To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
This is a perfect illustration of how
severely our political spectrum has shifted in the last two decades and
how depraved and extremist our political and media classes have become:
Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, today: "When to Torture":
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances.
The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the
no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value
enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . .
.Some people, however, believe you never torture.
Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in
any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect
by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one
of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't
entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the
safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a
person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national
security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million
countrymen.
The
United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation
of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development
during this century of international measures against torture and other
inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the
United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal
prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction."
Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,
whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political
instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a
justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009:
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified.
The
views that Ronald Reagan not only advocated, but signed a treaty
compelling the U.S. to adhere to, are ones that are now -- in the view
of our dominant media narrative -- the hallmarks of The
Hard Left: torture is never justified; there are "no exceptional
circumstances" justifying it; it must be declared to be a serious
criminal offense ; and -- most of all -- the U.S., as Ronald Regan put
it, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in
its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
Reagan's explicit view that the concept of "universal jurisdiction"
permits signatory nations (such as Spain) to prosecute torturers from
other countries (such as the U.S.) is now considered so fringe that
it's almost impossible to find someone in mainstream American debates
willing to advocate it.
If you now believe about torture and prosecutions exactly what Ronald Reagan advocated in 1988 -- or what Israel today advocates
-- then, according to our establishment narrative, you are, by
definition, a member of the Hard Left. And nobody who believes what
Reagan advocated could possibly, in Krauthammer's words today, be
entrusted with national security decisions. We've gone from Reagan's
"no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a
justification of torture" and "Each State Party is required
[] to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory" to the moral
depravity of the Charles Krauthammers' explicit endorsement of torture
and the virtually unanimous view of political and media elites that
advocating criminal prosecutions for those who torture is confined to
the vengeful, leftist masses.
It's certainly true, of course,
that Ronald Reagan was very pre-9/11, but the concept of uniquely scary
Islamic Terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client-tyrant in Iran was
overthrown by them in 1979; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan
in the early 1980s; U.S. Marines occupying Lebanon were attacked by
them in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by
them in1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to
justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 and the killing of the adopted infant daughter
of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying
to control Muslim countries way back then, too. Yet even with all
those Islamic Terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture
could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.
It's
certainly true that Reagan, like most leaders, regularly violated the
principles he espoused and sought to impose on others, but still, there
is an important difference between (a) affirming core principles of the
civilized world but then violating them and (b) explicitly rejecting
those principles. Doing (a) makes you a hypocrite; doing (b) makes you
a morally depraved barbarian. We're now a country where the leading
"intellectuals" of the conservative movement expressly advocate torture
on the pages of The Washington Post, and where most of the
political and media class mocks as Far Leftism what Ronald Reagan
explicitly advocated and bound the U.S. by treaty to do: namely,
"prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite
them to other countries for prosecution."
It's literally true that if you say today verbatim
what Ronald Reagan said in 1988 about torture and the need to prosecute
those who do it, then you are immediately and by definition a rabid
score-settler from the Hard Left who is unfit to be trusted with
national security decisions. Conversely, the views that Reagan
vehemently rejected by words and by treaty -- that torture can be
justified in some circumstances; that torturers should be shielded from
prosecution; that other countries have no right to prosecute the
torturers from other countries under "universal jurisdiction" -- are
now not merely acceptable, but are required views in order to be not
only a conservative, but to be a centrist. That's how severely the
political spectrum and our elite consensus on these questions have
shifted -- descended -- even from the time of the right-wing Reagan era
when American exceptionalism and military aggression thrived.
* * * * *
Why do they hate us? For Our Freedoms:
 
This is a perfect illustration of how
severely our political spectrum has shifted in the last two decades and
how depraved and extremist our political and media classes have become:
Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, today: "When to Torture":
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances.
The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the
no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value
enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . .
.Some people, however, believe you never torture.
Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in
any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect
by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one
of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't
entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the
safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a
person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national
security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million
countrymen.
The
United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation
of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development
during this century of international measures against torture and other
inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the
United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal
prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction."
Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,
whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political
instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a
justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009:
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified.
The
views that Ronald Reagan not only advocated, but signed a treaty
compelling the U.S. to adhere to, are ones that are now -- in the view
of our dominant media narrative -- the hallmarks of The
Hard Left: torture is never justified; there are "no exceptional
circumstances" justifying it; it must be declared to be a serious
criminal offense ; and -- most of all -- the U.S., as Ronald Regan put
it, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in
its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
Reagan's explicit view that the concept of "universal jurisdiction"
permits signatory nations (such as Spain) to prosecute torturers from
other countries (such as the U.S.) is now considered so fringe that
it's almost impossible to find someone in mainstream American debates
willing to advocate it.
If you now believe about torture and prosecutions exactly what Ronald Reagan advocated in 1988 -- or what Israel today advocates
-- then, according to our establishment narrative, you are, by
definition, a member of the Hard Left. And nobody who believes what
Reagan advocated could possibly, in Krauthammer's words today, be
entrusted with national security decisions. We've gone from Reagan's
"no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a
justification of torture" and "Each State Party is required
[] to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory" to the moral
depravity of the Charles Krauthammers' explicit endorsement of torture
and the virtually unanimous view of political and media elites that
advocating criminal prosecutions for those who torture is confined to
the vengeful, leftist masses.
