Scratch a Neo-Conservative, Find a Totalitarian

The American Conservative explains how today’s neo-conservatives have come to wholeheartedly embrace the tactics of Soviet Russia in “spreading democracy” to all corners of the world. As columnist Martin Sieff points out:

It is fitting that so many of the older generation of American neoconservatives started life as communist enthusiasts in the 1930s and ’40s. For today’s neocons are really neo-Trotskyites promoting the old, doomed enthusiasms under a new label.

This is the new conservatism but it is not genuine conservatism. In fact, it is radical leftism, seeking to force the ideals of the progressive West on the rest of the world through force of arms. What does it matter if we slaughter hundreds of thousands of Arabs as long as we carry the gift of Democracy on our swords? The similarities between America’s neo-conservatives and the Bolsheviks are striking. As one commenter put it: “As with all other left wing schemers, trying to bring heaven down to earth, they’ll succeed only in bringing hell up.”

It is only natural that we Americans should desire a free world. However, freedom cannot be delivered by the point of a sword. In fact, it cannot be forced at all. Freedom is a gift and, like all gifts it must be freely accepted. When other nations are ready for freedom then they will seek it on their own. As Martin Sieff points out:

Democracy works admirably in societies where it is allowed to develop organically. But when other governments try to accelerate its growth artificially or hasten its triumph from outside, especially when they resort to military force to do so, the result is almost always a fierce reaction against the forces of democracy. This reaction often generates extreme fascist, repressive, and intolerant forces. And these forces usually win and take power. Then they impose themselves on the societies in question, delaying any real democratic development for decades or generations.

If we are really interested in a free world then the best that we can do is lead by example and allow other countries the sovereignty that they are due, to follow their own way. If they like what they see here then they will try to emulate it. But if they do not like it then we can only push them towards fascism by trying to force democracy upon them.


Mitt Romney: To Boldly Go Where . . . Oh, Wait, Nevermind.

I hate politics. That used to be a bit of a slogan for my blog here. I hate politics because it brings out the worst in people. The demagoguery of politics cons generally otherwise reasonable, respectable people into obsessing over trivialities and into adulating people whose primary skill is convincing people to idolize them. The result is that the ideas and the people that really matter, those that can actually benefit society the most, never see the limelight.

So I can’t help but cringe when a Big Political Event like Romney choosing his running mate saturates the news. Mercifully, I was away on a family camping trip in northern Michigan when this monumental occasion transpired, but an infrequent newspaper did cross my path and from the headlines it was obvious to me that Something Big had happened. Apparently.

But all the hype is just that: hype. The carefully calculated selection of a vice presidential candidate has no bearing on policy; its a contrived display meant to gin up maximum party support and cohesion. For anyone who already has a firm stance regarding Romney, whether he chooses Jesus, the devil, or anyone in-between as his running mate is really of little consequence. Except in extreme circumstance such as assassination of the president the VP is really little more than a glorified cheerleader. A powerful cheerleader with a national voice might mean something to the indifferent but to those who adore Romney (I have yet to meet anyone who does) or, conversely, those who will avoid voting for him as if their life depended on it (of whom I’ve met quite a few), it doesn’t matter.

According to The Detroit News Mitt Romney made a “bold” decision and he “ended the debate about whether he is a closet moderate and made clear that, if elected, he will govern as an economic and social conservative.” The article continues by likening Romney’s decision to Bush selecting a “Washington-wise” and “strong-willed” Dick Cheney in 2000. Bush, however, was a neocon who selected a fellow neocon for his running mate: any boldness was painstakingly calculated and superficial. Romney’s choice for running mate, Paul Ryan, is a pro-preemptive war, big government Republican who supported an expensive and strategically stupid war condemned as unjust by his own faith, supported both the auto bailout and the bank bailout, and supported the expansion of the already failing, impoverishing Medicare program. Neoconservative and corporate fascist Mitt Romney chose a neoconservative corporate fascist as his running mate. There’s nothing “bold” about that: he chose one of his own and, what’s more, he chose one of his own to play a highly visible but largely powerless role. Mitt Romney hasn’t ended any debates (as if the “if-by-whiskey” politician could ever actually convincingly “end” anything) – he’s just as much of a corporate collectivist as ever before except now the plastic android has a younger more attractive version of himself to excite Americans to his cause.

