. . . reform the US policy concerning treatment of prisoners regardless of the technical legal status of those prisoners. Don't be lulled by that though.
The fact that Bush has been forced to accede to McCain's desire to have the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation be the standard for the entire US government, including for covert operations, is no guarantee that torture will not continue. US Army personnel have engaged in torture even though that Field Manual has been in place. Torture will continue behind closed doors until the Holy Spirit cuts off the evil spirit once and for all. In fact, Bush declared in writing that even though he was signing the McCain measure, he would not be bound by it.
What a slap in the face for John McCain by George W. Bush. Just after McCain gets the US Congress to push through a law with a veto-proof majority that requires people on the US payroll not to engage in "any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation" regardless of whether or not the person or persons being held are covered under the Geneva Conventions, Bush's army is just going to change the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation to get around this. You see, Bush likes torture. He wants torture legalized. He disagrees with John McCain.
It's sadism, pure and simple. It's sick. It's mental and spiritual illness—disease, and it's contagious. You better build up your immunities before you fall ill.
Bush and Cheney say the US doesn't do what it doesn't want to be stopped from doing by the Field Manual or the Geneva Conventions. Well, if the US doesn't do it and hasn't done it and doesn't want to, then why do they insist upon ignoring the Geneva Conventions and insist upon changing the Field Manual? It's as plain and as clear as it gets.
Naturally, for appearances sake, for political credibility in the eyes of the voters, and because he really dreads the idea of US service people being severely mistreated when they are captured, which they will be, McCain will fight any such change and win, for awhile.
Where's the fruit of Bush's shepherding? His real sentiments have been obvious. He first threatened to veto McCain's anti-torture measure. He advocated for torturers to be immune from prosecution under the measure. He argued for the CIA to be exempt. Frankly, he did everything he could to allow for the continuation of torturing people to extract information and to just terrorize.
Bush has not changed the personnel involved in weakening the prohibition against torture or the American mind-set against such despicable and antichristian acts. In fact, he has rewarded Alberto R. Gonzales, one of the prime authors of the administration policy encouraging blatant torture, by elevating him to the position of attorney general of the US. This is also due in part because Gonzales is a first generation Mexican-American and the Republicans hope to, thereby, pander to the Mexican-American vote. They are attempting to exploit the desire of Mexican-Americans for inclusion in the political system at the top.
This same Gonzales recommended to George W. Bush that he, Bush, cancel US backing of the Geneva Conventions. He told Bush that otherwise, Bush might someday be tried for war crimes.
You need to understand that it has been reported by well-respected watch groups that many hundreds of teenage boys have been or are being held, many of whom have been subjected to torture and rape, etc. The military will ask what you would do with teenagers shooting at you. Why are we creating a world where teenagers do that? The fact that war is hell is no excuse. Why are they bringing forth hell?
All during this time and with all the evidence pouring forth that the US has systematically tortured countless people, most without ever having been charged with any crime or even reasonably suspected, not that charging or suspicion would authorize torture, top US officials have continued to put forth to the world and the American people that the US does not torture and has not condoned torture. It's insanity. It is total detachment from reality. For anyone to believe that the big lie will work in the face of so much tangible evidence is on the very edge of soullessness.
US Army lieutenant general Ricardo Sanchez was the commander in Iraq when the tortures there were revealed. He wrote a memo, dated September 14, 2003, in which he authorized illegal interrogation techniques. The US military refused to release that memo citing national security. It took the American Civil Liberties Union using the Freedom of Information Act to get that memo into the public eye. What national security? Is it national security to cover up torture authorization by an Army lieutenant general? No. It is just covering up criminality. Do we want general Ricardo Sanchez punished? No. We want him to turn from violence in all its manifestations. We want him to repent as we want universal repentance.
Now the term "rendition" has been widely circulated. It is the term used for exporting people from the US and other countries (with supposed protections against governmental torture and abuse) to other countries with less stringent laws concerning, among other things, using torture in interrogations. It was one of the central ambitions to increase the scope of this abhorrent scheme under the USA Patriot Act II drafted during the first George W. Bush administration. The plan was, and still is, continually to weaken the safe guards against imperial, dictatorial executive power so that common citizens who had always been guaranteed against such abuses may be deported without due process under presidential order and invariably stripped of citizenship at the president's sole discretion or the discretion of those whom caesar authorizes.
