This post is a “guest post” written by my father, who shares my name. It is an insightful critique of torture and our modern understanding of warfare. Enjoy.

We live in perilous times made more so by our increasingly naïve perception of the world we live in. Today, we are consumed by a discussion of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” which some have described as torture. “Torture” is a loaded word in this context. Take a survey asking if “torture” should be allowed in the interrogation of prisoners and the answer would probably be an overwhelming “NO”.

The problem is, torture escapes easy definition. Example: Put someone in a safety harness, attach them to a safety cable and put them on a narrow walkway 1500 ft in the air. Then ask questions about something they want to keep secret. For some, this would simply be high adventure. They would assess the cables and harnesses and determine that there was nothing to fear. They would laugh at attempts to scare them into revealing anything. For others, they would be babbling uncontrollably before they got to the top of the platform. They would terrorized by the situation. “Torture?”

For the second group yes, for the first group, no.

Torture is also a comparative word. Is waterboarding on the same level as hanging someone by their thumbs? Is it on the same level as sleep deprivation? How about bamboo shoots under the fingernails? Beating the bottoms of their feet with a rod?

I would be uncomfortable with all of these. I would make a poor torturer. I don’t have the stomach for it. At least not sitting at my desk typing this. However, kidnap my daughter, son, wife etc. and then give me access to someone who may have important information as to their whereabouts, and none of the above methods would seem too extreme. As John McCain said, “you do what you have to do.”

This was the situation shortly after 9/11/2001. We were in the dark as to the capability, the plan, or the likelihood of another attack. People charged with the welfare of the nation, having failed to prevent one horrific attack did what they had to do. Not because they enjoyed it or wanted to do it but because of fear of another attack and more American deaths. Denying that this is sometimes reasonable and necessary is to deny the reality of the world we live in. How did we come to this mindset?

If we go back to World War II, “The Good War”, as it has been called, as a starting point, though certainly not “THE” starting point, we can see a steady progression of good intentions but unfortunately muddled thinking. WWII was unique in many ways, not the least of which was the near unanimity about who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. Of course, this is a generality, but a useful one. The Geneva Convention had provided a frame work for the treatment of prisoners which was followed at some level by the Allies (though it would be naïve to assume complete and universal adherence), to a lesser degree by Germany, and almost not at all by Japan. Again, we are speaking in general characterizations. It was based on the notion of civilized nations behaving somewhat like teams in a sporting event. When a prisoner was taken, he was effectively removed from the playing field, so to speak, and therefore to be treated humanely and decently until the end of the conflict. The prisoner had an assumed duty to try to escape if he could do so: it was part of the game. It points out the naïve nature of the system. While on the battlefield kill and kill alike, but once a prisoner, you are out of the game and receive a special status. Is it any wonder that some nations disregarded this idea completely? In fact, the bigger wonder is that it was adhered to so well by so many.

Meanwhile, the powers on all sides were engaged in the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Millions upon millions died. Toward the end of the war, Churchill made the decision to fire bomb the city of Dresden. Was it necessary to win the war? Doubtful. Truman made the calculation that utterly destroying both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was in the best interest of saving the lives of American military personnel, after bloody pitched battles to secure various islands on the path to the mainland. The cost of an invasion of the Japanese mainland was unimaginable, yet ending the war without the complete surrender of Japan was unacceptable.

The one constant here was that wars were between countries, not just governments and their militaries. Civilians were part of the war. One hears very little of a counter insurgency in Germany after the surrender. Was there one? Not so you’d notice. Why? The country was utterly and totally exhausted and devastated. There was no appetite for a continued struggle. There was no question in anybody’s mind as to the extent and totality of the defeat. The same was generally true of Japan as well.

In the wars since, there has been a very “enlightened” approach to military conflict. We have somehow reached the conclusion that wars are between governments and militaries and not civilians. Thus we go to tremendous extremes to avoid the killing of civilians. When civilians are accidentally killed, we cry “foul!”, as though killing and dying are not part of the process of war. This is totally nonsensical. This is muddle headed thinking.

