A large mural in the Tower of London depicts a naked man facing a festive crowd on Tower Hill gathered for whatever pleasure can be found in watching him be hideously tortured, his body burned and mutilated alive and finally dismembered for display in various cities as evidence of the monarch's authority and power. It's a scene of utter degradation. I looked for the man with the pointy beard, he was surely there, but the faces were too indistinct. Ironically, a few miles to the north, Shakespeare was writing "Good night sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."
After 9/11, an understandably panicked American government led by an inexperienced president to whom nuance was equivalent to weakness, let torture become a part of America's fight against Al Quaeda. He was poorly advised by people anxious to tell him what he wanted to hear, or to encourage his "cowboy" attitude, and he was unable to discriminate about the advise given to him.
There is no place for torture in American policy. It is a barbaric practice of a bygone era of which most nations who once used torture to enforce a monarch's control are not proud. At the foundation of America, various rights and freedoms were guaranteed to prevent the abuse of power to which we descended after 9/11, for the Founding Fathers knew that executive power was to be feared and that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There must never be an MOS for torture. The idea of American soldiers, those honored and sturdy, freckled faced farm boys from Kansas who won WW II, engaged in torture is an affront to everything that is American. We cannot be a great shining city on a hill and practice torture any more than we can claim to be a unique and wonderful, historic experiment in governance with notions that the president can do whatever he wishes in a time of emergency, including torture. We became a nation because we were fundamentally repulsed by the idea of any man or woman having such enormous and cruel power.
I can hear a conservative reader snickering at my naivete, but a recent book authored by Charles Fried, a very conservative former solicitor general of the United States under President Reagan, and his father a law professor, expressed very similar sentiments. Fried, the younger, who graduated from my college a couple of years after me, differed from his father in only one material way. Fried, the elder, felt that the Bush Administration's sins regarding torture were so egregious that in order to restore the nation's honor, they needed to be clearly identified and those responsible punished. I understand why President Obama decided not to drag up this dreadful stuff, but it was a serious mistake. Republicans, who impeached president Clinton for his reprehensible sexual adventures, wouldn't have hesitated a minute had the situation been reversed. Sex sullied President Clinton's personal honor; torture besmirches America's honor and as of today, no one has has admitted to the disgraceful decisions involved or been convicted of any misdeed, let alone punished. On the contrary every effort has been made to justify torture and belittle the "timid souls" who condemn it. I am pleased to say that group includes me.
The Frieds made clear in their lawyerly analysis what any thoughtful person understands instinctively: torture is very seldom effective and situations wherein torture might save the country are exceedingly rare, contrary to the TV series, "24" which appeared to legitimatize torture once a week. My belief is that there are no situations that warrant torture and no disasters to be avoided as horrible as the one that destroys our national personna, and everything we stand for, while concurrently taking us back 500 years in the progress of civilization. A democratic nation can no more use anonymous torture just occasionally, than a woman can be a little bit pregnant.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Military Justice Oxymoron
Military justice is in the news again with the dismissal of dozens of charges against a terrorist who was tried in a federal court and nevertheless convicted on one charge that will put him behind bars for a minimum if 20 years. Evidence that would have likely convicted him of more serious charges was tossed out by the judge because it was tainted by various illegalities, including likely torture. Several prominent Republicans are currently using the so called defeat of the government as proof that President Obama should have had him tried in a military court where convictions are easier.
I have some small experience with military justice and it is of interest only because it pertains to the culture of the military jury pool, so to speak. Though I am long out of the US Army, I doubt very much if the culture of the Army has changed materially. Cultures change slowly and, if anything, I believe prejudices may have hardened. The attitudes to which I refer are not just confined to junior officer ranks either. I believe they go clear to the top, but they may be tempered by the gray hair to be found in the most senior ranks.
