Whew! That’s a relief. As a signatory to the treaty banning torture, we’re not going to torture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We’re just going to slap him around, pistol-whip him, deprive him of sleep, and make him stand for hours…

I presume, then, that you’re a generous donor to Amnesty, which supports the victims of torture during the years (often decades) that it takes to recover?

No? In which case, you’re speaking out of ignorance, and should better remain silent, lest someone apply live wires to your testicles to find out what you really think.

(and no, truth agents don’t work. that people always resort to violence shows this rather well.)

I honestly don’t mind if you prefer to be governed.
Just because others enthusiastically embrace state-servitude, does not mean that I have to, or will.
For me, freedom is a way of life, not a trophy for the team.

Those sentiments are much the same as James Madison’s warning about slow, creeping encroachments upon liberty. That is how tyranny sneaks up on us. What was it that fellow said about “When they came for the …, I did not speak up because I was not one.” Well, I’m not a terrorist, but I do know one when I see it. It seems to me the US intent is not to “rid the world of terrorism.” It simply wants to eliminate some of its competitors. After all, what is government if not a monopoly of force? The US is just expaning its “jurisdiction.”

It seems to me many Americans are under the spell of ideals they have only the most pedestrian public-schooling understanding of. I tend to agree w/ J. P. Barlowe, in an intellectual sense, most Americans seem to be “pretending to be asleep” when it comes to encroachments of liberty and the necessity of war. Just as they pretend to understand the fundamental ideals of “liberty and justice for all.”

I’d like to include a snippet from an article titled:
Let It Not Be Said That I Did Not Speak Out! (1976)

“When the individuals living under the jurisdiction of the United States Government awake to political reality, they are going to find themselves living in government bondage. Every act of government brings us closer to this reality. The only logical future is to expect life in a socialized state. Henceforth, to be a citizen will mean to be a slave.”

And as Aron Russo wrote about police states in Liberty Magazine in 1995:

“In a police state, the government can legally ransack your house; they can come into your business; they can take whatever you own; they can assault you with impunity; they have no accountability. In a free society, government can’t do that. And we’re not a free society any more. People have to recognize that.”

For those harboring the mistaken belief that the primary objective of government is to protect its citizens, wake up! A state’s primary objective is to perpetuate its existence. That fact is fairly explicitly stated in the US justification of “self-defense.” That is exactly what the state is defending, itself (national-defense). Only secondarily does protecting its source of income and power (citizens) come into consideration. To see this one need only look at how willing and even eager the state is to sacrifice some of its citizen-soldiers to protect its existence. States always have, always will. To pretend otherwise seems to me more than a little absurd.

For the record, government does not grant or guarantee any freedoms. It is a control mechanism by design. In fact it is hard to find a better example of freedom’s opposite than government. Political freedom is a myth.
It is “Freedom on a Leash.”

As Charles Curley so astutely remarked, “There are a great many things from which the government cannot protect you. From some of them you may not wish to be protected. But the two on top of the list of things from which it cannot protect you are, first, yourself, and second, itself.”

Americans need to come to grips w/ the fact that what was once touted as “the freest nation on earth” is no more. The Constitution, the “rule of law” and all the other founding principles are nothing more than hollow rhetoric these days. The US did not, as Regean put it, “defeat the evil empire” so much as it coopted or became that evil empire. The saddest part is, apologists of torture like Radley, do little more than help speed the US along the road to a totalitarianism maintained by terror. Were men like Stalin and Hitler alive, they’d surely be smiling at the spectacle, comrade.

What about truth agents, or at least starting with those? The Phillipine link says “The Philippine intelligence agencies, suspecting a plot, arrested and tortured a man they thought was one of the terrorists. They broke most of his ribs, burned his genitals with cigarettes and poured water into his mouth until he couldn’t breathe. After 67 days, he came up with the information which enabled the Filipinos, together with the Americans – who were provided with the fruits of the interrogation – to frustrate the plot.”

Couldn’t we eliminate some of those 67 days with truth agents, if they did work? Plus, everyone could get a little stoned, sit around and talk about terrorism plots- http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0604-06.htm – As shown, it might not work, but couldn’t hurt to try.

The government does not torture citizens because as citizens, torture is not a power we have given our government. Even those citizens accused of wrong doing, or those citizens who would harm other citizens are still citizens themselves and demand the government’s protection. Non-citizens have given our government no power and should expect no protection.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if torturing a terrorist to stop other terror from happening is needed, then it should be done.

Why should we expect our young soldiers to die for what this country stands for, but think “innocent civilians” must be made safe at all costs, including the cost of abandoning the very things that make us love our country? Accepting more danger from terrorism is a sacrifice I feel obligated to make if it means not having to throw away or rationalize away our founding principles.

Whatâ??s truly breathtaking is that Balko is a loud voice against Total Information Awareness. Heâ??d sooner have John Ashcroft sticking cattle prods up peopleâ??s rectums than data mining emails. Perhaps Balko is the person Iâ??ve been looking for: Someone with an email the absolute secrecy of which is worth causing thousands of American deaths.

My position: When a known war criminal has information that will likely prevent a mass casualty attack, extract that information by any means necessary. Donâ??t use the information itself in any judicial or tribunal proceeding, unless it leads to physical evidence which confirms its veracity.

As I re-read my original post, it did seem a bit confusing, as if I was implying that US citizens have no moral rights, only Constitutional rights.

My belief is that the Constitution does enshrine in law the moral rights of individuals. My point is that those moral rights are only protected by law for US Citizens, which by definition are protected by the Constitution.

Non-citizens are not protected by the United States Constitution. They should not be subjected to unwarranted torture, but likewise should not enjoy the legal protections of OUR Constitution.

If they want the protection of the Constitution, they can become citizens.

The fact is, while I value nearly all human life, I do indeed value an American life more than any another.

Also, I don’t agree that the government actually works to protect the safety or liberty of citizens, and I don’t believe that additional restrictions on liberty actually promote safety. The US government’s imperial adventurism is a principal reason why we face these threats to our safety in the first place. When the same institution that got us into this mess through abuse of power proposes that it get us out of the mess by taking *more* power, I am skeptical to say the least.

roger: I don’t see why your distinction is germane. What is the point of Constitutional rights, if not to enshrine in law the natural moral rights of individuals?

I believe this is a very important distinction. I have no problem whatsoever with the torture of ememies in extremely limited circumstances, but would never support the torture of US citizens.

I believe we have the moral obligation to engage in torture of certain enemies if it enhances our ability to protect US citizens.