Many people consider these techniques employed by Mr. Bush’s administration to be torture, and almost all of them were banned in 2005 and 2006 when this story was the most prominent in the media and around the world. But the debate over what classifies as torture is not the only controversy of the issue. There has also been intense discussion over whether it was appropriate for the Obama administration to release the memos in the first place, perhaps causing national security risks by doing so.

Really, I do not believe there is any debate to be had over this issue. The methods that were revealed to not only have been used, but abused severely in some cases, definitely constitute torture. Besides for other international standards, the United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly outlaw water boarding and other methods used by the Bush administration. Torture not work, it does not protect us, it destroys our moral standing in the world, and it is a gross violation of the human rights of the victim, even if that victim is a terrorist or criminal.

Some may argue that during a time of war torture is necessary to save the lives of innocent people. I have yet to have seen or heard of a scenario outside of fictional TV shows like 24 where a situation like this one has actually occurred. In real life, our ethics as a nation should never be set aside out of fear. There are many other effective ways of protecting our country that do not compromise our value system, as has been evidenced by the capture of the recent underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is currently in the United States’ government’s custody. We gained far more valuable information from treating him ethically, than from torturing many prisoners in the past.

Finally, some might be asking, why does this debate matter now? President Obama staunchly supports the decision to outlaw the torture methods of the Bush administration, so maybe his decision to release this material is superfluous, or at worst a political ploy to focus public attention on the unpopular decisions of the past. I do not agree with this position because transparency in regards to an issue this important is paramount. If the legal basis by which these methods are outlawed is not airtight, it risks being altered in the future during other times of conflict. So in order to determine that basis, exactly what happened needs to be made public, and the Obama administration has performed admirably in it’s decision to release the memos.

]]> http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/10/the-ethics-of-torture/feed/ 3 http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/02/fake-news-of-the-week-april-2-2010/ http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/02/fake-news-of-the-week-april-2-2010/#comments Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:20:52 +0000 Libertas Staff http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/?p=406 This weeks featured fake news story comes from Wednesday’s episode of The Daily Show, where Jon Stewart examines what President Obama has been up to since passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Including an arms treaty with Russia, expansion of off-coast oil drilling, and a trip to Afghanistan. Is there anything Obama won’t do? Also, who doesn’t love a great ’80s montage?

The President of the Rutgers Democrats, Alex Holodak, was scheduled to give a speech of his own with Governor Corzine and President Obama at the rally in Holmdel, NJ. Due to time constrictions with the President, Alex did not actually get to speak. While this allowed the crowd to have more time hearing from President Obama, we think Alex wrote an amazing speech and deserves to have it out there for people to at least read. That speech, in its entirety, is below.

Good afternoon and welcome fellow New Jerseyans, members of the Rutgers community and welcome to our very special guest, the President of the United States, Barack Obama!  Now, we are all here at the PNC Bank Arts Center, yet it matters not where you sit, but by whom you sit.  Look now to your right, look to your left.  They are your friends, they are your peers; this is your community, this is our state.  We are here today for the common purpose of demonstrating our confidence in and our support for the governor of the great state of New Jersey – Jon Corzine!If education is not our top priority today, then we invite failure tomorrow. To this noble end, Governor Corzine has endeavored to strengthen our schools, support our teachers and inspire our students.  Without fear, Governor Corzine has not simply stepped on the so-called third rail of New Jersey politics, but has in fact dared to neutralize it.  Once considered improbable, if not impossible, he signed legislation to consolidate school districts and services, thereby eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and realizing greater efficiencies.

Breaking a 40 year impasse on school funding, Governor Corzine implemented a new formula that has brought our state’s students back into focus, one which provides for a more equitable distribution of funds and increases funding for special education.

Owing to our governors great efforts, we boast the highest graduation rates in the country.  New Jersey is ranked #1 by Education Weekly for preschool enrollments and New Jersey students are also considered among the best prepared for higher education.  We must now resolve to work hard so as to allow Governor Corzine another four years so he may continue raising the standards in education.

