Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Court Decision That Reflects What Type of Country the US Is
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity
It's not often that an appellate court decision reflects so vividly what a country has become, but such is the case with yesterday's ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Arar v. Ashcroft (.pdf). Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing. I've appended to the end of this post the graphic description from a dissenting judge of what was done to Arar while in American custody and then in Syria.
In January, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister publicly apologized to Arar for the role Canada played in these events, and the Canadian government paid him $9 million in compensation. That was preceded by a full investigation by Canadian authorities and the public disclosure of a detailed report which concluded "categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada." By stark and very revealing contrast, the U.S. Government has never admitted any wrongdoing or even spoken publicly about what it did; to the contrary, it repeatedly insisted that courts were barred from examining the conduct of government officials because what we did to Arar involves "state secrets" and because courts should not interfere in the actions of the Executive where national security is involved. What does that behavioral disparity between the two nations say about how "democratic," "accountable," and "open" the United States is?
Yesterday, the Second Circuit -- by a vote of 7-4 -- agreed with the government and dismissed Arar's case in its entirety. It held that even if the government violated Arar's Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him. Why? Because "providing a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns" (p. 39). In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them.
Reflecting the type of people who fill our judiciary, the judges in the majority also invented the most morally depraved bureaucratic requirements for Arar to proceed with his case and then claimed he had failed to meet them. Arar did not, for instance, have the names of the individuals who detained and abused him at JFK, which the majority said he must have. As Judge Sack in dissent said of that requirement: it "means government miscreants may avoid [] liability altogether through the simple expedient of wearing hoods while inflicting injury" (p. 27; emphasis added).
The commentary about this case from Harper's Scott Horton perfectly captures the depravity of what our Government has done -- and continues to do -- to Arar. His analysis should be read in its entirety, and he concludes with this:
When the history of the Second Circuit is written, the Arar decision will have a prominent place. It offers all the historical foresight of Dred Scott, in which the Court rallied to the cause of slavery, and all the commitment to constitutional principle of the Slaughter-House Cases, in which the Fourteenth Amendment was eviscerated. The Court that once affirmed that those who torture are the "enemies of all mankind" now tells us that U.S. government officials can torture without worry, because the security of our state might some day depend upon it.
I want to add one principal point to all of this. This is precisely how the character of a country becomes fundamentally degraded when it becomes a state in permanent war. So continuous are the inhumane and brutal acts of government leaders that the citizens completely lose the capacity for moral outrage and horror. The permanent claims of existential threats from an endless array of enemies means that secrecy is paramount, accountability is deemed a luxury, and National Security trumps every other consideration -- even including basic liberties and the rule of law. Worst of all, the President takes on the attributes of a protector-deity who can and must never be questioned lest we prevent him from keeping us safe.
This is exactly why I find so objectionable and dangerous the ongoing embrace by the Obama administration of these same secrecy and immunity weapons. Obama had nothing to do with the Arar case -- all the conduct, and even the legal briefing, occurred before he was President -- but he has taken numerous steps to further institutionalize the core injustice here, including in cases that are quite similar to Arar: namely, that the Executive can use secrecy and national security claims to shield himself from the rule of law, even when he's accused of torture and war crimes. That's exactly what happened here, yet again. As Judge Parker wrote in dissent (click image to enlarge)
Identically,
Judge Calabresi -- one of the most respected and non-ideological
appellate judges in the country -- accused the majority of "utter subservience to the executive branch." Surely that's true, but it isn't only the Arar
majority that is guilty of that. It is the nation as a whole --
drowning in infinite claims of "state secrets" and executive immunity
and war necessity and the imperatives of "looking forward" -- that has
meekly acquiesced to the pernicious idea that the President in an
allegedly national security context must never have his actions
disclosed, let alone judicially scrutinized and held accountable, no
matter how criminal, brutal and inhumane those actions are.
**********************
Here's Judge's Sack's description of what was done to Arar in Syria, which accords perfectly with what the Canadian investigation found -- this is what our Government (both the executive and judicial branches) has continuously insisted it can purposely cause to happen without any accountability or even transparency (pp. 13-15):
Judge Sack's equally horrific description of exactly what the U.S. did to cause all of that to happen to Arar is here.
107 Comments so far
Show Alloh -- this question is so simple:
THE USA is a FASCIST COUNTRY PRETENDING TO BE A DEMOCRACY.
it is similar to Henry CK Liu's remark of :
"THE USA is really a protectionist country pretending to be Free-market".
it can also be called, in international terms:
THE USA is a ROGUE COUNTRY pretending to be Law Abiding.
they all come hand in hand.
but it can all be summed up in one statement :
THE USA is a CAPITALIST COUNTRY Pretending to be a Democracy even if the TWO are NOT one and the SAME.
The 2nd circuit court certainly claiming the moral low ground with this decision.
It is rediculous to decry court decisions in other countries as presposterous when our own court perpetrates such an injustice.
Justice and morality should trump nationalism, but too often it doesn't.
The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals attempted to excuse itself from upholding the law against state-sanctioned torture, rendition, and suspension of habeas corpus. The US government's torture policy is driven by the zionist, imperial, and mammon agendas, all in blatant violation of the charter, laws and treaties that the US government has for many decades obligated itself to uphold. The USA/Israeli Axis appears to be the last of the pasty white gringo-dominated societies determined to defy the "arc of history".
To get an insight into US character, google - LIFE magazine, May 22, 1944 arizona war worker - and click on the first hit, and you'll see the Life magazine picture of the week for May 22, 1944. A very fine woman gazing at the skull of a Jap soldier that her boyfriend sent her, and that she keeps on her desk at work. One of the amazing things about the photo is what a babe this gal is. To understand the other, try to imagine that it was Japanese worker looking at an American skull, or a beautiful German woman gazing at a Jewish skull. Really, it is bizarre.
"Reflecting the type of people who fill our judiciary, the judges in the majority also invented the most morally depraved ... "
++++++++++++++++++
The Bush/Cheney Administration had 8 years to pack the judiciary and every governmental bureau imaginable with their kind.