It's certainly true, of course,
that Ronald Reagan was very pre-9/11, but the concept of uniquely scary
Islamic Terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client-tyrant in Iran was
overthrown by them in 1979; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan
in the early 1980s; U.S. Marines occupying Lebanon were attacked by
them in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by
them in1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to
justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 and the killing of the adopted infant daughter
of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying
to control Muslim countries way back then, too. Yet even with all
those Islamic Terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture
could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.
It's
certainly true that Reagan, like most leaders, regularly violated the
principles he espoused and sought to impose on others, but still, there
is an important difference between (a) affirming core principles of the
civilized world but then violating them and (b) explicitly rejecting
those principles. Doing (a) makes you a hypocrite; doing (b) makes you
a morally depraved barbarian. We're now a country where the leading
"intellectuals" of the conservative movement expressly advocate torture
on the pages of The Washington Post, and where most of the
political and media class mocks as Far Leftism what Ronald Reagan
explicitly advocated and bound the U.S. by treaty to do: namely,
"prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite
them to other countries for prosecution."
It's literally true that if you say today verbatim
what Ronald Reagan said in 1988 about torture and the need to prosecute
those who do it, then you are immediately and by definition a rabid
score-settler from the Hard Left who is unfit to be trusted with
national security decisions. Conversely, the views that Reagan
vehemently rejected by words and by treaty -- that torture can be
justified in some circumstances; that torturers should be shielded from
prosecution; that other countries have no right to prosecute the
torturers from other countries under "universal jurisdiction" -- are
now not merely acceptable, but are required views in order to be not
only a conservative, but to be a centrist. That's how severely the
political spectrum and our elite consensus on these questions have
shifted -- descended -- even from the time of the right-wing Reagan era
when American exceptionalism and military aggression thrived.
* * * * *
Why do they hate us? For Our Freedoms:
Â
This is a perfect illustration of how
severely our political spectrum has shifted in the last two decades and
how depraved and extremist our political and media classes have become:
Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, today: "When to Torture":
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances.
The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the
no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value
enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . .
.Some people, however, believe you never torture.
Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in
any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect
by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one
of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't
entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the
safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a
person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national
security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million
countrymen.
The
United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation
of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development
during this century of international measures against torture and other
inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the
United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal
prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction."
Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,
whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political
instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a
justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009:
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified.
The
views that Ronald Reagan not only advocated, but signed a treaty
compelling the U.S. to adhere to, are ones that are now -- in the view
of our dominant media narrative -- the hallmarks of The
Hard Left: torture is never justified; there are "no exceptional
circumstances" justifying it; it must be declared to be a serious
criminal offense ; and -- most of all -- the U.S., as Ronald Regan put
it, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in
its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
Reagan's explicit view that the concept of "universal jurisdiction"
permits signatory nations (such as Spain) to prosecute torturers from
other countries (such as the U.S.) is now considered so fringe that
it's almost impossible to find someone in mainstream American debates
willing to advocate it.
If you now believe about torture and prosecutions exactly what Ronald Reagan advocated in 1988 -- or what Israel today advocates
-- then, according to our establishment narrative, you are, by
definition, a member of the Hard Left. And nobody who believes what
Reagan advocated could possibly, in Krauthammer's words today, be
entrusted with national security decisions. We've gone from Reagan's
"no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a
justification of torture" and "Each State Party is required
[] to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory" to the moral
depravity of the Charles Krauthammers' explicit endorsement of torture
and the virtually unanimous view of political and media elites that
advocating criminal prosecutions for those who torture is confined to
the vengeful, leftist masses.
It's certainly true, of course,
that Ronald Reagan was very pre-9/11, but the concept of uniquely scary
Islamic Terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client-tyrant in Iran was
overthrown by them in 1979; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan
in the early 1980s; U.S. Marines occupying Lebanon were attacked by
them in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by
them in1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to
justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 and the killing of the adopted infant daughter
of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying
to control Muslim countries way back then, too. Yet even with all
those Islamic Terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture
could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.
It's
certainly true that Reagan, like most leaders, regularly violated the
principles he espoused and sought to impose on others, but still, there
is an important difference between (a) affirming core principles of the
civilized world but then violating them and (b) explicitly rejecting
those principles. Doing (a) makes you a hypocrite; doing (b) makes you
a morally depraved barbarian. We're now a country where the leading
"intellectuals" of the conservative movement expressly advocate torture
on the pages of The Washington Post, and where most of the
political and media class mocks as Far Leftism what Ronald Reagan
explicitly advocated and bound the U.S. by treaty to do: namely,
"prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite
them to other countries for prosecution."
It's literally true that if you say today verbatim
what Ronald Reagan said in 1988 about torture and the need to prosecute
those who do it, then you are immediately and by definition a rabid
score-settler from the Hard Left who is unfit to be trusted with
national security decisions. Conversely, the views that Reagan
vehemently rejected by words and by treaty -- that torture can be
justified in some circumstances; that torturers should be shielded from
prosecution; that other countries have no right to prosecute the
torturers from other countries under "universal jurisdiction" -- are
now not merely acceptable, but are required views in order to be not
only a conservative, but to be a centrist. That's how severely the
political spectrum and our elite consensus on these questions have
shifted -- descended -- even from the time of the right-wing Reagan era
when American exceptionalism and military aggression thrived.
* * * * *
Why do they hate us? For Our Freedoms:
Â