The president, under this thinking, may imprison an American citizen as long as the president wants without any due process. The president claims the power to keep such people incommunicado. He claims the authority to keep the entire thing completely secret. In other words, he claims the authority to just make American citizens disappear without a trace. Now, it should be obvious that he also self-authorizes himself to have the person tortured or murdered. When were the Dark Ages? This is a dark age. Does the US president have the power to say "off with his head" and it's done? Are the people just going to follow this president or any other president who claims such authority whether in the open or behind a very thin veil?
The legal theory to which George W. Bush subscribes (the Unitary Executive Doctrine) boils down to this. He may authorize himself to have all the power the people (not the judiciary or the legislature) don't withhold from him. So far, the people have been willing to acquiesce to this move into dictatorship, just as the Roman Senate acquiesced to dictatorship under times of external threats (as terrorism is claimed today) and acquiesced to their utter loss of power, since the Roman Empire's dictator became Rome's deified Emperor with absolute sole power. This preceded the great collapse of Rome until that power was reconstituted by Constantine I and taken over by the Roman church.
Human laws sit in the sea of dead qualifications
Human laws are not fixed and absolute. Such is the case with the Constitution of the United States of America, the Magna Carta, and other such documents. Such is not the case with the new commandment. It may appear to the hardhearted that the new commandment is also subject to the same hairsplitting interpretation when in reality (in heaven) it is not. Each person must simply practice the greatest reading comprehension possible when it comes to the Gospels.
The new commandment is God
The human laws, to which so many refer when they plea for what has been termed "the rule of law," do not without equivocation point in that one direction of love, peace, and truth as all the same both goodness and righteousness: God. Human laws don't even acknowledge that God is those things and one thing.
Even though that human law is created by those who imagine that they are using what they see as the best system, what is best to many can resolve in interpretation and qualification into what simply means they alone own everything and everyone else in the world was created to serve them. All things may be rationalized under the false law that is the human law. The real "rule of law" is when the supreme law is expressly stated to be the new commandment and that law rules.
The question under the human law becomes one of what is truly best, which invariably turns out to be the new commandment (the real law). This truth is what has gone missing in the debate since Jesus walked the earth. Lesser language than the new commandment, such as the US Constitution that does not express in clear and plain terms that the supreme law of the entire earth and universe and heaven is the new commandment, leaves continual technical loopholes through which all sorts of abominable practices may occur and have occurred. The system may attempt to interpret its way out of such abominable practices, into which it interpreted itself in the first place; however, without the absolute light of the new commandment, that system spins in perpetual uncertainty.
The mundane law is unreliable. It constantly requires updates in the form of new legislation and band-aid interpretations. The mundane law is constantly entangled in its own hypocrisy. This leaves hackers and those who imagine themselves earnestly logical to exploit the hypocrisy. Others, who try to follow the law, find that they don't know where the lines are since the interpretations are constantly stirring the pot. The interpreters, raised under this system, don't even realize they are operating in the dark.
This Unitary Executive Doctrine (all executive power residing in the office of the president and that there is one office holder versus the legislature and Supreme Court both made up of a number of office holders) and how that doctrine translates into even dictatorial power, more so in times of war (formally declared or otherwise), is completely mundanely logical within the current system. Under the letter of the US Constitution, it is true that there may be no executive functions of government independent of the president. Only the president may administer the law. All agencies of government that have been administering the laws and acting as independent of the president have been doing so unconstitutionally.
Interpretations to the contrary are also completely mundanely logical within the current system. The arguments both for and against the president being on an equal basis with the Supreme Court in authority to interpret the US Constitution are mundanely logical. Even a constitutional amendment stating that ultimate authority for interpreting the US Constitution rests in the judicial branch as a co-equal branch would, at best, remain subject to a muddled spirit of cooperation under the threat of coercion. In the end within the worldly system, the question would be decided by which side has the greater coercive appeal. The president under this system may push the limits of authority as far as he or she wants until enough people side with the opposition or some drastic measure occurs such as the assassination of Julius Caesar. The system is its own paradox.