True; and the Democrats certainly did not fight hard enough to stop many of those judicial selections. Even if the Bush administration didn't pack the judicial branch with like-minded judges, the failure of the Democrats to set a tone that such actions are reprehensible by condemning and following up on their condemnations by prosecutions and Congressional acts makes it hard for a court to prosecute. Obama's continued of state secrets and failure to prosecute makes every case a match between the victim and the US government, regardless of political party in control.
socialist, Of course you know...fear mongering serves a purpose. Keep the population scared to death for their lives and they will say "Heil" all the way to kingdom come!
What would I do if my town was bombed to dust and my family killed and my country in ruin? First, I would grieve that I wasn't taken with them. Then, I would be so angry that I would try to fight against whomever it was who did this to us. Then, I would resign myself to trying to survive. Mostly, I would never never ever forget! If I was alive and had any health left in me whatsover I would be grateful for any good thing, i.e., water, sunlight, breezes, blue sky, a green thing, a person to talk to, the ability to shed a tear. I would have to give up "fear." It would no longer matter to me if I die. I would not fear death any longer. I would just try to survive. I would like to think that I would try to help others....if there were any others to help. If there were no others, I think I would go within and stay there. It would take a lot for me to then come back to the world.
Don't think I don't empathize daily with the people in Iraq and Afghanistan! Sometimes I just cry. I sit and read, and I cry. If I go over there....what good will that do? If I send something...I know it won't ever get there! Money? It's absorbed by the corrupt government officials. Don't we yet understand? Everything begins and ends within our own selves! I can't change anything or anyone who does not want to be changed. Change we can believe in starts with numero uno!
Well said. That is why I hate it when our politicians and journalists chide us for getting too emotional and upset about the Iraq or Afghanistan issue. The argument about all those jobs the pentagon is providing for US citizens and how it helps the "economy" makes me want to scream. FUCKING BARBARIANS!
It's better to go hungry than live well making weapons that kill other humans and ruin the planet.
I totally agree, you explain this with more honesty and grace than I. My response to an out of context hypothetical situation that is very unlikely, was with other hypotheticals that are statistically much more likely (somewhat sarcastially) to expose the irrational arguments and the hypocrisy. I meant it as a rhetorical device, I, of course wish no such scenarios on anyone.
i know socialist....I understood you. I can perceive your "justice" oriented spirit.
There are 100,000 people in a sports stadium. You know a huge bomb is set to explode in 10 minutes. You have the person who planted the bomb in custody, and he is cleary not willing to give you the information needed to stop a great calamity. It is your decision, what do you do?
You change the channel from the bullshit jingoistic "We gotta be badder than da bad guys" Tom Clancy flick.
By the way, have you considered using adult pampers? It will at least keep the brown stain off your pants.
Can you name the country that used nuclear weapons on purely civilian targets, even though the target country was on the verge of surrender?
I'll give you ten minutes to think of the answer.
PS - Your ridiculous thought experiment leads me to a question: Why and how did the police and CIA/FBI/NSA allow the placement of said device in the first place? What possible motive could there be to allow such a thing to progress to that point?
It's not like there is any precedent in US history for such a thing to happen (google USS Maine, Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and the Oklahoma City bombing for clues).
"Why and how did the police and CIA/FBI/NSA allow the placement of said device in the first place?"
Lack of intelligence...no Laura Secord moment.
You forgot 9/11.
But I could be wrong !
9/11 was too easy.
You have done nothing wrong, yet you are being held suspected of murder, yet the police have weak evidence. Frustrated, the Police interrogate you, then use "enhanced techniques". After enduring the most excruciating pain for hours on end, you finally make up a story. The police now have the 'evidence' they need to send you to Death Row. Everyone knows that tortured people always tell the truth, its common sense right?
Over 15,000 people in the USA are MURDERED BY FELLOW Americans. Now the real likely scenario is that you will be killed by someone you know, than by a terrorist. This is from the FBI's own website.
What if someone was holding a gun to your head? What would you do?
What if the most powerful military power on earth's president gave the order to commence bombing. You have only 20 minutes to act. Tens of thousands of innocent women and children will be killed and suffer unthinkable wounds. Your feeble air force will be shot down in a matter of minutes. What would you do? Tick Tock
The person in custody has admitted that he planted the bomb and that he intends to die. Everything possible is being done to evacuate the premises. If you remove the person in custody from the room where he is being held, a panic might be caused by his actions. Now there are 8 minutes.
Now there are 7 minutes left. A bomb squad has found the bomb but they are unable to deciphir the code within the time remaining.
5 minutes left. 50,000 have been removed from the stadium but, the bomb is on the side of the facility which is adjacent to the only parking lot. Tens of thousands must also be shuttled from main parking area to outer lots. And a traffic jamb has occurred due to panic and chaos.
3 minutes left. Some delusional nut on a dead-horse is pretending to ride frantically while yelling out irrellevant nonsense because he is not mature enough to recognize the need for hypotheticals. Others too are acting irrationally.
The bomber is smirking at you, he enjoys your painful circumstances. The choice is simple. If you do nothing a great many will suffer and die. If you torture this sick person it may not change the outcome. But if you do nothing, the outcome is certain. Now there is less than 3 minutes?
With 2 minutes left you realize that it does not matter what statistics show, or what popular opinion suggests. The simple truth is, that there is no other choice but to torture. People are unique. This bomber may be delusional in some way that is responsive to pain, he is certainly delusional. Who else would try to blow up a stadium filled with innocent people. And he too will die if you do nothing. So is torture justified if it saves the person being tortured? Is this not very simular to some medical procedures and to some other efforts to prevent suicide? Time is running out.
With one and two-thirds of a minute left you ask your assistant what protocol dictates in situations of this kind. He says, " I'm not sure but I read an article by Glen Greenwald the other day and he seemed to think that nothing has changed since the Bush days". This leaves you a little confused though because you remember seeing the President on TV introducing a panel that was convened to reframe the Patriot Act, they were even to change the name when the existing Act expired at the end of this year. And then too there are those efforts being made in Congress. The USA Patriot Amendment Act of 2009, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2009. And there were funds left out of the 2010 Whitehouse budget on some related issues and those temporary directives put out by the President and you wonder how someone could write such an irresponsible article and you think who-in-the-hell-is-Glen-Greenwald-anyway-and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
On the following day, the presumptous go back to their presumptions, and the ambitious writers go back to pumping out their half-baked stories.
