Citizen Tom

Will President George W. Bush get the last laugh?

President Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises in his troubled attempt to shut Guantánamo Bay — with plans to revive the military tribunal system set up by George Bush and to continue the indefinite detention of up to 100 inmates.

The moves, which have not yet been signed off by Mr Obama but look increasingly likely, are a result of his promise on his second day in office to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison within a year.  (continued here)

H/T to the right-wing liberal here.

The Cartoons

What was the situation at Guantánamo Bay?

Was it torture and evasion of civilized law?

Or something decidely more foolish?

Has the United States government tortured inmates at Guantanamo Bay?  Perhaps.  Has torture been our national policy?  Frankly, I do not know, but I doubt it.  The answer is buried in the landscape of normal human confusion.  In addition to the difficulties inherent in knowing what our people actually did do to the inmates at Guantanamo, we have yet to agree on the definition of torture and what constitutes national policy.

This morning’s editorial in the Outlook section of the Washington Post, The Stories of Torture Sounded Made Up. They Weren’t., did little to help the discerning reader.  As usual, the reporter, in this case Carol D. Leonnig, provided more fuel for an active imagination than facts for a concerned citizen.  What is the one bit of substance in this emotional opinion piece?

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler was hearing detainee lawyers’ claims that a new feeding chair for prisoners on hunger strike was Guantanamo’s latest torture tactic. A prisoner who refused to eat would be strapped into the chair for up to two hours while nutrients were pumped into his nose through a tube as thick as a small broom handle. Kessler paused after Henry assured her that, according to Guantanamo’s medical director and the base commander, the feeding inflicted no significant pain.

Kessler said that she had read many sealed records about the evidence against detainees and about their treatment, and that she now had much less trust in the government.

“I know it’s a sad day when a federal judge has to ask a DOJ attorney this, but I’m asking you,” Kessler said. “Why should I believe them?”  (from here)

“Why should I believe them?”  That is the crux of the problem.  Truth with a capital “T” and humanity usually have too little commerce with one another.  We each have our agenda, and we tend to sacrifice everything to that agenda, the Truth with a capital “T” being our favored sacrifice.  So the wise look upon the words of their fellows with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Unfortunately, healthy skepticism is not a lesson that comes easily.  It is convenient and more comfortable to accept conventional wisdom.  What are the sources of conventional wisdom?  The most powerful voice, the most confident voice, the voice of the majority, the voices of those on “our” side — these  we find to be the most soothing sources of Truth.

Fortunately, experience instructs us in skepticism.   Even when our schools and our teachers have failed to teach us to think properly, to look for proven facts presented in logical argument, life provides us with brutal corrective lessons.

The terrorists and our government are not the only possible sources of villainy in this affair involving the possibility of torture at Guantanamo Bay.  The corporate news media can lie to us too.  The corporate news media has one overriding task, provide an audience for advertisers.  The “successful” reporter is one who gains the largest audience, and that word “torture” gains attention.   Hence we must regard Leonnig’s supposed reluctance to use the word “torture” with some incredulity.  As the Leonnig herself notes, she started using the “torture” in December 2004 (see here and here).  In the first article, for the Seattle Times, she used the term “torture” twice.  In her second, for the Washington Post, a paper with a larger circulation, she used the word eight times.

The Cartoons

What drives this issue?   There is politics, the hatred of President George W. Bush, and there is the abhorrence of torture.  Too often it is hard to separate the two.

Throughout most of history, when nations have sent their soldiers into combat, they have not asked them to gather “evidence” on the people they are fighting.  People understood our soldiers would already be fighting to survive, and they did not need additional burdens.  Instead, the People expected their soldiers to follow rules of engagement.  The People did not want their soldiers to kill indiscriminately. 

Today, our Supreme Court decided to rewrite the rules.  See here and here.

Some people are more rightly upset with this nonsense than I.  See this post.

The principal issue area where the candidacy of Jim Gilmore would seem to have its greatest advantage is foreign policy.  So to give Gilmore the greatest possible advantage relative to Bob Marshall, I decided to compare the candidates with respect to their experiences and their stances on foreign policy.

Please note that this is the fourth in a series on the competition between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for the Republican Party’s nomination to be Virginia’s next senator.  Here are the previous three posts:

• ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
• ON LAW
• ON EDUCATION

At first glance, Jim Gilmore has obvious advantages.  At least, he would appear to have the better resume.  Gilmore has military experience:

Upon graduation, Jim Gilmore volunteered for the U.S. Army and won honors after completing training at the Army Intelligence School and Defense Language Institute.

He was then assigned to the 650th Military Intelligence Group. Serving in Germany during the Vietnam War and fluent in German, Jim Gilmore played an important role in counter-intelligence work safeguarding the security of American bases in Europe. (from here)

And Gilmore has recent experience on homeland security issues.

Gilmore’s successes laid the basis for additional roles in the service of others. Congress chose him to chair a national commission charged with making recommendations on methods to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks on the United States. The Gilmore Commission warned in 1999 and in 2000 that America was facing a possible terrorist attack. After 9/11 Congress adopted 146 of the Gilmore Commission’s 164 recommendations. (from here)

So with respect to foreign policy issues, we should not regard Gilmore as a complete novice.

Bob Marshall, on the other hand, is unable to make any such prestigous claims.

Bob has a BA in History and Philosophy from Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, and an MA in Humanities from California State University. He has a personal library of 2000+ books, is an avid reader of history, philosophy, constitutional issues, and medical, social and political issues of importance. His hobbies (when he has time) include exercising, gardening and photography. (from here)

So why, when I consider the prospect of voting for Jim Gilmore, do I feel like I am being asked to buy a pig in a poke?  Jim Gilmore has too little to say about foreign policy issues on the issues page of his web site (see here).  He has a couple of nice sounding paragraphs.  Basically, he is asking you to trust him. 

