aristo’s rant on U.S. Torturing of Suspected “Terrorists”
March 12, 2008
President George W. Bush was given a bill that would ban torturing of anyone held in captivity. He went on the radio on Saturday to veto this bill, saying torturing is a “legal” way of obtaining information from “suspected” terrorists.
The House of Representatives upheld his veto this week, voting in favor of the CIA torturing individuals they feel may have information. This includes individuals who are held for as much as several years at a time, without contact with family, or an attorney. These individuals are also held without a fair trial.
My opinion? With Republicans or Democrats, we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. The current administration has accomplished unsurpassed levels of secrecy and deceit of the American people. They have taken away many of our rights in the name of the very thing they claim they are protecting - our freedom.
This administration has taught other politicians this ‘new age politics,’ leaving out interests of the very people that elect them into office.
Sunil
- aristo’s rant - the Dawn of a New Era
- aristo’s rant - The Conservative Republican
- aristo’s rant - Nader a Spoiler?
- Update: Kris Gounden speaks on the current situation regarding his case on being victimized in Howard Beach
- aristo’s rant - U.S. Policy
- Bahamas: CARICOM Secretariat comments on Sex differences in Government Participation (International Women’s Day 3/7/08)
- Guyana: Amendment to Firearms Bill
- How can the Gov’t turn a blind eye on its’ people?
- NYC Protest Guyana Killings/ Rally on Saturday March 1st
- aristo’s review - February 26 - Democratic Debate
People who read this, also read...
Comments
15 Responses to “aristo’s rant on U.S. Torturing of Suspected “Terrorists””
Money is power - it commands. It really isn’t the people who places these politicians in power as you pointed out regarding “superdelegates” in a previous blog. Does it really matter who vote if the superdelegates gets the final say? If only one person votes then it still would not matter because the superdelegates actually has the power to select not the pople, or have I misunderstood your previous blog Sunil?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought I saw (on television about 1-2 months ago) the Bush administration denying torturing suspects. I can’t remember the exact details but they were interviewing a female whitehosue spokeswoman with regards to the C.I.A. using certain techniques to torture suspects.
Reader is doing the wrong kind of reading. You’re reading the piece in the literal sense. If each person stands up and says, our votes count, and they actually went ahead and voted, surely the elections would be far different. The truth is, less than half of this country’s citizens vote. Less than 35% of our youth ages 18-25 vote. It’s time the citizens read a book, smarten up, and take action. There are too many people here that think they are owed more than some, either because their families have been in the country longer or because they have a different skin color than others. We all have to do our part, which includes (but not limited to) better educating ourselves of the election process and ALL the possible candidates, and many, many other things that would require us to give back, rather than trying to receive more than what we put in.
Sunil, I will admit that I don’t fully understand how the election process, but according to you the super-delegates have the final say. And if they have the final say then what difference does it make what percentage of the people vote?
Correct me if I misunderstood, but it’s not necessary to do so in an egotistical way simply because you possess more knowledge in American politics.
Sunil - where do you stand on this issue? Are you in support of or are you against it?
Obviously you’re taking it the wrong way, Reader. You seem either disenfranchised by the whole political process or just too lazy/uninterested in working to make a difference. Collectively, people can make a difference. All of the successful advocates that called for reform in the history of this country had strength in numbers and worked hard for change. Having that “my one vote won’t count” attitude obviously would only help keep our voices unheard.
My advice to Reader and others with that attitude is this: if you don’t like something, vote against it. Take the time to learn what the candidates are about and vote for the one that you believe in the most. You owe that much to your country and to yourself.
Trevor, am I in favor of what? The superdelegate process? I’m very much for the U.S. Constitution, so anything that violates the citizens’ rights such as the Democratic superdelegate process is a no-no in my book.
I’m a registered Republican - you can get most of my views from doing some youtube searches on Congressman Ron Paul.
However, I hold allegiance to no party. I hold allegiance to my views that the citizens govern this country, not the elected officials that we put in office.
Reader, I apologize if you thought I was “egotistical” in my initial response. All I said was that you were reading in a literal and sarcastic sense. You are right when you say one vote won’t count singly, but I think everyone knew what I was talking about in the post. You didn’t have to mention it in the literal for people to get the message I was portraying.
You seem a little too wrap around what you know and bent on looking at things ideally, so we will just leave it at that.