When I reported to duty in Germany, as a "butter bar" lieutenant, I was handed several duty assignments. Among them was Defense Counsel for the battalion, probably because I was a graduate of a distinguished Ivy League university. Almost immediately, I noticed a slight prejudice for the prosecution. "Bring the guilty bastard in" was my introduction. The fact that one of the board's officers was giving me the finger as he was sworn in was another indication even the dullest defense counsel might have noticed. In a different case, a negative verdict was reached in something like 19 minutes, a record I was told. It didn't take long before I got angry, and on the first case that wasn't a negative slam dunk, I used that wonderful education to secure an acquittal, the first one anyone in my battalion could remember. The level of justice had been raised a tiny bit and hereafter the cases were argued more seriously. There were always good natured, out of session pleas from the "judges" to move things along because "Happy Hour starts in 20 minutes" or "to can the exculpatory evidence stuff because you know as well as I that he's as guilty as sin." I knew what was going to happen as soon as the battalion commander commented briefly and with a slight smile on my victories, and sure enough I was appointed Trial Counsel and put in charge of prosecuting future cases. Nothing really wrong about that, but it all left me a bit dubious about the average level of justice one could expect in the military justice system. Maybe prejudice learned as junior officers diminishes with age and higher rank, but I'd hate to have to depend on it for my freedom or life.
There's another dimension to this issue, of course; could a civilian court handle a terrorism case? The answer is, of course and the proof is there for all to see. We have plenty of tough, fair judges who will honor our heritage and produce justice. We've always had plenty of these men and their ranks are now being supplemented by brilliant women. There were similarly explosive cases in the last century and most were handled with great aplomb. Harold Medina's guidance of a famous communist case in the 1940s comes to mind. Today's terrorist trials have been made more difficult by their nature and the fact that we bungled the first round with secret detentions in foreign countries and torture under which most people would admit to just about anything. The more acts of terrorism are assigned to solo ideological unkowns, the more reason they should be tried locally as part of the criminal justice system. To do otherwise will weaken our American character which now wears a bit of tarnish that needs to be removed. I believe it was a mistake not to identify the previous administration's brand of justice for what it was, a disgrace of American values.
I have some small experience with military justice and it is of interest only because it pertains to the culture of the military jury pool, so to speak. Though I am long out of the US Army, I doubt very much if the culture of the Army has changed materially. Cultures change slowly and, if anything, I believe prejudices may have hardened. The attitudes to which I refer are not just confined to junior officer ranks either. I believe they go clear to the top, but they may be tempered by the gray hair to be found in the most senior ranks.
When I reported to duty in Germany, as a "butter bar" lieutenant, I was handed several duty assignments. Among them was Defense Counsel for the battalion, probably because I was a graduate of a distinguished Ivy League university. Almost immediately, I noticed a slight prejudice for the prosecution. "Bring the guilty bastard in" was my introduction. The fact that one of the board's officers was giving me the finger as he was sworn in was another indication even the dullest defense counsel might have noticed. In a different case, a negative verdict was reached in something like 19 minutes, a record I was told. It didn't take long before I got angry, and on the first case that wasn't a negative slam dunk, I used that wonderful education to secure an acquittal, the first one anyone in my battalion could remember. The level of justice had been raised a tiny bit and hereafter the cases were argued more seriously. There were always good natured, out of session pleas from the "judges" to move things along because "Happy Hour starts in 20 minutes" or "to can the exculpatory evidence stuff because you know as well as I that he's as guilty as sin." I knew what was going to happen as soon as the battalion commander commented briefly and with a slight smile on my victories, and sure enough I was appointed Trial Counsel and put in charge of prosecuting future cases. Nothing really wrong about that, but it all left me a bit dubious about the average level of justice one could expect in the military justice system. Maybe prejudice learned as junior officers diminishes with age and higher rank, but I'd hate to have to depend on it for my freedom or life.
There's another dimension to this issue, of course; could a civilian court handle a terrorism case? The answer is, of course and the proof is there for all to see. We have plenty of tough, fair judges who will honor our heritage and produce justice. We've always had plenty of these men and their ranks are now being supplemented by brilliant women. There were similarly explosive cases in the last century and most were handled with great aplomb. Harold Medina's guidance of a famous communist case in the 1940s comes to mind. Today's terrorist trials have been made more difficult by their nature and the fact that we bungled the first round with secret detentions in foreign countries and torture under which most people would admit to just about anything. The more acts of terrorism are assigned to solo ideological unkowns, the more reason they should be tried locally as part of the criminal justice system. To do otherwise will weaken our American character which now wears a bit of tarnish that needs to be removed. I believe it was a mistake not to identify the previous administration's brand of justice for what it was, a disgrace of American values.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
No Where To Go
I am a faithful Presbyterian and have been all my life. I go to church many miles from my home because there are essentially no other Presbyterian Churches to go to in my home town. The two biggest have been torn, no shredded, by the misdeeds of their pastors and have caused me and my loved ones much pain.