One can debate endlessly the reasoning and wisdom of invading Iraq but it is a pointless debate. It has been done, and we must figure a way to end it in the best interest of our country. What are not debatable are the consequences of trying so desperately to shield the Iraqi people from the effects of the war. To name just a few:

1. The Iraqi insurgency quickly realized that operating from among the civilian population was an effective shield from the US military.
2. The Iraqi insurgency quickly realized that mosques and religious sites were safe zones.
3. By shielding the civilian population we also shielded and indeed, purposefully spared the infrastructure – result detonating bombs by cell phone. Why should a defeated people enjoy a cell phone network?
4. Most of the Iraqi people, even today, do not consider themselves to have been defeated.

There are more, and all of them have resulted in increased casualties for the US.

This is not a call for the wanton killing of civilians. It is a clarion call to understand war for what it is. If, in the lead up to the current Iraq conflict, the war had been calculated as to what it would take to totally defeat (as in Germany or Japan) the country of Iraq, one has to wonder if we would have fought the war at all. By realizing that wars are between countries and not just governments and militaries, and that winning will require civilian casualties (lots of them) and an utterly devastated infrastructure and lead to decades of future suffering for those left behind, one can then make a clear assessment of the risks and rewards for starting a war.

Recognizing war for what it is forces a realistic assessment of its consequences. Put in this perspective, how many conflicts since WWII would we have waged?

• Korea?
• Vietnam?
• Gulf War?
• Iraq War?

There are others.

To bring this full circle, we do ourselves and the country a disservice if we continue to see the world, not as it is but as we wish it to be. As Machiavelli said, “Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.” And again, he said, ”The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”

Disallowing the use of “torture” in all circumstances may make us feel good about our selves and our principles but it will undermine the healthy fear that serves to dampen the enthusiasm of our enemies and it will do nothing to earn their love. They have already determined that we have irreconcilable differences and are willing, no matter the cost, to pursue their objectives.

It’s time to get our head out of the sand. It is time to stop the muddle-headed thinking.

I spent some time last night working on a badge for America Held Hostage.  I originally designed it with a database backend to track unique referrers. I imagined this would help me indicate the number of supporters on the badge, similar to the way you can use a badge with feedburner to indicate the number of subscribers you have.

However, this idea had a couple of problems. For instance, when you add the badge to your site footer, you get a unique referrer for each page. This would also be a problem virtually everywhere else you added it.

Plus, a limited number of users wouldn’t help the bandwagon feel. No one wants to join a movement with 5 adherents.

In light of this, I went with a countdown instead. You can see this on the right sidebar of this site.

You can add this badge to your site with the following code:

<a href="http://www.americaheldhostage2.com/" target="_blank">
<img src="http://www.americaheldhostage2.com/badge.php" border="0" alt="" />
</a>

This yields the following result:

These instructions can be found here.

I will post instructions on how I created this badge soon.

In memory of the original “America Held Hostage” as coined by Rush Limbaugh, I have setup the following site:

http://www.americaheldhostage2.com/

Welcome to the Soviet Union.

We can begin the countdown till our country once again may choose between a republican form of government and a socialist one.

Congressman Jim Moran represents Virginia’s 8th district. He is a Marxist. Just like Obama.

From the horses mouth… (if you’re reading this on Facebook, click here)

I’m a conservative.
A federalist.
A constitutionalist.

I believe the purpose of government, both state and federal, is primarily to protect the liberty of individuals.

Obama is the antithesis of these ideas. He boldy proclaims that healthcare should be a right and that wealth is a product of “luck” and needs to be spread around.

He is the most pro-choice senator in the United States Senate and opposed legislation that would make healthcare for babies who survive abortions mandatory.

He believes that governments create jobs. He believes our progressive tax system isn’t progressive enough.

He believes the solution to our 2/3 dependence on foreign oil is cutting our consumption by 2/3. How? By limiting what consumers can buy and what producers can produce.

He believes that corporations are evil and their profits are “inappropriate”. He would impose “windfall taxes” to correct this inequity.

He worked with communists like Bill Ayers, whose education ideas include the discouragement of patriotism to country and the encouragement of allegiance to the world.