Although Bob Marshall has served our state for many years as a major figure in the General Assembly, he does not ask us to trust him.  Instead, Marshall tells us what we will get if we vote for him.   Marshall has two posts that specifically relate to foreign policy.  One is on Foreign Trade and the other is on War and Foreign Policy.  In addition, Marshall speaks to his concerns as to how the Illegal Immigration issue should affect our policies towards other nations (here).  What Marshall does not do is pretend that our nation’s energy policy is a foreign policy issue.  It is not.  No foreign nation made us their hostage.  We chose to be a hostage.

If you want to vote for Jim Gilmore instead of Bob Marshall, it is your choice.  Just keep in one thing in mind.  If you want to find out where Gilmore stands, you will have to go to somebody else’s website.  Because of Gilmore’s brief presidential campaign, there is actually a fair amount of information about Gilmore on the Internet.   Here are several informative websites:

• Council on Foreign Relations
• OnTheIssues
• Wikipedia (here and here)

One thing I found, for example, is a open letter that Gilmore wrote for the Washington Post on Iraq on June 18, 2007.  This letter calls for a “third way”.  The letter calls for a withdrawal without calling it a withdrawal.

As a veteran of the U.S. ArmyI believe we cannot just abandon Iraq. I believe the only realistic alternative — the least bad option, if you will — is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission.

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining — either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia– a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.  (from here). 

We can trust Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to host our troops?  Has everybody already forgotten that Turkey flip-flopped and would not let us invade Iraq through Turkey (see here)?   What Gilmore proposes is naive. Of the three nations he lists, only Kuwait might provide a reliable base.  However, the only reason Kuwait would let us stay in their country is to protect Kuwait.  None of these Muslim nations are likely to host our troops so we can carry out the special operations missions that Gilmore suggests latter in his letter.  Muslims letting unbelievers attack Muslims?   Not very likely.

Bob Marshall is less ambiguous.  On Iraq, he says:

Iraq War Policy

Without having access to classified war briefings, I can make informed, though not completely definitive, judgments about the Iraq War.  I believe our troops and our allied forces have successfully removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed his army, but the Iraqi people must win the peace.

Although the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we cannot cut and run, but we must do all we can to stabilize the region and then begin to bring our troops home.  Stabilization of the region could be aided if all Iraqi citizens were allowed to own shares of the natural oil wealth thereby instilling a greater incentive to deter violence and protect their homeland.  (Wall Street Journal, 11-23-05)  We must consult with our allies on how best to stabilize the area, but our first consideration must be our own nation’s national defense and security.  (from here)

Marshall also specifically addresses when he would make the decision to go to war (from here).

The Constitution and Declaring War

Only the US Congress is authorized to declare war.  Therefore Representatives and Senators have the grave moral responsibility to prudently evaluate the factual conditions for the moral legitimacy necessary to declare war.  War can morally be declared under the following conditions known as the “just war” doctrine:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;
• All other means of ending the conflict failed or were impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects for success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil sought to be eliminated.

We need leaders who are willing to tell us their position on important issues before we elect them.  Bob Marshall has nothing to hide.  He is not an enigma wrapped in a riddle.  Vote for Bob!

I received this email today.

Subject: Keep it going for Matt

This one is for Private Matt Maupin, a local soldier captured 4 yrs ago and listed as missing in action. His remains were finally discovered this past weekend March 29-30, 2008). He would have been 24 this July. The insurgants put him on video after they captured him and televised it. Shortly thereafter another video was seen of a soldier as he was beheaded. But his family firmly believed it wasn’t him. All we know is that his remains have been found, whether or not he was actually beheaded, we don’t know (and they complain about how we treat our captives).

But his family now has closure. President Bush called and offered his condolences. Matt’s family has been to the White House several times at the request of the President. His family is not mad that he went and sacraficed his life. They are extremely proud of him. His family and many of their friends even marched in our local annual Baseball Opening Day Parade on Monday, proudly carrying Flags in honor of their son.

I think President John F. Kennedy expressed it rather well when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” God Bless Matt Maupin, and all of our soldiers, Veterans, past, present, future, living and deceased. Long Live Freedon.

I’M not breaking this one. If I get it a 1000 times,I’ll forward it a 1000 times!

Let us pray…

Prayer chain for our Military…. Don’t break it!

Please send this on after a short prayer. Prayer for our soldiers Don’t break it!

Prayer:
‘Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.’

Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world. There is nothing attached. Just send this to people in your address book. Do not let it stop with you. Of all the gifts you could give a Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, & others deployed in harm’s way, prayer is the very best
one.

GOD BLESS YOU FOR PASSING IT ON!

Long ago, I made a promise to myself. I would not pass on chain mail to every poor soul in my address book. So what I do is post what I think is the good stuff on my web site. And I add a few details of my own.

Today the good citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, held a funeral service for Private Matt Maupin.

Military workers and supporters from across the country joined in memorials Sunday for a slain Army reservist who had become a poignant picture of the war in Iraq after he was captured by insurgents.

Officials estimated that about 10,000 people walked past Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin’s casket during a weekend visitation at a civic center in Clermont County, east of Cincinnati, where he grew up. Another 4,000 headed Sunday to Great American Ball Park, home of the Cincinnati Reds, for an afternoon memorial service billed as a celebration. (from here)

Here is a video.