Reader, you may be right, or maybe not. All I know is that there is no longer room in politics, both domestic and foreign, for Americans that either don’t care or aren’t willing to educate themselves on things this important, which is a big part of what caused this decade of stupor, and which is also why foreign countries and their citizens no longer hold us in high regard.
Back your sarcasm up with facts, then we’ll talk. :)
I would like to point out that most of my writing is based on facts which are aimed to be informative, followed by a brief opinion which is open for debate. I am always in a state of learning and respect others that strive to better themselves not only financially, but mentally and spiritually as a person as well. As I’ve seen with many people, self knowledge and awareness is more fulfilling than a fat wallet.
As any other concerned citizen that spends time to learn facts, I take the well-being of the country seriously. It is also evident to bloggers that I don’t appreciate blowing smoke unless it’s potent enough to hold ground.
Getting back to Trevor, I hope I answered your question on the superdelegates.
What are your thoughts? What about your view on the inclusion/exclusion of the Florida and Michigan delegates in the Democratic race?
Open to all!
well said sunil!
Michael K. said,
“The logical extension of your argument is: Should we torture murder suspects,bank robbery suspects,adulterers & anyone else you suspect of doing something you don’t like? Once you go down that road,where do you stop? Some-day,you,or a close family member may be suspected of something,what then? By torturing suspected terrorists,you justify their comrades who abuse their captives,(tit for tat).”
We know torture is part of counter-terrorism, but how far in the U.S. system does it extend?
Sunil, where do you stand on the torturing of suspected terrorists issue?
Annand, interesting argument by Michael K. For those who have Muslim names and are already targets of airport security, God forbid they should think you really are a terrorist.
It’s unfair how they target everyone, but the question of security, so any means necessary? I understand the need for extreme scrutiny of people they suspect, but isn’t torture a little too far or is it a necessary evil?
Thanks for your responses, everyone.
I believe in the Constitution. Anyone suspected of terrorist activity should stand trial just as they would for any other crime in this country. They are entitled to a fair trial with competent and able counsel heard by a jury of peers.
Why we have allowed our government to bypass Constitutionally protected rights is beyone me. Now, if someone is suspected of terrorist activity, they can be held, interrogated, and tortured.
The only thing I feel is necessary is that we punish those who are found guilty after a fair trial.
Does torture help or hurt us?
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Darius Rejali, who has been described as “one of the world’s leading thinkers and writers on the subject of torture and the consequences of its use for modern society.” He is a professor of political science at Reed College and author of a new book called Torture and Democracy:
“And when you torture, you not only just get bad intelligence, you undermine the willingness of loyal Muslims or people who like America to come forward and help us.”
“My favorite example of this, just so you understand, July 21st, a bunch of guys got on buses in London with bombs, and they escaped. The British police got them all in ten days, and the break in the case came when the parents of Muktar Said Ibrahim, loyal British Muslims, turned in their son when they saw the security video. Would they have turned him if they knew their son was going to be tortured? The answer is: obviously not. Right? We know the kinds of things that work in policing. The FBI knows it. This is a standard practice. And the more we torture, the less it is that people will surrender to us. Getting into a terrorist organization is not unlike trying to get into the Mafia. You want people to walk in, turn sides on us, be our inside moles. That’s the way it works.”
Also, why allow torture by the CIA and not the army?
Interesting quote you have there, Trevor.
And I agree with that quote. People won’t confess if they know they will be treated unfairly. The last thing those “terrorists” or their families want is to be held at a place like Guantanamo for years, tortured and treated like an animal without a fair trial or a lawyer, being held as guilty without it being proven.
There are several instances I invite you all to read up on, in which suspected terrorists were held for several months, sometimes years, until the CIA can dig up information that they are in fact innocent, then released. Our mainstream media will never broadcast something that would show American cruelty, as they are mostly privately owned by corporations. Keep looking, and you would see the name Rupert Murdoch, who owns much of our country’s media (as much as 33%) and also strongly supported George W. Bush and his administration’s policies. It’s amazing how far much knowledge is withheld from the mainstream media, and it’s even more unbelievable that so many Americans don’t want to know these facts.
Your questions are very thought provoking, are some of the many that should be directed to the current administration, as they have yet to give solid answers.
Hello my friends :)
;)