The Unitary Executive Doctrine (that necessarily points to a human being within the worldly system as the executive) and the arguments against it from within the worldly system are both of them illogical on the divine level. There is only one true unitary executive: God. Jesus too was the rightful unitary executive, because he assigned that right to everyone who will execute it in the divine spirit. That's God. That is not what the worldly way has brought us.
The Unitary Executive Doctrine seeks to usurp God. The human legal system usurps God. The US Constitution and all like documents have been fraudulently placed within the minds and hearts of the people where the new commandment should live. The US Constitution and other such documents have been created in continuity with the minds that first rejected God's law that human beings are to remain unselfish. Such documents are the result of rebellion. It is why such documents have explicitly expressed or implied such lies as that human beings have the right to more than their fair share in the form of mundanely understood private property (not sacred privacy from the lustful), which results in multi-multi billionaires in the face of billions of people in want. This so-called right is of course a thing one may choose, but it is loaded with all the negative consequences of that freewill choice. Choosing evil under free will always results in evil debt. The truth is clear under the new commandment (truth itself) that all ought to be shared.
It is not inconsistent that Jesus withheld certain things from those who were not of this spirit. He withheld answers to their questions when they were posed and rehearsed and therefore closed, insincere, and indirect. He did not leave the poor without their basic needs, and he did not take more than his own basic needs; however, he did not give all to the greedy nor did he advocate it. He did not resist evil violence and theft using mundane means.
There is also the United States practice called extraordinary rendition. It is the illegal abduction of people in other countries who are then moved to countries with less stringent laws against torture.
The US State Department is still denying that the US sends people via extraordinary rendition (kidnapping) to regimes that the US State Department says violates human rights. The State Department claims it simply takes the other country's word for it that it won't torture. However, if those nations won't torture the people, why is the US sending people there in the first place? The only reason to send people to such places would be to take unfair advantage of the lack of human rights. If the US is interested in human rights, why doesn't it render people to nations that the US is sure won't torture them. The State Department is claiming that it is sending the people "home." However, we know that people have been rendered to nations they are not from. Therefore, the State Department assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, Barry Lowenkron, lies.
The US has used extraordinary rendition many dozens of times since 9-11 and before. It has used the UK and other places through which to illegally transport kidnapped people with the knowledge of the leaders of those places. At first, both Bush-43 and Tony Blair concealed and lied about extraordinary rendition. The UK finally had to admit that CIA-extraordinary-rendition flights had landed in the UK. However, since both the US and UK are really becoming more and more despotic regimes, the citizens of those nations aren't doing anything about such illegal activities. They want to use the excuse of the reprehensible actions of others as a cover for their own sinister hegemonic aims in the world.
They want to claim that if one speaks out against their governments, one is for terrorism. Let them dare to jail saints for speaking the truth about the unholiness of all war. They defy God's call for peace.
One famous case of extraordinary rendition involves Abu Omar abducted by the CIA from the streets of Milan, Italy and taken to Egypt where he was severely tortured.
The CIA had people tortured by Egyptians and Syrians. Those being tortured confessed information that wasn't true. The Pentagon used the false confessions in reports to the president. The president, Cheney, and Rumsfeld wanted propaganda to support the long-sought goal of taking over all the oil of the Middle East. Everyone Bush's age and older knows that confessions made under torture are garbage.
Laws were passed in the US against police departments using rubber hoses, blackjacks, bright lights, sleep deprivation, death threats, and endless questioning as interrogation methods. The police used to call it sweating it out of him (the prisoner). It's why habeas corpus, probable cause, and due process became the standards. Such interrogation methods were discredited decades ago. They were shown long ago to produce false confessions. They were held up as barbaric and beneath any democracy.