It should be obvious that my hypothetical scenario could be any number of other scenarios. There could be 23 children locked in a room with a suicide bomber who you have strapped in a chair, the doors are booby trapped or whatever... The fact that it is necessary for me to explain this shows just how how quick some here are to jump to conclusions, and how far some of them will go to distort anything and everything. And to what low depths the level of thinking here so often, and so quickly, decends to. WoW, are these the ones who have been bullied to the extent that hatred is the driving force of their lives. Is this site some sort of melting pot for the narrow-minded who rely on generalizations and stereotyping, those who even must distort hypothetical scenarios presented in good faith?
The scenario I offered is one that has long been used to frame a philosophical point. Put simply, there is a choice between doing the only thing that offers any chance at all, of serving the greater good, or standing by a principle that has a mathematical flaw. The flaw is that even if torture only works once in a myriad of tries, that is still more than never.
Did you just take an Intro to Philosophy 101 class? You don't need to explain anything. It is you who need things explained to you.
You need to read more philosophy; actually you need to reread the philosophy that you have read. Put simply, you don't even appear to understand the ticking time bomb scenario.
"The flaw is that even if torture only works once in a myriad of tries, that is still more than never."
So why not use this argument for basically everything? Bombing of civilians in foreign countries? Bomb enough of them, and you will kill a terrorist. Installation of monitoring devices everywhere, even in private homes, the monitoring of all mail, all phone conversations, all electronic conversations etc; you will a crime or two. why not torture EVERYONE who is suspected of committing a crime? Afterall it MIGHT work.
rfloh,
How fitting, here in the midst of a conversation that shows how foolish presumptions can be, that you provide such an apt example of how confused and idiotic the practioners of presumption can be. My scenario was meant to show how there can be complex exceptions, even where something as repulsive as torture is concerned. But instead of recognizing that considered exceptions are prerequisite to the nimble mind, you expose your predilection for presumption, by applying an extreme exception to absurd examples based on more presumption. Ironic, and after the assumption that there is only one possible conclusion to the "ticking time bomb scenario", as if the entire Field of Philosophy only agrees with your applicable opinion, which is suspiciously absent, naturally. Irony just dosn't get much better, but I doubt that you will appreciate that!
The fascist and obscurantist R.L. Love drops the mask and outs himself to the surprise of no one. –(Jill Bains).
"The fact that it is necessary for me to explain this shows just how how quick some here are to jump to conclusions..."
–(R.L. Love)
-It is necessary for you to 'explain' nothing. Nothing at all. It is vulgarly presumptuous to assume that you have to.
You have rendered yourself as obvious as your alter ego Dick Cheney or any number of American Torquemada's and inquisitor wannabes. Another nuanced and 'philosophical' argument for torture replete with "hypothetical scenarios?" Most certainly, and it draws ugly flies to your cadaverous and sepulchral dance of incipient fascism.
Like Cheney, do you leer in the sheer pleasure of it all?
Please don't flatter yourself that you require a hermeneutical 'interpretation' so that you can be understood by those you speak down to: You are as obvious as 'stink on shit.'
Nor is it necessary to "jump to conclusions" about your sententious pontifications and ongoing, now quite transparently fascist, pro-torture sensibility. Couched shamelessly in your proprietary, self-proclaimed 'logic' –the rationalizations for murder glow like black nodes of evil.
All that has now degenerated from the merely pathetic to a bathos unique to you alone. You have seamlessly transited from the trivial to the fatuous and the obscene without an intervening period of the merely ridiculous. "Philosophical point," my ass!
–(Jill Bains)
"Dr. Bains",
So now we have reached the point where you resort to common cliches, in an effort to mock. I suppose, I am expected to reply with something like "your nothing but a big fish in a muddy little pond". But of course I am no match for you when it comes to name-calling because that is what you earned your doctorate in, apparently, presumably, which explains your being here where name-calling is appreciated.
You are also a master of the dishonest generalization, such as your implication here that only fascists torture. As in "transparently fascist, pro-torture sensibility", as if to say that fascists invented torture, as if to ignore most of human history, and most of the history of Communism and Socialism (the good guys?).
And of course all of that stereotyping business, attaching me to Cheney, that is much too "higher education" for me, so I must forfeit to your superior skills on a certain level.
So, instead of playing your game, on your sordid little playground, I prefer to hold to my tactics of giving supported material that shows why your positions are the result of ideological delusions and character flaws. Your worst mistake here, is that you allowed your arrogance, to combine with your rancor regarding me, and you evidently failed to read all of the replies to my scenario. There were replies, as my scenario unfolded, that included everything from:"I'd ask people to leave the stadium as quickly as possible without running, though without explaining why, and I'd shackle the bomber right in the middle; only if everyone else gets out would he get out." A comment assuming everything from the bomber's will to live, to how an informed crowd would react to seeing a prisoner "shackled" in the "middle" of the unexpected exodus. It is important to recognize that my hypothetical scenario put the reader in the position of ultimate authority in this situation. And my underlying premise has to do with the problems created by presumptions, which are all too often based on folly that results from "half-baked" information, such as that which is the 'daily bread' here on this site. Another participant said:"The simple truth is that if you have ten minutes left, it is already too late." These apathetic words were after my first comment in the scenario, and as things unfolded it was made obvious that presumptuous people should stick to blogging. Another deep thinker asked:"Besides, what would you do if your town was bombed to dust...?", as one of many, many, beside the point, assumption based delusions that are a juvenile trademark of the threads on this site. So as for your claim "It is necessary for you to 'explain' nothing. Nothing at all." Had you read all of the replies, and thought your reply through without the impetus of confused anger, your impetuous premise about my not needing to 'explain' would be correct. Because you would not have made such a stupid claim.
As it turns out, all of the fancy phrases and terms, in all of the languages, are not a replacement for just thinking things through. But then you typically avoid those who disagree with you and so I suppose your thinking skills are a little dull. Good luck on driving away those who threaten to expose your collection of 'dead-horses'. It has been interesting to see just how far people will go to protect any respect they can get, to what vile lengths, no matter how low the value of that respect.