God help us if we swallow the lie that this is what true conservatism looks like or that these are the defenders of liberty or the Culture of Life. They are not.

Torture Apologists Outraged by Sensory Deprivation Techniques

Neoconservatives are outraged because freedom fighter Amir Fakhravar was detained and subjected to sensory-deprivation via whiteout techniques, representing despicable use of torture by Iran. Yet, the same political ideology lauds use of re-created drowning by our own CIA as an “advanced interrogation” technique and a necessary tool in fighting terrorism. Some conservative Catholics have taken up this same line of thinking, arguing that because the church does not have a specific stance on a specific torture technique then it cannot be torture, and if it is not torture than it cannot constitute inhumane treatment of prisoners, and therefore if it is not inhumane treatment then it is perfectly compatible with Catholic moral teaching.

However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Furthermore, the exact rubric for defining torture is listed below:

The Church defines torture formally (i.e., what makes an action torture):

1. violation of human dignity in the form of
2. intentional mental and/or physical harm in order to
3. use a human person as a means (or instrument) for some producible end
4. against that person’s will.

At low intensity, waterboarding intentionally inflicts mental harm against the prisoner’s will in order to extract information or as punishment, and at even moderate intensities can be lethal. Thus, waterboarding constitutes torture and is an intrinsic evil in violation of Catholic doctrine. Americans who support “advanced interrogation” techniques need to reevaluate their beliefs and ask themselves who are they really loyal to? Do their Christian morals come first or are they merely an accessory to the neoconservative cause? Both sensory deprivation techniques like “white” torture and waterboarding constitute an intrinsic evil to be categorically opposed – regardless of whether the offender is the American CIA or our enemies abroad; for individuals to condemn one and protect the other constitutes an unprecedented duplicitousness that devalues human life in favor of trivial party loyalties.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Malcolm W. Nance, a counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government’s Special Operations, Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies and a 20-year veteran. If you believe that waterboarding is a viable tool or are undecided then I recommend that you read the full article.

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets.

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives. The Small Wars Council had a spirited discussionabout this earlier in the year, especially when former Marine Generals Krulak and Hoar rejected all arguments for torture.

Torture in captivity simulation training reveals there are ways an enemy can inflict punishment which will render the subject wholly helpless and which will generally overcome his willpower. The torturer will trigger within the subject a survival instinct, in this case the ability to breathe, which makes the victim instantly pliable and ready to comply. It is purely and simply a tool by which to deprive a human being of his ability to resist through physical humiliation. The very concept of an American Torturer is an anathema to our values.

I concur strongly with the opinions of professional interrogators like Colonel Stewart Herrington, and victims of torture like Senator John McCain. If you want consistent, accurate and reliable intelligence, be inquisitive, analytical, patient but most of all professional, amiable and compassionate.

Who will complain about the new world-wide embrace of torture? America has justified it legally at the highest levels of government. Even worse, the administration has selectively leaked supposed successes of the water board such as the alleged Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessions. However, in the same breath the CIA sources for the Washington Post noted that in Mohammed’s case they got information but “not all of it reliable.” Of course, when you waterboard you get all the magic answers you want -because remember, the subject will talk. They all talk! Anyone strapped down will say anything, absolutely anything to get the torture to stop. Torture. Does. Not. Work.

According to the President, this is not a torture, so future torturers in other countries now have an American legal basis to perform the acts. Every hostile intelligence agency and terrorist in the world will consider it a viable tool, which can be used with impunity. It has been turned into perfectly acceptable behavior for information finding.

A torture victim can be made to say anything by an evil nation that does not abide by humanity, morality, treaties or rule of law. Today we are on the verge of becoming that nation. Is it possible that September 11 hurt us so much that we have decided to gladly adopt the tools of KGB, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazi Gestapo, the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans and the Burmese Junta?

What next if the waterboarding on a critical the captive doesn’t work and you have a timetable to stop the “ticking bomb” scenario? Electric shock to the genitals? Taking a pregnant woman and electrocuting the fetus inside her? Executing a captive’s children in front of him? Dropping live people from an airplane over the ocean? It has all been done by governments seeking information. All claimed the same need to stop the ticking bomb. It is not a far leap from torture to murder, especially if the subject is defiant. Are we —to trade our nation’s soul for tactical intelligence?

I’ll end with a quote from the Second Vatican Council, in discussing the respect due to the human person:

“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator