RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Your Ballots at Work: ‘Waterboarding is Torture’

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 01-16-2009

This kind of feels close to an exercise in I-told-you-so, but for all the folks who assert that voting is a hopelessly corrupted exercise in irredeemable empire, consider as an indicator the testimony of Obama’s attorney general nominee Eric Holder:

“Waterboarding is torture.”

Contrast this with the policies of Alberto “The-Geneva-Conventions-Are-Quaint” Gonzoles or current Bush AG Michael “I-don’t-know-what’s-involved-in-the-technique-If-waterboarding-is-torture-then-torture-is-not-constitutional” Mukasey.

By the way, there are actual terrorists who attempted to participate in the 9-11 attacks who cannot be prosecuted because the evidence against them was tainted with torture. These definitions matter, and the deliberate ambiguity of the Bush administration, besides being immoral, has also made us less safe by tainting the investigations of real terrorists and radicalizing many more through resulting scandals like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Now, I will have many disagreements with the Obama administration, such as raising troop levels in Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned about the approach he, with a Clinton Secretary of State, will have toward Israel and Palestine given their one-sided campaign rhetoric. (Though I am at least confident they will actually have an active and engaged approach toward the conflict from day one.)

I am also suspicious enough of our government and  intelligence services to know that no matter what the official policy is, there will be elements who play by their own rules and enjoy the ignorance–willful or otherwise–of those in charge. Maybe I’ve just watched too many Tom Clancey and Jason Bourne movies. Maybe I’ve read too much history. I am not naive. But can the nonvoters with clean consciences unsullied by empire’s stains look in the eyes of real people who are prisoners in U.S. custody who will, as a result of these changed policies, now not be tortured and still say you’re not willing to have a say in who gets elected? That the difference voting can make is not worth challenging your ideological purity?

Barack Obama is not the Messiah, but he is going to close Guantanamo Bay prison. I completely respect all of the protests and symbolic witnesses against torture and Gitmo. But I would assert that none of them would ever–ever–have any affect, except on the conscience of those participating. That’s why I got arrested in front of the White House in 2003 (with a court date on Good Friday, no less). I knew it wouldn’t stop the war, but I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t do something extreme to protest it. But you had better believe that I cast a vote the following year–and it wasn’t to write-in “Jesus” because he’s the real Prince of Peace.

I seek to follow Jesus every day and worship him as my only true Lord, but I know what a voting booth is for. (Similarly, I would not reject the options at the bakery because Jesus is the only true Bread of Life, nor do I reject going to the doctor on the rationale that Jesus is the only true Healer.)

Some critics will likely mention abortion. But I truly believe that this administration has a better chance of creating the common ground to actually reduce the number of abortions than any previous administration, Republican or Democrat. But that’s one to keep praying about–lots of forces have an interest in keeping that hot button nice and hot so they can press it during campaign and fundraising time.

So yes, in many ways, our political system is hopelessly corrupt. Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only true answer to violence, injustice, and poverty. And yes, we as individuals and as a church need to actively live into the kingdom of God that Jesus preached. But if we truly care about the least of these, the most vulnerable and marginalized, the most violated and oppressed, we are obligated to engage the civic tools at our disposal on their behalf. Anything less is privileged piety, and cold comfort to those in Gitmo, Gaza, or the Gulf Coast.

Also, we’re going to get more SCHIP. More children will now have access to health care who didn’t before. Happy inauguration weekend, everyone.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • neuro_nurse
    Ex-Bush Official: Many at Guantanamo Bay Are Innocent
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-b...

    1Grace is littleroundtop

    Being Mindful of Our Blessings
    http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/4916

    Your ballots at work: waterboarding is torture.
    http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/16/your-ballots-at...

    Christmas in the trenches
    http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/christmas-in-th...

    In Support of Rick Warren
    http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/05/in-support-of-r...

    Struggling with Tolerance
    http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/22/obama-and-rick-...

    Matthew 18:15-17
  • neuro_nurse
    “The question is it just to send terrorist murderers free ? With or without a trial. "

    Can you honestly answer that without concern of winning a debate ?”

    This is utterly absurd!

    Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve been saying, or are you simply unable to hear what I say without interjecting your unfounded conclusions?

    For the most part, I have ignored your convoluted tangents in this exchange because they are completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, but that does not give you license to twist what I have said to suit your agenda.

    At no point have I suggested that those guilty of terrorist acts should go free – never, not in any way shape or form.

    How you are able to suggest that I have implied that in any way is really not my concern.

    I know what I’ve written, I know what I’ve intended to say, and I know what I’ve implied. Your conclusions about what I have said come from your own agenda, not anything I have written.

    “Situational ethics to me when you are pro life till your daughter gets pregnant”

    True, but I don’t have a daughter, so what’s your point?

    “You believe in giving clean needles to heroin addicts because they are going to shoot up anyway”

    No, I support needle exchange programs because they are a cost-effective PUBLIC HEALTH intervention to prevent the transmission of HIV, HBV, and other blood-borne pathogens. (remember – I’m a few months away from an MPH, so I know a thing or two about public health)

    “you ridicule abstinence only education because the kids are going to to do it anyway”

    I have never ‘ridiculed’ abstinence-only education, and I defy you to find any post in which I have done anything other than cite PUBLIC HEALTH studies that have found abstinence-only programs to be not only ineffective, but also INCREASE THE RISK of STIs.

    “you believe teaching sex outside of marriage is morally equal to sex inside marriage is a trade off that is necessary”

    I have never suggested or implied anything of the kind – never. That is completely out of my character. I’m disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll presume you have me mistaken for someone else.

    “By the way the Catholic organization you stated helped you with your vote is solidly behind abstinence education”

    I am very well aware of Catholic teaching on sexual morality – I’ve dealt with it my whole life. There are times when I feel that it is much more responsible of me to speak as a PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONAL than a Catholic.

    You may feel that that is an incompatible dichotomy, but how I chose to negotiate Catholic teaching with the SCIENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH is between God and me, not you and me. Incidentally, Catholics do not see a dichotomy between our beliefs and science.

    “Hopefully you read this book of yours after that last debate you had with me”

    Which book? Situation Ethics? I’ve read it, and it is quite clear from this exchange that you really don’t have a clear concept of teleologic ethics, even though you seem to feel that it is appropriate for our government to practice situation ethics.

    “I would appreciate you promoting your views on someone else . I see no respect or willingness to believe that indeed justice and concern was at the depth of our opinions”

    What has compelled you to respond to me in the first place? If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it, don’t respond to it, pretend I don’t exist – but DO NOT reinterpret things I have said to suit your anti-liberal agenda.

    I’ve been through this before with you, Mick Sheldon, and I resent your allegations that I have made statements, or implied anything that is completely outside of my character.

    Cease and desist!

    I’ve been a nurse too many years – my first four years at Harborview - not to recognize your tactics for what they are, so don’t bother playing the martyr – you’ll get no further responses from me.
  • neuro_nurse
    Excuse me; I know what I wrote and what I’ve been advocating.

    From a comment posted by 1Grace below: "Obama will call for a panel to conduct a systematic review of each of the 245 remaining detainees' cases to determine which ones can be released and which should be prosecuted or remain confined."
  • Guest
    "Murder is also"

    Well, there it is. You really haven't understood the point I've been trying
    to make.

    Whose fault is that .
  • Guest
    "Now the question is, upon whom does the burden of proof rest?'

    This is situational ethics at its best . Our court system , best in the
    world in my opinion promotes innocent till proven guilty . It does not
    always deliver justice , but the cliché is true , its better then any other
    system ,

    The question is it just to send terrorist murderers free ? With or without
    a trial. "



    Can you honestly answer that without concern of winning a debate ?



    Biblically I would say it is never just to release a murderer free on
    society, but in our culture , legal system , we have decided it is the
    LESSER OF TWO EVILS , situational ethics of a system that requires the
    BURDEN of proof sometimes allows a murderer to go free so as a culture we
    make sure the innocent is never imprisoned unjustly . These are our values
    of western civilization for the most part .