Has your Mother read your comments like the one attached here? She must be so proud of what you are doing with all of that expensive education. So clever you are, here on the dirty underside of the fringe. You can relax though on your efforts to protect this sordid territory, I am just passing through, but I do think your family deserves something a little less embarrassing than the sort of nonsense in your reply here!
"I am just passing through"
like the wind between my buttocks.
have you considered taking this script to "24"?
it's REALLY original!!!
I'm sure it would be up for an Emmy eh. Some folks can't separate what they see on TV from reality. I guess that's why sponsors spend so much money of TV ads, they work very well.
So, by your 'logic' it would be completely acceptable (in the hypothetical situation), if an American Air Force pilot with knowledge of future bombing runs and target information is shot down and captured, it is *totally* acceptable to apply direct voltage to his genitalia in an effort to extract the information that will save thousands of civilian lives from American made bombs. (Ask John McCain about this... and ask him at the same time why he was known as the 'Songbird of Hanoi' to his fellow POWs)
Good to know.
The next time I hear a US swabbie or grunt brag in a local bar about how great the US is, and how unbeatable they are militarily, I am within my rights, as posited by you and others, to abduct him and subject him to disgusting, degrading, and dangerous forms of 'enhanced interrogation' in an effort to gain information about what people he has never met might be planning to do in order to seize control of my nations natural resources. Gotcha.
Thanks for the pre-emptive permission.
PS - The false argument of necessary 'preventative' non-consensual surgery is bullshit! Procedures identical in intent were performed on thousands of so-called 'mental defectives' in the Canadian province of Alberta alone.
So the argument that torture in the final two minutes will change his mind about his act is nothing more than shallow rationalization of petty vengeance.
"With 2 minutes left you realize that it does not matter what statistics show, or what popular opinion suggests. The simple truth is, that there is no other choice but to torture. People are unique. This bomber may be delusional in some way that is responsive to pain, he is certainly delusional."
So you're basically saying that you torture, because it might kinda sorta work. You hope. Cross your fingers, and toes, and pray to God.
Yes, he is delusional. So you think that a delusional person is going to tell you the truth?
The simple truth is that if you have 10 minutes left, it is already too freaking late. By the time you finish torturing the person, you are blown up.
"And he too will die if you do nothing. So is torture justified if it saves the person being tortured? Is this not very simular to some medical procedures and to some other efforts to prevent suicide? Time is running out."
The heck? Similar to some medical procedures? Torturing someone to "save" him.
You've just helped Greenwald make his point. Degradation. Not just morally, not just ethically, but also intellectually.
Thanks for the lesson in rationality Dick, are you scheduled for an interview with Bill O'Reilly next week? You been watchin some Rambo movies lately? Why are you so terribly afraid? The USA has the greatest military power in the history of the world.
"Those who would betray liberty for security deserve neither" name that quote.
"Those who would betray liberty for security deserve neither"
Watch out for all them commies planting bombs everywhere. oops, wrong decade, I mean evil-doin terrsts. The USA spends more than the rest of the world combined on "security, intelligence, military, military aid, weapons" yet we are just helpless against these bad guys who are under your bed planting bombs.
Besides, what would you do if your town was bombed to dust, your relatives killed and maimed, your counry in ruins?
HOW do you know that you have the person who planted the bomb? What if you got the wrong person, like oh, Maher Arar, for example?
Assuming that you actually have gotten the correct person, what if your decision to torture him actually causes him to want to blow you and 100k people more, because he wants vengeance for the torture?
What if he lies to you about where the bomb is, after being tortured to waste your time, to increase the chances of more people being killed?
What do you do? You freaking evacuate the place. If you have only 10 minutes left, nothing you do, or do not do, torture or no, is going to prevent some people from dieing.
Why not ask the people who were at Ground Zero that marvelous day in New York, when three buildings were demolished by 'terrorists'?
Or better yet, ask Dick Cheney why he ordered the stand down of NORAD.
Or why Bush disregarded the Presidential Daily Briefing that accurately laid out the events that would take place less than a month later.
Or the Wall Street traders who dumped the stocks of the airlines involved in the events of that day?
Or why the Secret Service, tasked with the protection of the President, allowed him to sit in Florida classroom while the US was known to be under attack?
Or why the forensic evidence of that tragic day in the form of the neatly pre-cut steel beams was hurriedly shipped to China for re-smelting, some seven tons of it eventually winding up in the bow structure of the newly commissioned US warship U.S.S New York?
Your trite Keifer Sutherland '24' episode premise would be meaningless in the real world. The suspect would spend ten minutes screaming gibberish, knowing all he has to do is babble incoherently and delay the police. Boom.
And if the 'authorities' did manage to get the information, try getting through traffic in time to do anything about it. Boom.
On the off chance you already have your bomb team in place, it would take more than ten minutes to find the device, confirm it is a bomb, get the equipment in place, and attempt to defuse the bomb. Boom.
And if any of the 100 000 attendees of the stadium saw the police action, the news would spread in an instant via cell phone and text update, and a panic to empty the stadium would ensue. As you try to empty the stadium, precious time would be wasted on crowd control. Boom.
Your argument of 'acceptable' levels of torture in an emergency have been rejected by courts everywhere in the world except Saudi Arabia and the US.
I'd ask people to leave the stadium as quickly as possible without running, though without explaining why, and I'd shackle the bomber right in the middle: only if everyone else gets out would he get out. At worst, he'd get what he gave others. At best, he'd crack. That's about all that can be done - torture isn't going to produce the goods in time.
It takes Vancouver's GM Place an hour to empty after a hockey game. And that's only 40-50 000 people. The exits clog almost immediately even with competent and calm crowd control.
So imagine the chaos as heavily armed police are ordering you to evacuate with no reason, pushing you to get out in much less than ten minutes.
Sure. But what's the alternative? (And why would it need to be 'heavily armed police'?)
Have you seen any police response these days during an emergency who are not armed to the teeth, looking more like a military small tactics unit than public servants?
Recent short conversation w/a pair of R-nuts:
"Torture is wrong. Always."
"Yer damn right! And the U. S. of A. ain' never tortured no one."
