President Searle vs. the Torture Mongers

Introduction

This is as true now, as when I’d first posted it back on June 3, 2009.

Executive Order (had I been elected president):

Effective immediately, all prisoners in the custody of any agency of the US government, including CIA and military, shall be treated by their captors in accordance with the following rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...unless you happen to be a sadist, in which case: Do the opposite.

Refuting the culture of the legalizing enabler

When I wrote "Do the opposite" (above), I was being a bit whimsical. Unfortunately, there are people who believe such addenda are necessary. These same people read credit card agreements for enjoyment - the more fine print, the better. It won't be easy to turn back the influence of the overly-legalistic. But had I been elected president instead of Obama, I would have made a start by laying down this law in exactly these words:

The United States will never torture again.

All* whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

It's not good enough to (merely) say we will no longer torture or abuse prisoners of war. It's not good enough to declare what we won't do. We must assert what we will do - and then live by those words.

The Torture Mongers

Today, I mention only two of them by name: Senator (surprise!) John McCain and Charles Krauthammer, the latter of whom had written:

QUOTE:

This month, I wrote a column outlining two exceptions to the no-torture rule: the ticking time bomb scenario and its less extreme variant in which a high-value terrorist refuses to divulge crucial information that could save innocent lives....Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable.

:UNQUOTE [Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2009: "Few signs of torture debate losing steam"]

The no-torture principle is not inviolable - so these Mongers would have you believe. But what about the no-torture laws - do they define situations where torture is permissible? [Answer: No]  If the dynamic duo of McCain and Krauthamer don't like our no-torture laws, then I respectfully suggest they change them. Ignoring these laws (or "creatively" interpreting them), thereby allowing torture, is not an option.

“John McCain, you of all people should know better” – Steve Searle.

All lawbreakers are equal in my eyes

Commander in Chief Steven Searle would have already ordered the arrest of all US agents who had engaged in torture during the Dubya Era and thrown the entire resources of the Justice Department at them in prosecution. I reject this defense: "But White House legal counsel said it was okay."

My response: "White House counsel was so obviously wrong, no reasonable man could possibly have expected to use their legal opinion as a shield.   Our anti-torture laws clearly prohibit torture. Sorry, guys...you chose to break the law, so you're going down."

Perhaps a court or a jury would "choose" not to convict Dubya Era torturers, but I would not let them go so easily. Though they might escape conviction, I wouldn't let that stop me from firing them. I can hear the hue and cry now: "What!? How could you prosecute these heroes? The information they got thwarted terrorist attacks and saved lives."

Okay, let's talk about heroes, shall we?

Let's get this out of the way first: Frankly, I don't think it takes much of a hero to torture a helpless prisoner.

However, many might think it heroic to torture a prisoner if the torturer knew he'd be prosecuted for his illegal activity. Or that he'd lose his job, even though not necessarily convicted in court. Or that this president would not grant him a pardon, even if his torturing led to information which saved lives.

I will state in no uncertain terms what I would think of such a torturer: A phony, self-glorifying, patriot-in-mind-only who decided to take the law into his own hands. Someone who decided not to follow orders, simply because his intentions were good and he thought he knew better. I am aware that there are so-called "independent" operators within our military and our CIA, who think they know better and therefore decide to operate outside the chain of command. They are far more dangerous to our democracy than any sleeper cells awaiting orders from Osama bin Laden.

My policy would be to forbid any of our forces to take any action based on intelligence obtained by torture. Translation? Here, I'll put it in plain English:

"Even if a tortured suspect revealed the exact location within Washington DC at which a terrorist organization's nuclear explosive was hidden, my inviolable order would be: Our forces would be forbidden from acting upon this information in any attempt to neutralize this weapon. And by ‘acting upon,' I mean: Tell no one, not even local law enforcement or the general public."

Also, in plain English: "If I happened to be in Washington DC at this time, I would not leave upon being informed of scheduled detonation - imminent or otherwise. I would stay put and make no effort to seek shelter."

Tell me, would that make me a hero? [This is not a rhetorical question, but it is one that only a Buddhist could answer correctly.]

What's the meaning of this outrageous policy?

Of course I have an underlying reason for tenaciously insisting: "The United States will never torture again." And backing that up by forbidding response to any information gained by means of torture. That's my way of saying: "I know you'll want to torture just this once, but forget it. Nothing you gain by such means will be used...period. So just put such thoughts out of your head."

When I say, "The United States will never torture again," I don't say so in the manner of Bush the Elder when he'd famously declared, "Read my lips: no new taxes." Make no mistake about this: In no way, shape, or form am I anything like Bush the Elder. My role model is Shakyamuni Buddha; if he were head of state, he would never say "Let's do torture!"

I say this to those who would consider doing us harm:

"I don't buy into the Axis of Evil thinking promoted by some of our pandering leaders. The suicide bomber is not the devil incarnate. Desperation pushes people into such a role. I am convinced that my other policies** will reduce that level of desperation and will make the entire world, not just the United States, a safer place in which to live.

"When I say ‘The United States will never torture again,' I am hoping you will believe those words; that you will accept my olive branch; that you will accept my offer to work with you but not dictate terms to you. I hope my orders to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan persuade you of my intentions to honor the principle of self-determination. If not, then I hope my other policies** will persuade you."

Beware of overrated threat scenarios:

Tell me, how many suicide bombings have taken place on American soil since 9/11? How many acts of sabotage have been committed by Muslims living in this country over these last eight years? And don't tell me, "Damn few, because our police and intelligence communities have done such a great job."

Most people who live here like it here - and want to prosper and see their children benefit in this land of opportunity. That's the overwhelming reason for the non-existent level of terrorist activity in the United States.

As for any malevolents who would attack, for instance, the Sears Tower:

• If they were connected to Al Qaida et al, they would only end up severely damaging their cause, perhaps fatally, in the name of spiting my overtures;

• If they weren't connected to Al Qaida et al, they would probably be False Flag operators within our own military.

In closing

Concerning the "all" which I'd asterisked above (to repeat):

All* whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

I suppose "ah ha, gotcha" types will snort: "You can't possibly mean all whom we'd encounter. What about armed soldiers our troops meet on the battlefield? Huh, huh, huh? Bet you didn't think about that."

Actually, I have thought about that. If one soldier kills another on the field of battle, I can view that as a form of treatment "with the utmost respect and dignity." But this would have to mean not killing him slowly just to "make a point" and not mutilating his corpse. It also means not killing a village of 100 civilians in order to get at 20 insurgents - and then piously calling that "collateral damage." Viewing in this manner is what leads civilized nations to develop Rules of Warfare and equitable treatment of prisoners.

Believe it or not: It is possible to be a soldier who goes about killing his counterparts - without actually hating them. Hate is a sign of weakness and - truth be told - makes for a bad soldier.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

Would I be impractical, as US president, in being so extreme in opposing torture? Quite the opposite, I dare say. The United States is being most impractical, working in opposition to its own best interests, by continuing its policy of waffling on torture. To President Obama I ask, Is any of this sinking in or did your advisors get to you?" - Steve.

  ** My “other policies” are described here: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html