Cowardly or Complicit?

I remain hopeful that Americans can still rouse themselves to save our democracy. But the time in which to head of financial and moral bankruptcy is growing short.

~ Chalmers Johnson

With the Democratic Congresses approval rating at an all time low, one must wonder, “What are they thinking?” If the Democrats were holding to any kind of democratic philosophy, their direction in government should be clear. The House Speaker herself has stated on many occasions that the Democrats were given a mandate in 2006…to end the Iraq occupation. We should all keep in mind that this mandate includes the cessation of spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on holiday leave.

Yet their contempt for “the will of the people” continues to stand. Americans are no better off than they were under a Republican held majority. These circumstances beg the question, are the Democrats cowardly or complicit? In order to answer this question one must only look to some of the driving forces behind the continued failed policy in Iraq, namely that of private American defense contractors. This particular industry has exploded in recent years, in not only profits, but also the power it wields in politics. During the 2006 election cycle, defense contributions (totaling 17, 923, 5552 dollars) and lobbying efforts (over 40, 000, 000 dollars) has reached an all time high, this number shows a sharp contrast to figures collected as early as 1990 where total contributions equaled 7,069,584 dollars. As the rhetoric continues, around the Iraq debate, the developing pattern is quite clear; as defense spending has risen so have the contributions to candidates.

Interestingly, it appears from current figures the defense industry carries with it one more asset…a crystal ball. In both the “Defense” and “Miscellaneous Defense” categories, lobbying efforts and contributions have shown clear favorability towards Republican candidates. However, this is no longer true. For the 2006 election cycle Republicans acquired approximately 65% of contributions where as Democrats received only 34%. Already for the 2008 election cycle, Democrats are gaining strength in this sector. As of today, December 29, 2007, Democrats have received 52% of the contributions from defense contractors. In contrast, the Republicans have only received 48%.

Perhaps we can surmise that Democrats are neither cowardly nor powerless as so many would have us believe. With a majority in both house’s, and more members of the Republican Party recognizing support for this endless war is political suicide, clearly a solution exists. Just as money and greed are justifying the continuance of the Occupation of Iraq, it can end it as well. Democrats have the ability to end this occupation; it appears they simply lack the will to do so. With the presidential election around the corner, it would behoove all of us who wish to see this war end to examine the candidates and their loyalty to defense contractor profits. To date, every candidate both Republican and Democrat have accepted money in the thousands from this industry. That is every candidate save two: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

As evidenced in recent years, money wields greater power than the will of the American people, however, the people continue to hold the power of the vote, perhaps it is time we used it wisely.

The Torture Question

“Funston’s example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful ‘water- cure,’ for instance, to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.”

~Mark Twain

“The Army exists, not just to win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.”

~David R. Irvine
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Defined by Theodore Roosevelt as “an old Filipino method of mild torture” the debate about the use of waterboarding continues in this modern age. Seen by most as a brutal form of torture and intimidation the question of its use and legality is now an issue that is openly debated in American politics. It should be noted however, that the current debate shares its roots in a long and shameful history of US policies based in imperial desires and blatant racism dating back as far as 1898.

As Americans approach the 110 the anniversary of the “water cure” being used by US interrogators, a glance at 18 U.S.C 2340 2(a) which clearly defines torture as, the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, shows us that the use of waterboarding is indeed considered torture. Notably, in a letter written by a US soldier deployed in the Philippines, he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. In a report released by Human Rights First, documentation of over 100 murders of detainees in US custody have occurred. However, these numbers alone cannot be entirely trusted because most autopsy reports of detainees are kept classified by the CIA where any agents may be implicated in the murder investigation. Regardless of this secrecy, investigations into the murders of several detainees reveal the role of water in the victims death. In light of these deaths, both present and past, the argument that waterboarding is not torture looses significant ground.

 

As recently as 2002 the Department of Justice stated that physical pain had to be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death to constitute torture. By this logic, forced digit removal, broken limbs, and beatings would not be considered torture. The DOJ itself has since denounced this memo, yet the debate surrounding the use of torture and waterboarding continues.

One would think that a look at recent US history could settle this question for us as well. Remarkably, the United States convicted Axis officers of war crimes for organizing and participating in military tribunals that relied on evidence obtained by torture.

As noted by the ACLU, fifty years later, it ill-suits this country to conduct war crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees under rules structured to allow admission of the same type of evidence.