"No one who din' deserve it, dat is!"
R-nuts guffaw and hi-5...
"Um, I think y'all don't quite understand the definition of 'always."
"Naw, we understan' jus fine... liberal."
Big R-nut smiles...
You don't think folks have been tortured under a D administration?
Reflects what kind of country the US is? more accurately: what kind of ruling class the US has and what kind of polity the US represents.
While I do not disagree with the article, this is nothing new.
Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, for examples, were not held accountable for Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. (the slaughter of 100s of thousands of innocent folks in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam)
What's more, Henry K. sits to this day on the Council on Foreign Relations and other elite organizations. He is often lauded as a "great statesman", "Dr. Kissinger" is one of the wisest and smartest foreign policy expert in the world. He holds a Nobel Peace Price to boot! How's that for justice?
Bush Jr. and Cheney also vile war criminals are not and will not be held accountable. What's more, Cheney is looked on by the MSM as a credible source of authoritative information and he gets lots of coverage. Of course he (along with a lot of other people) should be in an orange jump suit, languishing in a prison cell in Scheveningen, NL.
We can also look forward to possible war crimes (I am being diplomatic here) being committed under Obama. He indirectly pardoned the previous regime of their crimes. No matter, laws are only selectively applied. Folks in high places are very rarely held accountable.
The court was wrong in this ruling. Thats about all there is to say about it.
I trust it will be overturned on appeal and the young man given a far higher recompense than Canada provided.
As far as the America bashers go, the absurd comparisons are becoming tiresome. It only makes you look absurd.
"I trust it will be overturned on appeal and the young man given a far higher recompense than Canada provided."
Typically US response.
All of us Canadians understand that "its not about the money". We gave Maher Arar enough from our taxes that he can attempt to rehabilitate himself from his otherwise shattered life.
CSIS has also been properly reprimanded and any suspicions they might have about Canadian citizens will no longer be shared with the torture regime South of our border.
I'll stop "bashing" "America" (there is more than one country on this continent) when "America" no longer deserves to be "bashed".
"I trust it will be overturned on appeal and the young man given a far higher recompense than Canada provided."
I trust that you are being sarcastic.
Kent,
You know, this henry8 character is so consistent in his phrasing that he reminds me of an early psychiatry computer program that would turn everything a person stated into a question. The program didn't think, of course. The program merely took words you stated, rearranged them into a question and fired them back at you. Henry8 and this type of computer program have a lot in common.
But one thing that might help in dealing with this "whatever it is" is this. When he claims you are bashing "something" (i.e. the constitution, America, God, Mother, the Flag, his sister, his integrity, his patriotism, etc.), get REALLY specific. Tell him the USMC is a criminal organization that trains young, impressionable Americans to be hired killers for Corporate America. Ask forgiveness for bashing "America". Explain that you really meant CORPORATE America and their enforcement arms like the US MARINE CORPS.
Sing him the song:
From the halls of Montezuma,
to the shores of Tripoli,
We will fight our corporation's enemies,
With the lies that all can see.
One of GG's finest articles.
Ilse Koch was sentenced to life in prison by the occupation authorities. Whether she served this, I don't know. But, yes, the occupiers have a difficult time applying the Nuremberg principles to themselves. Didn't that German judge notice the gas and torture chambers? Most other German judges approved of them.
[Didn't that German judge notice the gas and torture chambers?]
There were no gas or torture chambers at Buchenwald.
Morgen was called to testify at Nuremberg. He was tortured to get him to confirm the charges against Ilse Koch which he had investigated. He refused.
The rest of his testimony is extraordinary indeed, as he gave the first information implicating the Reinhard camps in the extermination program. You can see his actual testimony by googling -konrad morgen nuremberg testimony wedding party-, the first hit will be the yale avalon project Nuremberg testimony. Scan down to 'wedding' to see Morgen's testimony on the extermination program, and get ready for a surprise .... beginning
"One day I received a report from the commander of the Security Police in Lublin. He reported that in a Jewish labor camp in his district a Jewish wedding had taken place. There had been 1,100 invited guests at this wedding"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
May both the Bush Junta and the Obama administration take their rightful place at the left hand of SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another disturbing sign that the Obama administration is deliberately neglecting a vital task from the Bush error: cleaning up Dubya, Cheney, & Co.'s legacy of incompetent fascism. The longer this is not done, the harder it will be to clean up. Unfortunately, it appears as if the rule of thumb applying to fascist state crimes committed being addressed two or more administrations afterward (and certainly not by the administration immediately following), as evidenced in Argentina and Chile, applies here. Truly sad.
Bushco were not incompetent.
They were very successful at implementing the entire Corporate wishlist of reduced human rights, eroded environmental legislation, endless colonial war, and the creation of an enduring Fascist police state at home.
Deny it as you will, Obama was hand picked to be the public face of the government during the collapse of the American Empire. And when it becomes politically expedient, he will go down in a hail of 'tea-bagger' bullets (or at least that is who will be blamed), and the real actors will finally *almost* step out of the shadows to seize control.
It is not the country that is at fault. The problem lies in the politicians who put forth dangerous policies such as Big Brother Act of 2001 and 2003 and more FISA. How about we concentrate on our upcoming midterm elections and let's see GG publicly endorse candidates who actually fight for civil liberties? We can reform Congress by hitting them at the voting booths.
"It is not the country that is at fault. The problem lies in the politicians who put forth dangerous policies ..." (maxpayne)
In the history of any nation certain historical events can be seen as totalizing or constitutive moments which truly define –by their revelatory insights –the true 'meta' character of said nation and its peoples; Glenn Greenwald is correct to argue convincingly, that culpability cannot be severed between the political classes and the general American populace.
That perhaps a super majority of the American people, as much as 60%, cannot unequivocally condemn torture or extra legal fascist rendition is the material and psychic basis of that argument. For me that is an unassailable contention.
These 60% are co-extensive with the policies of their government and can be seen to constitute an actionable 'whole' of America. They succeed in substituting themselves on the 'symbolic' level of both image and materiality, into what America actually 'is.'
