Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

Voting To End Torture

By Alexa

"Instead of allowing this President--or any President--to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

"Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

"And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus--the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance--one single chance--to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with."

--Senator Barack Obama, statement to Senate floor, October 5, 2006. on S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.  
For seven years, our leaders have appealed to the worst of our fears. They have spied, lied and crushed our civil liberties underfoot. Our leaders have not only tortured, kidnapped and illegally imprisoned thousands, but arrogantly proclaimed the right to suspend habeas corpus and snatch anyone of us from our homes with no reason given and no defense allowed.

What we've seen wasn't incidental or accidental. If you think shock and awe refers to airstrikes in Iraq, I say you're half-right and American citizens have been conditioned by the Bush administration to a permanent state of American panic.

"We need a Commander in Chief who has never wavered on whether or not it is acceptable for America to torture, because it is never acceptable. While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture. I believe that we must reject torture without equivocation because it does not make us safe, it results in unreliable intelligence, it puts our troops at risk, and it contradicts core American values. When I am president, the American people and the world will be able to trust that I will outlaw torture, because unlike Senator Clinton I have never made an exception for torture and I never will."

Source: The Baltimore Sun

Obama is referring to the stance Clinton assumed last fall, when she for the first time ruled out any exception to a ban on the use of torture by government interrogators. Clinton previously had said would consider torturing suspected terrorists if there was an imminent threat of attack, the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unlesselected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."

Source: The Washington Post

Clinton said she changed her mind after meeting with a group of retired generals. Her about-face, in fact, put her at odds with her husband, who had adopted the ticking time-bomb viewpoint. Source: Obsidian Wings.

The Clinton campaign responded with a statement that said her "strong position opposing torture" had led to her endorsement by Gen. Antonio Taguba, who wrote the official report on the military's Abu Ghraib scandal.

The release also included an excerpt of a recent letter Senator Clinton sent to President Bush in which she said strong opposition to torture was essential. Source: TalkLeft

[Senator McCain] has shown bad judgment and an ability to change his positions in many other instances.

[snip]

The more important one relates to his experiences during the Viet-Nam War. After being shot down and seriously wounded, he spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, during which time he was tortured. At first, his position was that this country should not torture under any circumstances. He has now backed away from that principled position and agrees that under certain circumstances it is acceptable that the CIA be allowed to torture.

Source: OpEd News

President Bush on Saturday vetoed the bill that would have banned the CIA to use "harsh interrogation techniques," including waterboarding.

And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, "...actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay..."

And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.

A primary election campaign is not unlike a war. In this battle for delegates, Barack Obama has proven himself to be the best "Commander in Chief." From the outset he knew what his strategic objective was. To win delegates. He organized the best strategy to achieve that objective, a 50-state strategy. His speeches inspired his troops to give 110 percent of themselves in execution and support, and he never had to have his red (ink) phone ring at 3AM, or any other time.

Sources as cited throughout. I would highly recommend the following to any interested reader:

The Sounds of Silence and Equivocation, by Liliana Segura, in Counterpunch.

Obama has positioned himself as just that: a level-headed candidate who can transcend political pettiness and bring people together in order to get things done. To his credit, he has promised he will restore habeas corpus and declares that it is "never OK" to torture. He has called for closing Guantanamo (all the leading candidates have, in fact, with the exception of the recently departed Mitt Romney, who would have famously "doubled" it). For anyone opposed to the Bush administration's stampede on human rights, such promises are reassuring. But they are also a sad indication how dismally low our political standards have become. Opposition to torture is not a brave stance. You're supposed to be against it.

Feeling The Spirit by Simon Robinson in Time.

Q&A: Obama on Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, 3/2/08 (Illinois senator responds to written questions submitted by the Washington Post.)

Q. You have said you would close the military prison at Guantanamo. What would you do with the prisoners there? Would you try them in civilian courts?

A. I have been disappointed that the only conviction at Guantanamo to date has been a guilty plea of material support for terrorism -- a plea that led to a nine-month sentence. I believe that our civilian courts or our traditional system of military courts-martial can administer justice more quickly while also demonstrating our commitment to the rule of law.

Clinton changed on torture, The St. Petersburg Times.

Hillary Clinton equivocates on CIA torture by Stephen Soldz; Psyche, Science and Society.

Habeas Lawyers For Obama

In Saturday's radio address, President Bush defended practices such as waterboarding, claiming that they alone had prevented another 9/11.

Barack Obama presents a blueprint for change. He inspires people just like you and I to work together and reclaim the America we believe in.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on November 08, 2008 (boomark / email).