And, he has literally come from “nowhere”. He’s a junior senator with only 173 working days in the senate.  We can only guess what he will do with the office of the presidency.

So, I ask: In what substantive way do Barack Obama’s views differ from that of Karl Marx and his followers?

It would be foolish to assume that the days of Marxism and its subversive techniques of achieving power are long gone.
It would also be foolish to assume that the next Marxist leader will gain power by proclaiming himself to be a Marxist.

Barack Obama scares me.

I’m sitting in the White Hart, one of my favorite places on earth. A few minutes ago, the table behind me was occupied by three people in their 60′s or 70′s.

They were discussing last night’s debate and their criticism of John McCain was as thoughtful and reasoned as the statement “He looked so old!” This last word was uttered with particular disdain. The implication was that someone that ancient has no business running for president.

They discussed this at length. Meanwhile, I listened, thoroughly distracted.

Senior citizens voting against someone because they are old is like a black person voting against Obama because he is black. (Which, as stupid as that sounds, some have actually said this)

It is tough to participate in a political system so ruled by the whims and emotions of a populace that is unwilling to be informed and make informed decisions.

Instead, the race for presidency has degenerated into a popularity/beauty contest with a slice of “who can promise the most?” for dessert.

Gone are the days of “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Instead it is all about “What do I want and how can I get it…at any cost.”

But, I guess I already knew that. I just don’t understand old people not voting for someone because they are old.

What hath God wrought?

McCain is McCain. He is one of the last people out of the 9 offered to us that I would have chosen to be the Republican presidential candidate. This is for many reasons involving his track record of abandoning conservative principles to find that sweet spot, the proverbial political middle.

But, by comparison to Obama, the most liberal senator in the United States senate, he looks like Reagan. Well, sort of.

Simply put: I have no real choice this election. As much as I’d like to teach the Republican party a lesson, I can’t do so at the expense of irreversible expansion of government and life appointments to the supreme court.

And, besides that, I at least have a pretty good idea of what McCain will do. As I said before, McCain is McCain. And beyond that, I have nothing but respect for him outside of the differences in the way we view government. I don’t believe he is pursuing the presidency for notions of power and fame. That’s a young man’s game.

No, I think he actually thinks he can accomplish good. And, I’m willing to let him try.

Which brings us to tonight’s debate.

I will say first: McCain won tonight’s debate. I don’t say this partisanly. I say this as a nerd who actually finds these types of things interesting.  I’m biased like everyone, but I am willing to give the spoils to the victor. (As I did with the Palin/Biden debate)

McCain didn’t win neccessarily on issues alone (though overall he communicated his ideas better), he won by demeanor.  He managed to put Obama on defense early on and from that point forward, Obama seemed disagreeable, and even found reason to be rude to the moderator, Tom Brokaw, and blame his abuses of the clock on Seantor McCain. “I’m only trying to keep up with John McCain!”

It was childish, and it certainly didn’t portray confidence. If you are firm in your position and standing strong on your ideas, you don’t need an extra minute of stolen rebuttal. You have what you said and that is good enough. Arguing with the moderator, changing the subject willy nilly, etc shows weakness.

You don’t have to be a republican to see that.

On the other side of the room, McCain clearly found this format to be most comfortable. It was some of his answers that were troubling.

For instance:

1. On the housing market, he hinted at a plan that ultimately sounds like a complete nationalization of the mortgage market.  I’m hoping he simply misspoke?
2. On taxes, he allowed Obama/every democrat’s idea to stand: that the tax code allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Obama repeatedly spoke of the need for everyone to share the load. All McCain had to say was: “The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes. The top 20% pay 80%. How much more should they pay to share the load?” Checkmate, goodbye.
3. On foreign policy, he mistakenly lobbed Iraq into a list of humanitarian crisis that were not a threat to our national security without properly distinguishing the two.
4. On Iraq, he let Obama’s accusation that going to Iraq was completely wrong and that McCain should have known better.
5. On housing, he mentioned the neccesity of having loan terms readjusted to reflect the “new value” of a person’s house. Does this mean that McCain is now for the socialist idea that the government should be able to decide how much a person owes on a loan they signed?