Similarly, in the history of any blog commentator certain postings have the same sense of finality.These comments become in effect as 'summary judgements.' All subsequent comments of these commentators becomes subsumed and irrevocably tainted by the insights provided by the one posting. The character or intellectual credibility of the commentator is exposed utterly and all subsequent work in the future is undermined by that one egregious transgression.
Such is the wretched idiocy of both maxpayne and Henry 8, who, in divulging their true stupidity, consign themselves to subsequent irrelevance now and in the future. They succeed in 'editing themselves out' in advance, so when one sees their screen names, they can be conveniently skipped over with a 'why bother.'
–(Jill Bains)
In various recent polls, ~50% of Americans support torture in some form.
So, yes, it is the country that is at fault.
Other polls in recent years show other results, however:
Public opinion polls must be treated with extreme caution. How were the questions framed? What was asked? What was not asked? What were the implicit assumptions? What was the context?
The US public has been told pack of lies after pack of lies. The New Politics of Fear has them scared to death of bogeymen, terrsts, Al Kayder, bin Laden, crazed islamic folks, immigrants, etc. The propaganda machine works all too well.
"
The US public has been told pack of lies after pack of lies. The New Politics of Fear has them scared to death of bogeymen, terrsts, Al Kayder, bin Laden, crazed islamic folks, immigrants, etc. The propaganda machine works all too well."
The politics of fear have always existed. Nothing new. Immigrants of all stripes always, the Catholics, the Jews, the yellow Chinese, the Red Russkies, the Pinkos, the Commies, the Vietcong, the Japanese (80s-early 90s), the gays, etc ad infinitum.
I agree, thats' why I call it "New" Oh, but you forgot socialists in the list
I need to see those polls in detail. There are questions in those polls that can distort actual public opinion. I have come across a lot of amoral joes and janes who will no doubt support such court decisions but polling is another matter and not all polls are necessarily reliable. I know I made my share of mistakes citing polls that were partisan without my realizing it.
How Americans view Torture, from an article on CD:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/11-7
The Pew poll itself:
http://people-press.org/report/510/
public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture
"The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been polling Americans on this key question for almost five years. Since 2004, representative samples have been asked. Since 2004, representative samples have been asked, "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" The results over this time period have shown only minor fluctuations. The most recent numbers, from last month, reveal that 15% of Americans believe torture is often justified, 34% think it is sometimes justified, 22% consider it rarely justified, and 25% believe torture is never justified. So not only do 49% consider torture justified at least some of the time, fully 71% refuse to rule it out entirely."
"Fox News/Opinion Dynamics asked a national sample of Americans, "Do you think the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including torture, has ever saved American lives since the September 11 (2001) terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?" The results: 45% "Yes" and 41% "No" (with 14% responding "Don't Know"). In other words, almost half of Americans think torture "works."
"a national Gallup poll in January 2005, about eight months after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, sheds some light here. The following question was posed: "Here is a list of possible interrogation techniques that can be used on prisoners. Do you think it is right or wrong for the U.S. government to use them on prisoners suspected of having information about possible terrorist attacks against the United States?" In order of approval percentages, the survey found that 50% approved of depriving prisoners of sleep for several days; 36% approved of threatening to transfer prisoners to a country known for using torture; 29% approved of threatening prisoners with dogs; 18 % approved of forcing prisoners to remain naked and chained in uncomfortable positions in cold rooms for several hours; 14% approved of strapping prisoners on boards and forcing their heads underwater until they think they are drowning; and 13% approved of having female interrogators make physical contact with Muslim men during religious observances that prohibit such contact."
Another CD article:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/01-2
"The rot in our national morality is evident in a June poll by the Associated Press, which found that 52 percent of Americans said torture was sometimes or often justified to obtain information from terror suspects."
"In April CNN poll found that even though 60 percent of Americans thought harsh techniques including waterboarding constituted torture, 50 percent approved of them.
"
"Washington Post/ABC News Poll was almost evenly split between Americans who say we should never use torture (49 percent) and should use torture in some cases (48 percent"
Not just one poll. Multiple polls.
"The most recent numbers, from last month, reveal that 15% of Americans believe torture is often justified, 34% think it is sometimes justified, 22% consider it rarely justified, and 25% believe torture is never justified."
While true the poll is biased since it has 3 categories of torture and only one category of non-torture.
It is well known among polling companies that the choice and phrasing of the question can have a strong influence on the outcome. As politicians say this should be an up-down vote.
Thanks for the detailed info. It's really hard to know what to make of these people who support all sorts of torture and are way too overprotective and skeptical of people who look a bit too different. There always seems to be that tempting feeling of "shoot first ask later" that becomes part of people's mentality from childhood on up. On the one hand, there are people who just find it "fun" to be destructive and then there are others who want to play "super hero" and for what purpose other than to "feel good being a hero". It is possible that the court felt as if it had to bow down to that false "hero" crowd. Now, a real hero would actually do the right thing even if it weren't popular although that definition is prone to being twisted by the wrong people.
There is one thing that bothers me about polls and it's this. Some people really feel like participating while others don't for reasons such as potential privacy concerns. Outliers are thus possible. That and the way questions are framed can distort polls. I never tried participating in any of their polls.
Again: given the pack of lies after pack of lies the public has been told, and many believe. Of course the whole "teror" bogeyman is wildly exaggerated (not getting into 9/11 inside job). The entire context and framing of the question is false to begin with.
With that said, I am a bit surprised at the number of Americans who do see through the lies. The poll #s you cite are quite close.
So USA is abt 50% depraved, according to these polls. And the immoral 50% clearly includes most of those in positions of power. Down with the empire! We should not be doctors. We should be the disease.
Socialist, as you correctly state, in a survey, the framing of the questions as well as the possible answers are extremely important.
I would be interested in seeing results/comparisons where the poll questions administered to Americans pertained specifically to the hypothetical torture of American terrorist suspects who have been taken prisoner in a foreign country. I am certain the moral relativism, cognitive dissonance, and out-right hypocrisy of many of those surveyed would be quickly evident.
The polls I cite show that 50% of Americans support torture. Downplay that however much you want, no matter the reasons or the excuses, that is 1 in 2 Americans, not some deranged minority.
It isn't the case that Americans solidly / strongly oppose torture, the politicians are ignoring them.
