if we follow our “leaders” blindly, then we are not acting as responsible, concerned citizens. We are merely compliant and not publicly minded.
Our government is meant to be a body that represents us, not decides for us. Sadly, in recent decades the “government” is seen as a separate entity. People in today’s world often consider themselves pawns, not powerful or vital. They no longer see themselves as the solution; they think of themselves as helpless. I struggle with this reality.
I believe that as individuals, and as part of a greater group we need to reflect, to act with intent, so that we might grow greater. To this vision, I am inviting you dear reader to join me in a discussion of Civil disobedience. To facilitate this dialogue, I am offering some thoughts of my own. Please feel free to comment.
In reference to Central Intelligence agent Mary McCarthy, what were her motivations and might they possibly have been more honorable than those of the President? Does this woman not have a history of caring? Does she contemplate the causes and effects of American actions, specifically aggressive assaults? It seems from her co-workers, she does.
In a New York Times article, “Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by the Rules,” By David S. Cloud, Mrs. McCarthy is said to be quite a cordial worker. She is comprehensive in her investigations and states her concerns openly. She is known to be thorough and appreciates the same. Her posture favors humanitarian efforts and not those that are hasty, unthinking, or knee-jerk.
"We're talking about a person with great integrity, who played by the book and, as far as I know, never deviated from the rules," said Steven Simon. Mr. Simon was a Security Council aide in the Clinton administration. He worked closely with Mary McCarthy while serving the former President and he trusts that Mrs. McCarthy is honorable.
According to former government officials, in 1998, Mrs. McCarhty warned former President Bill Clinton that the plan to militarily strike a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan relied on inconclusive intelligence. Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer has long stood for informed decisions. She frowned upon aggressive attacks that she believed did not promote a civil stance. One former co-worker attributes this to her disdain for clandestine agenda.
"She was always of the view that she would rather not get her hands dirty with covert action” says Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. official. Scheuer also served during the Clinton years. He claims to have been in meetings with Ms. McCarthy when she voiced her misgivings. Mr. Scheuer recalls that McCarthy had strong suspicions about the intelligence on Al Qaeda. She expressed her doubts to Mr. Clinton; she wondered whether chemical weapons were being produced in these Sudanese factories and thought it better to be certain before attacking.
However, the strike took place just as they were planned. Ms. McCarthy's qualms did not stop the retaliatory aggression against Al Qaeda. After all, Americans want revenge and two American embassies were bombed in East Africa. Nevertheless, this earlier incident, and the current discussion of McCarthy leaks as they pertain to what some consider American abuse, do demonstrate that this woman is willing to dispute intelligence data and the methods sanctioned by her “superiors.” She can and does question authority. Is this wrong?
Is it not the manner in which we, as a people, as part of a republic choose to defy, challenge, or confront the circumstances that matters. Can we register our complaints with compassion? Can we communicate carefully in our attempt to reconcile our conscious and still be civilly obedient? I think so. I offer this component to the dialogue.
In the Christian Science Monitor article, "When the Tax Man cometh, they don't answer the bell," many tax resisters were interviewed. Some, I think were merely manipulating a system that they disdained. Others, such as Mrs. Ruth Benn of Brooklyn, New York are my heroes. Mrs. Benn did not hide her actions or beliefs; she stated these proudly. In a letter to the Internal Revenue Services, submitted with her 1040 form, she explained why she was not enclosing a check and where her funds were sent.
This lovely and thoughtful woman filed her 1040 on time. She communicated her concerns stating, “I do not want my tax dollars to be used for killing and war." That sentiment for me is truly civil. Apparently, an approximate 10,000 other Americans did the same; they too withheld their tax payments. They also object to this less than sanctioned war.
There were those persons that did not pay their taxes for religious reasons, others because they conscientiously object to war. Numerous individual were motivated by “personal politics.” However, these individuals chose, in good conscious to donate the duty-bound capital to charities. They wished to commit to causes that were indeed working towards a greater good.
Philosophically, this practice works well for me. I do not understand those that think killing, maiming, and aggressively attacking those that disagree with them promotes a sense of community. Nor do I comprehend how reactive behaviors such as these can be considered egalitarian or democratic. For me, when the government dictates deeds that are counter to the common good, then it is not being civil, polite, or acting for the common good.
I do struggle however, with the reactive stance of those that hide and purposely avoid paying their taxes. Those that do not communicate their reasoning and rationalize that they need not, I consider less than ethical and aware. I believe, as John Donne did, that “No man [woman, child, or being] is an island.” if we are to exist well together, we must work collectively and support each other.
When our countrymen in Congress do not represent us, we must stand and be counted. After all, this government was founded on the principles of civil consciousness. We are a government “of, by, and for” the people. If we are to truly be the United States of America, we must work as “us.”
Is a signature on a social security card similar to that on a professional contract? When we sign either, do we lose our right to question indignities imposed by a warring government?
When we know of activities that go against the grain of what is commonly considered for the common good and civilized, then, I believe we must speak. We need to take a stand respectfully. Participating in practices that promote man’s inhumanity to man for me is not glorious; speaking against them is. If questioning behaviors that glorify killing and maiming is considered legally disobedient, then I am willing to advocate defiance.
I strongly suspect Mary McCarthy and Ruth Benn felt they were obeying a higher authority than that of the Bush Band, one that is benevolent and not hiding behind the phrase “compassionate conservative.” They did not think themselves disobedient. I believe they thought they had an obligation to goodness, grace, and to their community. If this is true, then I support them. I even think them courageous. And you, what do you think?
The following references may help you to decide . . .
• Troubled Times: An online journal of policy and politics
• When the Tax Man cometh, they don't answer the bell By Chris Gaylord. The Christian Science Monitor. April 14, 2006
• Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
• C.I.A. Employee Fired for Alleged Leak, By David Johnston and Scott Shane, New York Times. April 21, 2006
• CIA Fires Employee for Alleged Leak By Katherine Shrader, Associated Press
• Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by the Rules By David S. Cloud. New York Times. April 23, 2006
• CIA Officer Is Fired for Media Leaks By Dafna Linzer. Washington Post Saturday, April 22, 2006
• CIA Leaker Shown Door
• NBC: CIA officer fired after admitting leak By Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News. April 21, 2006
• Dana Priest: 2006 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Category of Beat Reporting
• Peace.protest.net: An eye for an eye will only leave the world blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
Please listen to this eloquent link . . . Altruism may be alive and well, even within the CIA.
All Things Considered, April 24, 2006 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that most government officials who leak confidential information think of themselves as true whistle-blowers. They are motivated by a desire to serve the public interest.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 23, 2006 at 08:39 PM in American Patriotism, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Ethics, Iraq War, Peaceful Protests, Philosophy, Refusing to Pay Taxes, Ruth Benn, Anti-Iraq War Tax Resisters | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