    But even with a trial , imprisoning a person who is innocent is as INJUST
    as allowing a guilty person to be free in the eyes of God . Would you not
    agree somewhat at least ? it appears to me you are putting the judicial
    system above situational ethics , when it is based on situational ethics .
    You need a witness , you need dna , you need proof , it does not require
    justice to be served , it requires proof . I am not saying this is wrong ,
    better then any other system man has thought of , but it is based on
    situational ethics . Justice is not always served .

    In times of war , we have POWs not trials . Or I believe we should . That is
    the only thing I have advocated for , not keeping the status quo or public
    trials also . Congressional oversight in military hearings would have been
    my idea if anyone thought I had an opinion worth having . This to keep the
    soldiers we have in the field as safe as possible , our civilians and
    future neighbors of the people that live next to the people we release if we
    do. We already have released some who have returned to terrorist activities
    . Regardless if the war was just or not , which I believe was unjust ,, it
    is situational ethics to treat these POWS differently then we treated them
    during WW 2. Fairly , humanely , and release when the conflict was over .
    Wars should never be fought with out understanding the whole cost . This
    President who I believe to be an HONEST man , did not consider the cost .
    War is not just , to fight it is not just , and to be part of it is not just
    . Any one who tells you a war can be fought justly is a liar.
    We can try and be as humane as we can , kill as few innocent people as
    possible . Innocent people will die .

    Taking you as a man of God I find your words hurtful , I guess I am thin
    skinned but was so way before this election . Situational ethics to me when
    you are pro life till your daughter gets pregnant . You believe in giving
    clean needles to heroin addicts because they are going to shoot up anyway ,
    you ridicule abstinence only education because the kids are going to to do
    it anyway and you believe teaching sex outside of marriage is morally equal
    to sex inside marriage is a trade off that is necessary, By the way the
    Catholic organization you stated helped you with your vote is solidly behind
    abstinence education . Like me they see a greater danger besides just
    disease , but the pain and suffering , and conflict inside our own souls
    with out of wedlock marriage . Hopefully you read this book of yours after
    that last debate you had with me . Either way , I would appreciate you
    promoting your views on someone else . I see no respect or willingness to
    believe that indeed justice and concern was at the depth of our opinions.
  • neuro_nurse
    “And I am sorry of your ethics and that of your denomination is different then the United States”

    "The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said.

    Obama signs order to close Guantanamo in a year
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr...

    “…consistent with OUR values and our ideals”

    Maybe these are not your values and ideals, nor those of the previous administration, but they are the values and ideals of many of us who put Obama in office (pre-emptive strike: we’re not talking about abortion – see “Faithful Citizenship” from the USCCB).

    You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to like it, and maybe you think it’s stupid, but I don’t think I need to remind you that many of us who voted for Obama believe that the invasion of Iraq was stupid (I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats in Congress who supported the invasion; I voted for Patty Murray and Jim McDermott who opposed the invasion of Iraq).

    Those of us who have been disgusted by the policies and behavior of the bush administration have had to ‘get used to it’ for the last 6 or more years.

    Now it’s your turn.
  • Guest
    ""The message that we are sending the world is that the United States
    intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and
    we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and
    we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our
    ideals," the president said."

    Nothing wrong with that , that is not what you have been advocating , or has
    it been even close to the way your conversing with me .
  • Guest
    Now the question is, upon whom does the burden of proof rest?


    Yes thankyou for conceding to the problem . Where does the burden of proof lie with dealing with prisoners of war. History tells us in POWs we wait till the conflict is over
    to be released ,

    Do we offer trials to people who could jeapordize national security , as President Obama has seen not to do in some cases . The government looks at these things is a case by case . That is why their have been detainees already released , obviously the government has goofed because many have reportedly returned to terrorist cells and acts.
  • Guest
    The question is the proof of false imprisonment ..
  • neuro_nurse
    "Obama will call for a panel to conduct a systematic review of each of the 245 remaining detainees' cases to determine which ones can be released and which should be prosecuted or remain confined."

    That is exactly what I suggested in the first place.

    Maybe it's not such a radical idea after all.
  • neuro_nurse
    "He has none as I don't"

    Thank you for conceding that much.