What about the other 50%? they don't count? I am really impressed that 50% can see throug the propaganda. More than I would have expected.
It sounds like blame the victim time. People who are not informed or sophisticated enough to see through the lies that they are told, deserve to be exploited. Is that right? I am not trying to diminish personal responsibility, however we cannot ignore the structures of power and information.
The MSM told us that Bush Jr. "won' the election. So Americans got what they wanted, case closed, right?
Yes, they count. Wherever did I say that they don't count? 1 in 2 Americans do not support torture. 1 in 2 Americans support torture. BOTH count. There will always be a deranged sociopathic minority in any group on any issue. Generally, they can be safely ignored. 1 in 2 people, out of a population of ~300 million, in the most powerful country in the world, supporting, cannot be ignored.
"It sounds like blame the victim time. People who are not informed or sophisticated enough to see through the lies that they are told, deserve to be exploited. Is that right? I am not trying to diminish personal responsibility, however we cannot ignore the structures of power and information."
Blame the victim? You mean the victims of torture?
You might want to explain how someone who supports torture is being exploited. Compared to the people who are actually being tortured.
Of course the structures of power and information can't be ignored. At the same time, there is often the view among the left that everything is due to the system, to attribute everything to false consciousness, to blame everything on the elites / politicians; ie, the majority of the people support leftish causes, they are just ignored by the politicians / elites.
Firstly, how do you know that the people who support torture are misinformed? How do you know that their support for torture is ignorance, and not malice? Or not ignorance AND malice, that is they are misinformed, don't care to get informed, and even if they are informed, they would still support it?
Have you considered that you are insulting peoples' intelligence, and that you are being elitist by assuming that people support torture simply because they are misinformed / uninformed and don't know better?
How come there was no immunity for the Nazis in Nürmberg, and other places, after they'd lost the war? Just like some Americans, they were only doing their duty!
Canada had full and Public disclosure and deemed this was an issue of Human RIGHTS rather then National Security and such rights take precedence over "security"
The United States has decided that issues of National Security overule any having to do with Human rights.
(Indeed a spokesperson in the Bush Administration claimed Canada not a full partner in the war on terror because "they cared to much about human rights")
The US thus sees itself LESS secure as a Nation this with the largest and most powerful Military in the World.
Further this meakes the US Constitution absolutely meaningless as ANY of the rights proscribed within can be overruled by issues of National Security.
Odd is it not the larger and more powerful ones MILITARY forces and the more one INVESTS in them, the less rights you end up with and the LESS secure you are.?
Odd is it not that this Military and its members continue to claim they are DEFENDING American Liberties?
The more money poured into that Military and Militarism and projecting power the world over the more liberties lost. This exactly as the framers of the Constitution warned. The peoples most responsible for the erosion of liberties are those actively participating in the apparatus of "Security" where these people should be DEFENDING the same.
The next time a US Soldier stands up to speak of his service and how he defends American liberty, do not applaud. You can certainly empathize with him as being a dupe but preserving liberties and rights is NOT something he is doing.
Odd is it not the larger and more powerful ones MILITARY forces and the more one INVESTS in them, the less rights you end up with and the LESS secure you are.?
---------------------------------
No, it's actually not odd at all. It's 'normal' pathology, if you'll forgive the oxymoron. It describes perfectly how all pathological (i.e. those not based in reality) fears or desires work, namely that no matter how much you do or how much you get, it's never enough. NEVER enough. N*E*V*E*R. In fact, attempting to abate the pathological fear or desire can actually cause it to *increase* in intensity.
We non-elites really need to get in touch with how mentally ill (really!) the people running things are. It should scare the living hell out of us because their illnesses make them a 'clear and present danger' to all life on Earth.
Well said.
Amen amen and amen Mairead!!!
America doesn't understand why so many in the world hate America.
The Maher Arar case alone is reason enough for me.
So this is "Change we can believe in (tm)"? This is "Hope(tm)"?
Seems to me the US is not only sinking faster, they are bailing water INTO the ship of State while simultaneously drilling more and bigger holes to let in even more water....
Hey America,
If you will take the time to read Mr. Greenwald's article, you just may get a small 'taste' of what it is like to be a Native American.
On a personal level.
I have taken pride in the fact that after serving this ungrateful country as a US Marine, in 'another war to bring Democracy to those who do not want it'---I began my education.
I learned that as a 'prisoner of war' of the USA I was not a part of any of the many crimes committed, by those who are in control, and that the entire nation, with the exception of a very few people, is corrupt from the inside out, top to bottom, left and right. That without a major
absolute 'reversal': the USA in its present form has little or no chance of survival.
This will of course make many Americans angry, sad, tearful, sentimental, and left with a feeling of great loss.
It will be great relief to the world.
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
P.S. I have searched the records and I have not been able to find a single article or word that Mr. Greenwald has written about the many infractions of the legal system in matters concerning the Native American people, who still 'legally own' more that 60% of the geographic territory of the USA. I am sure that I have not 'searched the proper sources'------------but I am open to any and all references.
"Ignorance can be easily remedied with information"
'I am an open vessel'-----
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Native Son....not to worry. Have you read "Black Elk Speaks?" Native Prophecy states that in the end....whenever the end is, all will be returned to the Native Peoples.
My mother was 1/2 Cherokee...so I suppose I have a vested interest in the outcome. However, for many years now (and after reading another book entitled "Neither Wolf nor Dog"), I have been reluctant to talk about my heritage. It seems that Native Americans disdain those of us with mixed blood. As you may know, the Dawson Cherokee Roles have listings of names of those with Cherokee heritage that goes back just so many years. Many of those names and years were lost and many with Indian heritage are not able to "prove" such heritage. In essence, why should we have to? The U.S. is truly a melting pot. So many different mixtures exist that one would wonder why there should be any conflict at all concerning heritage?! I myself have, with great sadness, stopped looking for my "missing link." I no longer don "dream catchers," arrow heads, or any other "tourist" tokens of romantic/phantastical visions of being an Indian. Why? Because the Spirit (Great) within me testifies for itself. The other parts of me are German, French, English, Polish, and who knows what else?! With that mixture I have the genetic predisposition to just about every error or good known to mankind. What I am trying to say is....we are all really One. At the very end...nothing matters except ..... well, nothing!