Fortunately for McCain, Obama’s socialist mantra was extensive and constant. I won’t even attempt to list it.

McCain also did some things right:

1. On taxes he said that we should raise everyone’s taxes and that he doesn’t want to raise anyone’s taxes
2. On foreign policy he demonstrated a superior knowledge of the geography and conditions of the nations being discussed also mentioning the many locations he had personally visited as related to the discussion.
3. On foreign policy he gave concrete examples of bad ideas Obama had, concerning the suggestion that we invade Pakistan if they don’t cooperate and Obama’s belief that the UN should handle the Russia/Georgia conflict.
4. On Iraq he called Obama to task for being wrong on the surge.
5. On healthcare, he pointed out the socialist tendencies of government mandates and challenged Obama to tell people how much he would fine a small business for not adopting his health care plan. (He later pointed out that Obama didn’t answer)

Etc. There were a lot of little things.

Overall, it was nice to see McCain hold his own.

But, it still made me ask myself: How on earth did we narrow down 9 Republicans to 1 quasi-conservative-leans-liberal?

If I may be politically incorrect momentarily, and I may, I would like someone to explain to me just what it means to be black.

This is a releavant question for many reasons, the most of obvious being the regular criticism of certain blacks in the political spotlight who are said to be “not black enough”.

For instance,  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was criticized in an editorial written by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They suggested that Clarence Thomas should have an asterisk (*) by his name because “he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America”.

By this definition, one is black (or not black) because of the political views they espouse (or do not espouse).

But of course it wouldn’t be that easy.

Senator Barack Obama, who is second only to Hillary Clinton in the race to be the Democratic presidential nominee, has been criticized endlessly that he also is “not black enough.”  Debra J. Dickerson of Salon.com writes “‘Black,’ in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.”

I cannot help but think that by “markedly different outlooks on the role of race int heir lives and in politics”, Dickerson is trying to say that a “real” black person is not only descended from slaves, but still resents what is essentially an issue they have not ever had to deal with.  Presumably, if Barack were black enough he would be demanding reparations and giving the one finger salute to racist, white America.

So, blackness is not just holding a certain set of political views, it’s having an attitude that harkens back to the suffering of your ancestors. Something that voluntary african imigrants just cannot understand.

Even more confusing, we must recall that Bill Clinton has been christened the “first black president” by more than a few. Toni Morrison in the New York Observer wrote in a 1998 editorial that “Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas”.  At a 2001 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) dinner, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), explained to listeners that Clinton “took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.”

So here again, we have someone’s blackness being defined by something other than the color of their skin.

Senator Joe Biden came under intense scrutiny for telling the New York Observer “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

What Senator Biden said without tact, is actually instructive. It is the “articulate, bright, and clean” who are most often maligned for lacking blackness.

I have seen these inconsistent, unwritten rules applied to friends in my distinctly conservative, Christian university as well.  A friend of mine, who I shall not name on the chance that it may create more controversy for her, was ostracized by many of the black girls on her dorm for not being “black enough”. She was accused of being a racist and discriminating against blacks.

Even worse is how the situation was handled. So-called “diversity coaches” were called into assist. They lined up students and asked them to step forward if they fell into certain criteria. Among these criteria were questions like “Have you ever been followed by security at the mall?” When my friend refrained from stepping forward, she was patronizingly told “It’s ok, you don’t have to be embarassed.”

Here again we are presented with additional, disturbing, and divisive definitions of what makes a person black.

It is my contention that those eager to define blackness, usually choose negative criteria.  When they malign those who stray from the normative black political stance, they are saying that a primary characteristic of black Americans is that they all think alike. When they criticize someone for being “too white”, they are really making a statement about good traits that all productive citizens should seek to be (articulate, clean, bright) and promote the stereotype that to be “black” is to speak in “ebonics” and live in the projects.

It’s hypocritical. It’s destructive. It’s divisive.  It’s just how democrats wanted it.

Democrats realized a long time ago, that by pitting people against each other and identifying them by race, gender, sexual “orientation”, religion, creed, age, and social class they would be able to make huge political gains.