    Now the question is, upon whom does the burden of proof rest?
  • neuro_nurse
    "Murder is also"

    Well, there it is. You really haven't understood the point I've made.
  • neuro_nurse
    Proof of what? That false imprisonment is unjust? Or that some of the men in Guantanamo have been falsely imprisoned?

    Where’s your proof that they haven’t been falsely imprisoned?
  • Guest
    Bush left him with a problem with this among other things . Hope Obama does not get jumped on from the far left on this .
  • 1Grace
    Mick this is information from a draft of The Executive Order from President Obama on this issue.

    Obama will call for a panel to conduct a systematic review of each of the 245 remaining detainees' cases to determine which ones can be released and which should be prosecuted or remain confined. In the meantime, trials before the existing military commissions would be put on hold.

    "It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how such individuals can and should be prosecuted," the drafts say.
  • Guest
    He has none as I don't . President Obama has already stated with the information he has that some of the prisoners will not receive trials. Obviously he has , but we need to trust our government with the people we elect on certain issues of National Security . Glad this Administration shares my values in regards to the importance that our national security has . Seems his ethics is different then the present administration also . Must be lonely at the top of the ethical ladder,

    Don't waste your time , I fell for the one way conversation .
  • Guest
    Eric your right about how a President sees things when he takes office and not quaterbacking from outside the Oval Office . President Obama just stated some of the prisoners at Guatemala bay will not receive a trial because of the security interests of allowing that would hurt our national security ,

    When Bush stated the same it was greeted with liar, etc . I totally agree with treating the prisoners as POWS , obeying the geneva Convention, and not the way the last Administration has . But I believe Obama has the smarts and ability to change course on certain issues when he sees all of the situation , and not just through an idealogical lens .
  • 1Grace
    False imprisonment is unjust.

    Where is your proof ?
  • Guest
    "So, there was nothing ‘wrong’ about what I said. Your interpretation of what I said was wrong."

    Hmmmm , a situational misunderstanding . Ok I guess.
  • Guest
    'Regardless of what I believe about the rights of the detainees (remember, bush, cheney, & gonzales denied that they were POWs), I never stated that POW have a right to a trial.'

    Your changing the subject . I am not answering for Bush Cheny or whoever . I stated I agreed with McCain and President Obama on this subject . From what I undertand the reason they were not treated as POWs was so that our government did not have to honor the Geneva Convention and treated them to WaterBoarding and a host of other methods of mistreatment . That I totally concur with . That was wrong .
    So is statements that compare the United States to a terrorist Nation . It shows an emotional inabilty to specfically talk to the issue at hand . Why would you even state something like this , if it was true why even bother to debate the issue .
  • Guest
    Neuro you never answered any of my questions , not one ?

    So explain perhaps if you can , in every war since our Constitution has been
    written we as a nation have imprisoned POWs with OUT a trial . Thus your
    opening remarks were wrong in regards to the Constitution . You never
    addressed your opening remarks .

    Your belief I am thinking , you fail to explain your view . Is that since
    they do not wear uniforms , it is up to the United States Government to have
    a trial as if they were citizens of any country and we just picked them up
    off the street .
    Like I said I am guessing .

    My view is your rewarding and actually encouraging people who are using
    innocent women and children as shields to where they fight from and hide
    within to intimidate , murder . Your view I believe is that we should
    still provide trials because it is the right thing to do . I however in my
    view see it as rewarding the most horrid evil method of combating a war ,
    hiding within civilians to carry out a war . I see it also as also possibly
    allowing our court system to be utilized by Terrorists to provide
    information that does not have a security clearance , thus putting our
    soldiers in jeopardy .But as I said before , if we are terrorist nation
    which I am guessing you meant , your not very forth coming in any answers ,
    then we are using terrorism in Iraq in your eyes it is not important then
    to protect our own soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq from it .
  • Guest
    :

    False imprisonment is unjust.

    Murder is also

    Link:
    http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/2009/01/1...

    --
    You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
    notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
    http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/


    --
    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG.
    Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1906 - Release Date: 1/21/2009
    7:07 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008