TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Monday, December 15, 2014
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Do They Really Oppose Torture?
Do They Really Oppose Torture?
written by ron paul
thursday december 11, 2014
The Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on CIA torture of detainees and the reaction has been strong. While some still maintain that torture is justified, the emerging details of the program have left most of the country disgusted and ashamed.
Many in the current Administration blame the Bush people for this dark chapter, claiming that President Obama finally put an end to what his predecessor started.
Senator John McCain, an advocate for war and an interventionist foreign policy, has nevertheless been one of the strongest voices opposing torture. He has recalled his time as an abused prisoner of war in Vietnam to argue the importance of facing up to the recent behavior of the US government and making necessary corrections.
He said he knows from personal experience that torture does not produce good intelligence, as the victims will say whatever they believe their captors want to hear to gain some relief from their agony. Torture is morally wrong and it doesn’t work, he maintains.
I believe the Senator is sincere and that his intentions are good when it comes to the torture outlined in the report. I also believe that President Obama is sincere when he denounces the practices outlined by the Senate Committee.
But I think both President Obama and Senator McCain are being disingenuous and selective in their opposition to torture.
It is one thing to argue that people should not have their feet broken and be forced to stand cuffed to a wall, to oppose rectal force-feeding, and to condemn water-boarding a detainee 50 or 100 times. Most of us reject this kind of torture for both moral and practical reasons.
But is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions? Is endorsing pre-emptive war, knowing that thousands of civilians are sure to be “collateral damage,” not support for torture?
Both Senator McCain and President Obama take the moral high ground with regard to CIA torture, but both are enthusiastic supporters of past and current US military interventions that have the same effect on millions. It is one thing to oppose horrific practices that leave perhaps dozens killed or maimed. But what about practices that do the same for tens of thousands or millions?
A consistent anti-torture position would also reject sanctions, “humanitarian” interventions, regime change, and pre-emptive war. Anything less is missing the whole point.
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Related
US Military Training Overseas: Vast and Under-Reported - 16 April 2013
The Coming Non-Intervention Revolution - 16 April 2013
The Interventionist Failures and How To Fix Them - 17 April 2013
Scenes From the Ron Paul Institute Press Conference - 22 April 2013
Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty - 22 April 2013
written by ron paul
thursday december 11, 2014
The Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on CIA torture of detainees and the reaction has been strong. While some still maintain that torture is justified, the emerging details of the program have left most of the country disgusted and ashamed.
Many in the current Administration blame the Bush people for this dark chapter, claiming that President Obama finally put an end to what his predecessor started.
Senator John McCain, an advocate for war and an interventionist foreign policy, has nevertheless been one of the strongest voices opposing torture. He has recalled his time as an abused prisoner of war in Vietnam to argue the importance of facing up to the recent behavior of the US government and making necessary corrections.
He said he knows from personal experience that torture does not produce good intelligence, as the victims will say whatever they believe their captors want to hear to gain some relief from their agony. Torture is morally wrong and it doesn’t work, he maintains.
I believe the Senator is sincere and that his intentions are good when it comes to the torture outlined in the report. I also believe that President Obama is sincere when he denounces the practices outlined by the Senate Committee.
But I think both President Obama and Senator McCain are being disingenuous and selective in their opposition to torture.
It is one thing to argue that people should not have their feet broken and be forced to stand cuffed to a wall, to oppose rectal force-feeding, and to condemn water-boarding a detainee 50 or 100 times. Most of us reject this kind of torture for both moral and practical reasons.
But is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions? Is endorsing pre-emptive war, knowing that thousands of civilians are sure to be “collateral damage,” not support for torture?
Both Senator McCain and President Obama take the moral high ground with regard to CIA torture, but both are enthusiastic supporters of past and current US military interventions that have the same effect on millions. It is one thing to oppose horrific practices that leave perhaps dozens killed or maimed. But what about practices that do the same for tens of thousands or millions?
A consistent anti-torture position would also reject sanctions, “humanitarian” interventions, regime change, and pre-emptive war. Anything less is missing the whole point.
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Related
US Military Training Overseas: Vast and Under-Reported - 16 April 2013
The Coming Non-Intervention Revolution - 16 April 2013
The Interventionist Failures and How To Fix Them - 17 April 2013
Scenes From the Ron Paul Institute Press Conference - 22 April 2013
Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty - 22 April 2013
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Congress Protects Surplus M14, M1 Garands, & M1911 Pistols in CRomnibus
Congress Protects Surplus M14, M1 Garands, & M1911 Pistols in CRomnibus
CONGRESS PROTECTS SURPLUS M14, M1 GARANDS, & M1911 PISTOLS IN CROMNIBUS
Under Title VIII of the Division C (DoD Appropriations Act), as part of the Continuing Resolution (CRomnibus), Congress made it very clear that none of the funds were to be used to dispose of older-style and much beloved military rifles and handguns. Also included is a mention of small arms ammunition. While this text has appeared in the Defense Appropriations Acts before, it is important to note that it is still there, especially in light of many in congress being strong anti-gun advocates. For the longest time civilians have been able to purchase these surplus weapons directly from the military, and it seems that Congress preserved that capability.
A quick search around Facebook or gun forums you will see a plethora of people who love the M1 Garand, M14, and M1911. There is a cult following that is very loyal and are very happy that these weapons will be preserved to either fight another day or be sold on the civilian market.
Below is the text of the provision we are talking about:
SEC. 8018. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M–1 Carbines, M–1 Garand rifles, M–14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M–1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable, unsuitable, or unsafe for further use.
You can read the entire Continuing Resolution here: CRomnibus.
CONGRESS PROTECTS SURPLUS M14, M1 GARANDS, & M1911 PISTOLS IN CROMNIBUS
Under Title VIII of the Division C (DoD Appropriations Act), as part of the Continuing Resolution (CRomnibus), Congress made it very clear that none of the funds were to be used to dispose of older-style and much beloved military rifles and handguns. Also included is a mention of small arms ammunition. While this text has appeared in the Defense Appropriations Acts before, it is important to note that it is still there, especially in light of many in congress being strong anti-gun advocates. For the longest time civilians have been able to purchase these surplus weapons directly from the military, and it seems that Congress preserved that capability.
A quick search around Facebook or gun forums you will see a plethora of people who love the M1 Garand, M14, and M1911. There is a cult following that is very loyal and are very happy that these weapons will be preserved to either fight another day or be sold on the civilian market.
Below is the text of the provision we are talking about:
SEC. 8018. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M–1 Carbines, M–1 Garand rifles, M–14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M–1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable, unsuitable, or unsafe for further use.
You can read the entire Continuing Resolution here: CRomnibus.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)