Of course the Native peoples were robbed of everything. Of course they were forced to disown their cultural heritage! Is there any dispute about that any longer? And then, to add insult to injury, the "ways" of the Indian have been co-opted by the pale faces because they now seem so "spiritual." All true. I have commented to you before Native Son.....it is your own spirit/soul that should be your major concern. And I would agree with most of what you write even if I did not have a drop of Native blood in me. My gut is jabbed, my solar plexus area set on edge...by some of the bitterness that comes forth in your writings. Revenge is sweet I suppose, but it is not yours to reap.
This country continues it's record of great injustices. Mr. Arar is lucky that Canada owned up to it's part in his horrible treatment. Millions of dollars is small compensation for what was lost by Mr.Arar......(and yes, Native Son....lost also by the Native Peoples, the Black Peoples, the Asian Peoples)....and that is.....feeling safe in one's own skin, trusting authority, enjoying a sound mind without great fears of every strange noise, freedom from all consuming thoughts of atrocities done, freedom to enjoy life without paranoia/delusion/anxiety. There will never be justice for all this lost! Not even if the aggrieved slay every guilty soul left on the planet! Peace and Freedom are "internal" and "eternal." No one and Nothing can take away what is incorporated within ones own soul! Spider Mother weaves the web. We are all entangled.
There are many reasons for the Native American. 'fixation' with Blood Quantum, all of them are illegal*, and are the result of several generations of mental conditioning by the dominate, Anglo American Cultures ---and "Hollywood" is as much to blame as all of 'them'-----combined.
Just one example, the Movie Dances with Wolves was so totally out of realism from the 'historic context' as to be laughable beyond reason. For example, during the Civil War, the Area that the movie depicted was the area that Red Cloud of the Oglala Sioux along with allied Sioux and Cheyenne had burned most of the Forts in the area and any w\"White Man" that had shown up during that period would have been 'dancing with wolves'---i.e. through the 'digestive tract' to be 'Wolf Crap' out on the prairie. He would have been killed---certainly not have been allowed to join the groups.
Unfortunately, Hollywood was not 'called' down on that misrepresentation by the Native American population simply because most of them were not aware of the facts; and the others would rather 'dress up in their regalia and dance for the white folks over at the rodeo' than to press for what is rightfully theirs; by law and treaty and the US Constitution.
I would recommend that you contact my'legal council'at frenchromany@gmail.com. This organization has made a twenty year career of service to Native Americans in the USA and Canada. If your mother was '1/2' Cherokee, then you are a '1/4' which would make you elegible to be recognized as a member of the Cherokee Nation---either Eastern (N.C.)or Western (Okla). First I would recommend that you have your DNA tested, so that you can show---without argument your blood quantum with scientific accuracy. The cost is minimal ($150-$200) and is worth every dime. The NatAm DNA is very distinctive and can be detected very accurately within (+/-) 5%.
The reason so many people are 'not connected' to their NatAm heritage is that USA Government wanted it that way. They never planned for the possibility of DNA---(go figure the USA didn't think things out very well)---so the old wisdom of "The larger the lie the harder it is to hide "----
Then the 'Hollywood' effect is also present with many US Citizens, they have an image of NatAm people that is totally 'abstract and based on fantasy'.
When you contact the email mention that I sent you (they know my real name also).
Good Luck with your search.
PS.
* The 'Blood Quantum' requirements are an illegal entry in the 1887 General Allotment Act, which itself is an illegal piece of legislation: it preempts the 'Treaties' which mention NO blood quantum requirements, therefore no Blood Quantum requirements should be recognized. But then, there is much that the USA will be required to answer to someday: perhaps soon.
The 2000 census stated that there were just over 2 million Native Americans 'on the rolls'---but also showed that more than 18 million Americans claim Native American heritage---that's a big difference that the USA will one day be called to answer to also----soon
The 'book' "Black Elk Speaks" is considered to be fiction, and is not a reliable source of information except from the fictional point of reference.
Good Luck with your search, don't give up. Someone can steal your property and there is not much you can do to stop them--- no one can steal your heritage; unless you allow them to.
Thanks Native Son....It may take a bit of time for me to consider starting a search once again. It has been a number of years since I decided to put to rest my need to know my heritage.
I notice that you did not comment on the other points of my commentary to you. I can only assume that you read the comments and choose to not address them. So be it. Thank you for your concern and know that I have concern for you as well.
Nicely put,
It is a massive injustice, however that the many Treaties that have been broken by the Federal govt for over a 100 years. Breaking treaties with Native Americans continues to this very day.
A year or so ago the BLM seized livestock on Native land and then lied and said the land belonged to BLM. Here is an example of the one-sided reporting of the issue that is little more than a repeat of the lies the BLM says. This is all too familiar.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/BLM_seizes_animals_grazing_on_public_lands
Looting and stealing Native lands and resources is not a thing of the past it continues to this day. This is yet another example of the sham of a legal system we have. If you don't have huge sums of money the legal system is your enemy.
Thank you socialist. Treaties, Constitutions....it doesn't matter. The system is corrupt.....always has been. As you say, it is all a sham. Not only that...human beings have the greatest potential for evil doing imaginable! We also have the greatest potential for good. There are Takers and Givers. We always hear about and feel the repercussions of the Takers, but I don't think we hear enough about the Givers. If our "News" was aimed at encouraging and validating "goodness" we would all be better off. But, the news is geared toward sensationalism and exploitation. The Spirit of the world seems to be a Dark one right now. All I can say is....cultivate the light within and share it without. If we don't do that....the Dark wins!
Politicians may be corrupt but that doesn't make the soldiers and hardworking Americans so. We have a great opportunity next year to change Congress to better represent us. Let's see how far we go to reform Congress. How many Republicans and Democrats supporting these wars that we throw out will determine how well we fought back and said no. I learned from my mistakes and don't plan on repeating them.
~50% of Americans support torture in some form according to various recent polls. If there was a referendum on whether the US should engage in torture, the answer might very well be Yes, the US should engage in torture.
The politicians are simply reflecting the electorate.
I wrote you a response on polls in this thread.