It works every election.  Conservatives want to put seniors out on the street, they want to persecute non-whites, they want to imprison homosexuals, they want to keep women in the kitchen, they want to the rich to get richer while the middle class dwindles away into non-existence.

Only when the good people of this country stand up and realize that they are more than a race, a sex, an orientation, or a religion will we be able to erradicate these idiosynchroncies in our cultural vocabulary.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Ron Paul says that we should leave Iraq. When? Tomorrow. As soon as possible.

Why? Well, as a doctor he knows that if your treatment doesn’t work, you change your treatment. Staying isn’t working, so leaving will work.

The logic goes like this “Staying is causing problems, leaving will cause problems. We might as well leave and save our money and soldiers.”

On the surface, this is a valid argument, but beneath the surface it is an entirely selfish agenda.

Ron Paul is famous for not selling out, for not voting or preaching any cause that he does not believe in. I believe Ron Paul is selling out with his “peace” campaign. Not selling out in the sense that he does not believe we should leave Iraq or that he does not believe we shouldn’t have attacked. He believes both of those things.

However, he is selling out with his solution. Americans are impatient with the Iraq conflict as they have been with every war that has lasted longer than 6 months. They want change, and Ron Paul is offering that change. He is preaching an impossibly simple plan with no regard for unintended consequences.

Ron Paul also preaches that much of the Islamic terrorism we are experiencing today is the result of blowback….retaliation for our intervention in middle eastern politics.

And this is where it all falls apart.

It was a mistake for us to invade Iraq.  I supported it at the time. I trusted George Bush and the rest of American politicians who told me it was neccessary. I had a few reservations, but I did not voice them so they are irrelevant at this stage in the debate.

This invasion has caused much hardship for the Iraqi people. As with any war, we targeted Iraqi infrastructure and serverely disrupted their economy and basic systems such as their power grid.

Our lackluster follow up plan has seen much violence from terrorists both internal and external. We underestimated the size of the job and the Iraqi people suffered for this.

Staying is also causing problems….for us. We have gone into amazing amounts of debt and lost thousands of Americas greatest citizens in our continuing efforts. Each day costs money and lives.

Leaving will cause problems as well.  Abandoning our efforts leaves the Iraqi people vulnerable to the most violent sects. The ones that we are resisting right now.

So when Ron Paul supporters say “Staying is cauing problems, leaving causes problems. We should leave.” They are being disingenuous. They presume that the world problem as consistent meaning and moral weight throughout the statement. It does not.

Staying causes problems for us. We have to spend money. We have to lose lives. It is inconvenient and politically unpopular.

Leaving creates problems for them. Lack of infrastructure leads to more violence and upheaval.

The difference is responsiblity. Having caused the state that Iraq is in, it is our moral obligations to repair it…even at the cost of American money and lives.

Leaving is selfish and dangerous. By leaving Iraq in a more unstable fashion than we found it, we fuel the hatred of terrorists. We create a situation ripe for “blowback”.  We strengthen the recruiting of Al Queda.

Don’t trust anyone who says that an action is the right thing to do, when the results of that action benefit them.

As voters and members of a representative democracy, we are implicated in the mistakes our leaders make.  It is our job to support them as they attempt to mend that situation.

I have heard the argument made many times that to vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for an evil and is morally wrong, or at a minimum, non-ideal.  I have to agree with this concept in principle.

However, I cannot separate a vote from its direct and indirect results.

For instance, Bill Clinton was elected because Ross Perot was able to draw away a healthy percentage of Republican votes. While George Bush was not an ideal candidate, voting against him had the direct effect of electing a morally bankrupt president who made decisions that were bad for America. The indirect effect is that it let Republicans know they needed to stay on message and appeals to their conservative constituents. (Something they did in the midterm elections and consequently won a strong majority in both houses.)

However, if we accept the fact that voting for a lesser of two evils is always wrong because of its direct effects (alllowing a less ideal candidate to win, allowing the involved party to continue undisciplined), how can we isolate ourselves from the responsiblity of the latter decision?

My argument is not for against either position. Both have their meritts. Both have their temporary and long term goals and both have advantages and disadvantages.

I find it difficult to draw a moral line in the sand.