I've been a practicing Democrat for the last 50 years and now I don't really have a place to go with my anger, no rage is a better word, and frustrations with the weak, unruly and selfish bunch who call themselves the democratic leadership. Not President Obama, who could have led them to glory if they'd given him even half a chance, but the Blue Dogs, the poseurs, and penny ante congressmen and senators who always put their interests first and squandered the oppurtunity of a life time. They deserve to be defeated, even by the dismal ranks of the Republican tide of lying, cynical, midgets who did them in and who will now resume their do nothing destruction of the Republic.
Anyone who is not convinced that things can change rapoidly in American politics has not been watching the last 2 years of American history. What is equally clear is that is that our two party system is dead, not dying, but deceased. Government today is smoke and mirrors. Policies are determined on Wall Street in New York and brokered in Washington to the highest bidder. Is it any wonder that the middle class has been destroyed and that the rich have gotten enormously richer, recession be damned? News has become propaganda, issues lost in packaging and sloganeering.
For me, it's time for another political party. The democrats deserved defeat. I can no longer trust them to deliver any more than I can imagine the Republican party of Mitch McConnell, Dick Armey, John Boehner, Sarah Palin and Rand Paul coming up with anything I'd vote for. Someone needs to step up to the task and I'll vote for him or her. It has to be soon, however and my guess is will be Mike Bloomberg, a man with a name, a brain and big bucks.
People are going to have to trust a new party to overhaul the tax code fairly so that it protects American ideals, supports the elderly, the indigent and disabled while encouraging investment and growth. People of all stripes feel cheated and ripped off today, so if deductions for mortgages and charitable gifts are changed or eliminated, for instance, their loss will be offset by new moves to make union organization automatic or similar efforts to strengthen the middle class. Efforts to cut the national debt and/or balance the budget by skinning the middle class will unacceptable. Our next leader is going to have to know how to communicate broadly and specifically in the clearest terms, for the Republicans have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that packaging, style and slogans rule the day. I'm ready to follow a new leader if he/she will show me where to go.
I've been a practicing Democrat for the last 50 years and now I don't really have a place to go with my anger, no rage is a better word, and frustrations with the weak, unruly and selfish bunch who call themselves the democratic leadership. Not President Obama, who could have led them to glory if they'd given him even half a chance, but the Blue Dogs, the poseurs, and penny ante congressmen and senators who always put their interests first and squandered the oppurtunity of a life time. They deserve to be defeated, even by the dismal ranks of the Republican tide of lying, cynical, midgets who did them in and who will now resume their do nothing destruction of the Republic.
Anyone who is not convinced that things can change rapoidly in American politics has not been watching the last 2 years of American history. What is equally clear is that is that our two party system is dead, not dying, but deceased. Government today is smoke and mirrors. Policies are determined on Wall Street in New York and brokered in Washington to the highest bidder. Is it any wonder that the middle class has been destroyed and that the rich have gotten enormously richer, recession be damned? News has become propaganda, issues lost in packaging and sloganeering.
For me, it's time for another political party. The democrats deserved defeat. I can no longer trust them to deliver any more than I can imagine the Republican party of Mitch McConnell, Dick Armey, John Boehner, Sarah Palin and Rand Paul coming up with anything I'd vote for. Someone needs to step up to the task and I'll vote for him or her. It has to be soon, however and my guess is will be Mike Bloomberg, a man with a name, a brain and big bucks.
People are going to have to trust a new party to overhaul the tax code fairly so that it protects American ideals, supports the elderly, the indigent and disabled while encouraging investment and growth. People of all stripes feel cheated and ripped off today, so if deductions for mortgages and charitable gifts are changed or eliminated, for instance, their loss will be offset by new moves to make union organization automatic or similar efforts to strengthen the middle class. Efforts to cut the national debt and/or balance the budget by skinning the middle class will unacceptable. Our next leader is going to have to know how to communicate broadly and specifically in the clearest terms, for the Republicans have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that packaging, style and slogans rule the day. I'm ready to follow a new leader if he/she will show me where to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)