The current crop of leaders though hate humanity. They hate the protections against sadism. They have hoped the new generation doesn't have such sentimental feelings about their fellow human beings. They have hoped that the hardening process of playing thousands and thousands of hours of violent, sadistic, depraved video games will have sufficiently numbed the youth into compliant killers and torturers.
Another case of extraordinary rendition involves Maher Arar. In 2002, Arar was abducted at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. He ended up going to Syria by way of Jordan. In Syria, he was reportedly tortured for a year to extract information and, of course, punish him.
The US extraordinarily rendered Ibn al Shaykh al Libi (Shaykh Libi) from Pakistan to Egypt where he confessed false knowledge of the tie between al Qaeda and Iraq. In the buildup to the invasion of Baghdad, president Bush and his administration continually said that there was credible evidence of the linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. Based upon Libi's statements, Bush said, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases." Colin Powell used Libi's statement as part of the basis for Powell's presentation to the United Nations urging an end to weapons inspections and for authorization to attack Iraq to cause regime change.
The truth though, as most people are aware, is that Libi simply told his torturers what they wanted to hear so that the torture would stop. It has ever been so.
Before Powell's presentation, both the Central Intelligence Agency and the US Defense Intelligence Agency had disavowed what Libi had claimed under torture.
Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad were captured in Pakistan. Abu Zubaydah was wounded in the course of being captured and was put on heavy duty pain killers, and was interrogated in part while under their influence. Both he and KSM maintained that Bin Laden had forbidden any operational cooperation with Iraq, because it was ruled by an infidel secular Arab socialist regime.
Note carefully the words "Before Powell's presentation," especially the word "Before."
Bush and Powell, et al., knew that Libi's false confession was seriously doubted by both the CIA and DIA before Bush and Powell and the others in Bush's cabinet, etc., continued perjuring themselves before the world, leading to their murdering hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people so far (Sunday, December 24, 2006), ruining the lives of countless others, and generally increasing the poisoning of the planet.
Torture renders unreliable information. This was understood by the general public during the Vietnam War. American prisoners of war (POW's) were often forced to make statements on camera against the US war policy. The general population of the US was told to discount all such statements as being the result of torture and duress. The previous military policy had been that soldiers give out no more than name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. It didn't preclude a soldier from berating the enemy or making otherwise defiant statements. The policy further forbade any soldier from making any statements, in jest or otherwise, supporting the enemy or denouncing the US military effort or civilian authority directing that effort. Those policies were changed. The code of military conduct was altered. Soldiers were told to go ahead and make the statements the enemy wishes and to give them information (false, insufficient, or even coded). There would then be an understanding when a soldier showed up on television making statements denouncing US aggression.
There will be those who claim this never happened, but I personally remember the television coverage on the subject, the public debate that followed, and the resulting understanding given to the general population, which of course got to the soldiers as well.
Even US Senator John McCain signed a statement while a POW that he was a "black criminal who performed deeds of an air pirate." Now, do you remember anyone believing that McCain was sincerely confessing that? I don't.
With that history, how can the US, in all sincerity, stand behind information or statements extracted under torture or extreme duress? It cannot.
The military and others know that torture renders unreliable information. They knew that before they started using it in Afghanistan and Iraq and Cuba. They use it primarily for terror.
Using information obtain by torture encourages the use of torture against your side as well. Encouraging the use of torture makes the world a worse place, which is what those in the US advocating the use of torture claim they are trying to reduce. You cannot use evil means to fight evil and win. Only evil wins in that case, which is loss. The only way to stop evil is to stop being evil. It is the only mindset that will ever achieve heaven. The only way all will join in heaven is by all renouncing all evil.
It is important to understand that this position against torture was the long-standing position in the progression in law from brutal, cruel, and insensitive to humane. This principle was well-established in the US, for example, under the principle that evidence tainted by illegal criminal-investigative techniques would not be admissible in court. Conservative justices, however, relaxed that standard when they introduced the concept of "good faith" into the standard. Evidence obtained by police officers and others acting in good faith would be admitted. The problem here is one of determining when an investigative or interrogative technique is used in a truly good-faith sense. It becomes an easy matter for anyone to ...continues... Click next page number below.