Jon Corzine is a chief executive, with proven successes in both public and private sectors, who has made tough decisions, and whose steady hand has steered our ship of state through a dark time. The current financial crisis looms large over us all, but we may find comfort in the seasoned financial expert, that is our governor, who leads our state.  It is today, more than any other, worth mentioning that when the Obama administration crafted the economic stimulus plan, which has saved tens of thousands of jobs and strengthened our economy, they went to one of the nation’s foremost authorities on finance – Jon Corzine.  Described by Vice President Joe Biden as, “America’s Governor,” Jon Corzine possesses precisely the knowledge and ideas of leadership necessary in this tumultuous time.

As president of the Rutgers Democrats, I am here today as, yes, a partisan.  So-called partisan politics is decried in the media as a dirty word, but let’s take a look around. We should be proud to call ourselves democrats!  I am proud to be here with my peers from the University, I am proud to be here with Rutgers President Richard McCormick, and I am very proud to be here with Jon Corzine and Barack Obama!

Speaking now, to those specifically of my generation, we must realize that what our president has said is true – that this is our time!  We can no longer sit idly by with indifference and apathy.  We possess the potential for immense political power, but many of us choose to ignore our obligations, instead finding blissful ignorance in hollow distractions.  Don’t get me wrong, we all require and deserve outlets and levity, but I beg you to focus your energies this fall to the task at hand of re-electing Governor Corzine.

Today we have had an open and honest dialogue with one another. Yes, we are, for the most part, all democrats, but it need not be limited to one party.  If explained gently, with kindness and patience, our friends from the other side of the isle will recognize what we know to be true.  I recognize politics will not change overnight, but I also acknowledge that is changing.  I believe we stand at a precipice. Bastions of the old guard have signaled that even they are aware of the change that is so undeniably in the air.  Look to Washington, where a woman serves as Speaker of the House, where a man who less than century ago could not even vote, serves as our nations president. Look to Europe, once separated by differences, now united in their common humanity.  Look even to the Vatican, where Pope Benedict speaks not of maintaining the status quo, but of large changes. Up until today, there has been only tacit acknowledgement of the immense change that is taking place.

Well, today, I challenge you to join me in turning the page.  The seemingly endless chapter of old, dirty politics is over – we must turn the page.  The days we were on the sidelines are over – turn the page.  Gone is the fear and insecurity – We will turn the page this November!  But let it not stop there.  Let us continue this frank discussion.  Let us continue to have ideas and to take action.  We must endeavor to bring back the public square that is so necessary for the vital exchange of ideas, which drives that steady march of progress. So with that said, I invite those of you Rutgers students, to join our organization, the Rutgers Democrats on Facebook, Twitter.com/RUDems, or rudemocrats.com and to all of you to follow me at twitter.com/alexholodak so we can continue this discussion as we move forward.

Finally, I would like to thank the Corzine campaign for the opportunity to speak today.  I also would like to express my appreciation to Rutgers University. They have gone above and beyond to help our student organization in this effort. I am proud to be a product of Rutgers University.

In closing, Martin Luther King told us that, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.“ I want you to know that this matters! November 3rd matters! Our state matters! And re-electing Jon Corzine matters! Go vote and spread the word! Thank you!

-Alex Holodak, 2009

For those of you not up-to-date on the recent controversies, President Barack Obama decided to have Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church do his invocation during the January 20th inauguration. Sadly, this decision has been relentlessly criticized by many Democrats without cause, and such criticisms have been reduced primarily to ad hominem attacks on Warren himself.

The first question you must ask is whether Obama’s decision was “wrong”. I would argue it was not. Rick Warren is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he remains one of the most moderate and open-minded individuals within popular Christianity; even hosting a fair forum with both 2008 general election candidates without ever taking sides. Any remark of extremism and/or comparisons to the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson reveals simple ignorance. This takes us to some of Warren’s infamous quotes: Did you hear that Warren called homosexuality equal to incest and pedophilia? In fact, Warren only argues that sodomy is equivalent to homosexuality in the context of them both changing the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage.

Although Warren is by-no-means the most politically correct or salient speaker, his comment remains factually correct. Warren also comments later, via an off-the-cuff youtubescue video, saying that he by no means believes incest and homosexuality equal. Thus, to argue his prejudice against gays using one comment out of context, while simultaneously disregarding his clarification of that comment later, seems illogical. I can understand why homosexuals may disagree with Obama’s choice; obviously they would much prefer a pastor who believes the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality, but the outrage shown by so many people remains unwarranted. Warren has also been charged with the crime of comparing abortion to the holocaust. Although taken out of context as well, the main problem with this argument is that it forgoes the main premises of pro-life advocacy.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.” The context shows that the holocaust was used only as a popularly understood event of mass murder; such an analogy could easily be interchanged with many others. In addition, most pro-lifers believe that abortion IS murder. Although one may disagree with such an assertion, the analogy above simply defines a holocaust as mass murders, and thus abortion is like a holocaust and ought to be stopped. Once again, you may disagree with him, but there is nothing extreme or logically fallacious with his comment. Once again, although politically incorrect, the remark remains factually correct if taken from a pro-life viewpoint.

Accepting all the points made above, one may still disagree with Obama’s choice of Warren, but to argue that it was “wrong” or to be particularly outraged would be too strong of a response. The question then remains whether this was politically wise. I would personally say it was. Although I can see why many would disagree, Warren is probably the most popular moderate evangelical leader in the country.

If Obama needs a pastor (Wright won’t do), and wanted to reach across the aisle, Warren undoubtedly is the best choice. As seen over his presidential campaign, Obama is clearly shrewd. But how shrewd? Shrewd enough to lean away from his party to make himself more favorable to evangelicals particularly? I think so. In the end, you must admit that this issue, once Obama takes office, will be completely forgotten by liberals. They will go back to worshiping the ground he walks on once he shows he can at least properly invade countries without warrant (a remark on President Bush’s incompetence). Evangelicals, on the other hand, are still wary of Obama and feel lost in today’s Republican Party. I would argue that the Democratic outrage regarding this “issue” only better serves Obama’s strategy, since Obama now looks like he is a moderate, cares about evangelicals, and will even stand up to the “far left”. Since evangelicals are the only ones who may remember this event, why not concoct such a strategy? Regardless of whether it was planned or not, this could turn out well for the President.

In the end, “Warren-Gate” is not newsworthy. In the absence of any real news, the media enjoys creating drama in their own image. Homosexuals and Democrats can disagree with the decision, but don’t act like this is a big deal when people around the world are dying from crimes against humanity (I haven’t heard this much outrage about Darfur)! This petty bickering and inability to form priorities remains one of the foremost problems facing our political system. We just elected an African American Democrat as President during a financial crisis and we’re really spending time on this? Despite being a big supporter of Obama’s, I’m all for keeping our politicians accountable. However, this borders on the absurd, and remains quasi-hypocritical. We can’t ask that our politicians work with opposing parties while excluding those who have different opinions! It’s ironic how intolerant we viewed conservative Christians when they ridiculed Warren for inviting Obama to his Church, and yet we see no hypocrisy in this situation? As Obama has already pointed out in his talking points, Warren has done much for social justice issues as well as AIDS/HIV.

Rick Warren is not an extremist, nor is he intolerant. He simply disagrees with most Democrats on some social issues. I seriously question who is being more intolerant in this situation. Conservative Christian moderates like Rick Warren ought to be encouraged. Obama is acting in a bipartisan manner, like he said he would, while still legislatively pursuing the Democratic issues he promised. And we wonder why politicians lie to us?

“For the world has changed, and we must change with it”, proclaimed Barack Hussein Obama on a cold January morning, minutes after he took the oath of office to become the 44th President of the United States. He made a pledge to the world; a great promise of internationalism that hasn’t been seen since John F. Kennedy. America is now lead by a president whose thought process can be traced to a vast diversity of international experiences. Obama has walked a path in life that few American presidents can boast, although that isn’t to say that people aren’t wary. During my recent trip to India, I was bombarded with many questions about the new President.

What is his commitment to the subcontinent? Will he try to stop the outsourcing of jobs? How would he deal with Pakistan? Recovering from the senseless attacks in Mumbai, most Indians that I speak to are entranced by Obama’s oratory and his star power, but quickly return to the cynical reality they hold so dear. With the area under control by Taliban expanding in the north-eastern regions of Pakistan, Talibanistan, India lies only a few hundred miles away. Many of my Indian friends professed to me their fear that Obama might be too soft on Pakistan. This is contradicted by his ever swift response in condemning the Mumbai attacks, his stern willingness to continue the war in Afghanistan by increasing the number of troops there, and to break away from his predecessors in condemning Pakistan’s inability to root out terrorist networks. He understands that the central front on the “War on Terror” is in Afghanistan, and is a test of endurance for the rest of the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East.

Military strategies aside, one gets a sense that President Obama understands that one of the strengths of networks like Al-Qaeda is their ability to propagate their ideological hatred. Even now, as thousands of madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan train young Muslims at a young age to fear the Jews and Hindus as enemies, Obama understands that a war strategy alone cannot assuage feelings of despair and hate that arise from years of economic and political instability. He knows that this is as much a war of ideology as it is a war of weapons. In the recent interview with Al-Arabiya, he spoke of his willingness to break away from the reckless Bush administration neologisms like “Islamofascism” and “American crusade.” At the same time, however, he refused to respect terrorist organizations and called their ideas bankrupt.

The most astute of his observations in that interview was how he saw no economic benefit for the people of the Arab world, from those that propagate these hateful ideologies. Having lived in Indonesia, one of the largest Muslim countries, and having witnessed conditions like abject poverty and lack of a decent infrastructure, the President can brag some institutional knowledge about conditions that lead people to embrace the extremist ideology. His heritage, which television pundits predicted would lead to his electoral demise and was often used by right wing zealots to undermine him, is now suddenly an asset for the simple reason that the Muslim world, in general, is less likely to be hostile to a man who once called the evening Islamic prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” The terrorists are desperately trying to quell the Obamania that is sweeping across the world. They face an adversary who flaunts an aura of internationalism that has never been seen before in modern history, one that makes all Americans declare, “We are ready to lead again.”

The crowd was large enough that, for the first time ever, the entire two-mile expanse of the Mall was open to the public. The ceremonies began at ten o’clock in the morning with musical selections from The United States Marine Band, as well as a stirring performance of “Let Freedom Ring” by Aretha Franklin.

The ceremony did not go on without a hitch, however. Obama stood before Chief Justice John Roberts with his left hand on the bible used by Abraham Lincoln, and Chief Justice Roberts, who was reciting the oath to Obama from memory, incorrectly stated, “I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully,” rather than “that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” While Roberts restated the line correctly, President Obama decided to repeat the line how Roberts first delivered it. The rest of the oath was taken without incident, but President Obama still retook the oath the following day.

White House Counsel Greg Craig stated that this was simply due to an “abundance of caution,” assuring that Obama had been the President since he was first sworn in. In the inaugural address that followed, President Obama spoke extensively on the troubles faced by the country. “The challenges we face are real,” he said. “They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America – they will be met.” Recognizing how the faults of the previous administration have affected world opinion of the U.S., Obama stated that “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child… [and] we are ready to lead once more.”

President Obama now faces not only questions over how to handle the military occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, but an economy in a downturn reminiscent of what was faced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Already in his first few days in office, Obama has begun reversing key Bush policies in the ‘War on Terror,’ signing executive orders to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay within a year and forcing all interrogations to follow non-coercive methods. These actions can be seen as a strong beginning to the first one hundred days where the tone of the Obama Presidency will be revealed.