Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com

I have been critical of the United States use of rendition and "enhanced interrogation techniques" ever since it was first leaked to the press a year or so after 9/11. For many years, I supported Amnesty International and read their newsletters describing torture done in other countries.  I had always thought that the US was much more ethical, "Christian," and moral than those "other" countries who condoned the practice.   I was ashamed of our country for resorting to torture, and was appalled that the US legal system would allow it.  It appeared that the Republican Party clearly supported (and still supports) the torture, which is in line with their strong support of the gun lobby, and the death penalty.  I was surprised that Peggy Noonan of Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial titled "a flawed report"  but it's premise was that torture was wrong.

The New York Times editorial board wrote on December 21st  that they believe that all involved in the torture done to detainees under the Bush administration should be prosecuted, including Dick Cheney.  See this article:

Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com  The article also has links to support their case.

Clearly what CIA and it's contractors did was illegal under US and international law.  Clearly they knew it was illegal, and they even made great efforts to destroy evidence (destruction of video tapes).  Apparently they even tortured citizens of other allied countries without their knowledge, and ended up torturing people who were, in fact innocent.  I believe something should be done to prevent this type of action from happening again in the future.  Individual prosecution of the perpetrators and "their bosses" doesn't sound like something we want to have publicly presented, however some sort of discipline should be issued.  While a member of the Air Force, we were taught many times that we were to refuse any order that we thought was illegal, and that the law would protect us.  I doubt if military members were involved in torture, but if they were, they could be prosecuted.  The civilians, and civilian contractors involved, however, could possibly plead "ignorance of the law" etc.



I can understand and I believe the US public can also understand some situations where torture might be necessary.  The TV series "24" presented situations in almost every season, where torture was necessary, and possibly justifiable, to prevent an immediate imminent disaster, such as a nuclear weapon detonation in the center of a city within hours.  Of course, the TV-scripted results of those sessions often saved tens of thousands of lives and made the ends justify the means.  However, the situations that the CIA was in after 9/11 was way beyond that.  What could they possibly expect to get out of individuals undergoing torture months or years after the individuals were captured?  The only thing I can think of is information that could lead to the arrest of other co-conspirators.  However, any rational individual, or well operated organization, would recognize that the individual was captured and would have covered their tracks very quickly by changing names, addresses, passwords, strategies, tactics, and changing locations for storage of materials, weapons or the locations of targets.  Any information obtained would have been close to useless.   I believe it was primarily done to achieve some sort of "revenge" for 9/11 more than really to obtain critical information for protecting the nation.

New York Times 2-page ad by John D. Haywood

A two page ad appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, September 21, paid for by a John Haywood who apparently was a candidate for President in 2012.  See this link: http://www.haywoodforpresident.com/. There is also a web site that summarizes his biography and stands on issues: http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134878/john-haywood#.VCWVqvndWSo
 I found very little other information about him.  While I like most of his very outspoken positions, it appears to me that he would have difficulty running for any office after expressing these opinions in print. Other on-line pundits believe this one advertisement may have cost him around $100,000.  If I had to guess his mindset, I would say that he is a loyal American, who has serious concerns about how our country is being run.  He probably realizes that he will never get a chance again to implement any of these policies and is "hanging up his spurs."...  However, he wants to use some of his savings to get some of these issues out on the table to get people thinking about them as we approach another election.  I applaud him for sticking his neck out! 

He took firm positions on health care, global warming, income tax reform, US policy on Israel and anti-semitism, recreational drugs, judicial reform, and others. 

I was very surprised to see that I agree with many of the points he presented.  About the only one I completely disagree with is his proposal for a "Hefty Tax on Craig's List."  I get the idea that he is concerned that Craig's List's free advertising has killed the want-ad sections of newspapers, which, in turn is damaging the free press.  The problem is that Craig's list isn't the only place where free or very cheap advertising can be done on the internet.  VRBO, for example has killed off all of the vacation rental advertising in the newspapers.  I was surprised to see his very last proposal was to replace our uranium/plutonium nuclear power reactors with thorium ones.  For decades, I've wondered why the US DOE has not been working on the development of a thorium-based nuclear reactor system.  It would produce much less toxic waste, be safer, not produce weapons-grade materials, and could be lower cost in the long run.  

I also agree with his positions on Israel and calling anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies an anti-semite.  Our country needs to separate opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government, from those of the Jewish religion or people.  

I was surprised that the New York Times didn't seem to allow me to read the advertisement on line without subscribing to the newspaper.  I can see them protecting copyrighted news articles, but I would think their advertisers would want their ads made public.  I was able to copy/paste some of the article from another web site: Campaign Outsider -- I also copy/pasted a blurry photo that was posted on the site of the full two page ad.  Below is the text of the ad:

COMMON SENSE II

BY JOHN HAYWOOD

Efficient Health Care

In a July 13, 2012 interview with Betty Liu of Bloomberg Television, billionaire financier Warren Buffet was asked: “A few weeks ago we heard from the Supreme Court, they upheld the health care reform act, the Affordable Care Act. Was that the right decision?”

Buffet: “Well I think it’s the right decision, but think that the health care problem is the number-one problem of America and of American business. If we have 17 or 18 percent of our GDP going to health care and we’re competing with countries that have 10 percent. That’s seven or eight points. There’s only 100 points in the dollar. And to have a seven- or eight-point disadvantage is huge. And a lot of businessmen complain about corporate taxes….Corporate taxes are less than two percent of GDP. So if you eliminated all the corporate taxes you’ve got seven points against you in health care.”

If the United States adopted Britain’s infinitely more efficient National Health Service (while retaining, as the British have, for-profit care for the 10% that want and can afford it), America’s bill for health care would drop from 17.5% GDP to 9% GDP.

If Helen Thomas Wasn’t Safe, Who Is?

She was the 90-year-old dean of the White House Press Corps. She was also the daughter of Lebanese immigrants. Soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration Thomas had the audacity to ask him whether any Mideast Country had nuclear weapons. His evasive reply made clear there would be no change in American policy toward Israel.

The following year Thomas was recorded saying the following about the Israelis: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine; Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?” Thomas’s hell was about to begin.

The White House Correspondents’s Assn. publicly called her remarks “Indefensible;” her speaker agency publicly dropped her; her book project publicly terminated; a journalism group’s award named for Thomas publicly “retired;” and a planned commencement speech publicly canceled. Former White House Press secretaries publicly condemned her.

President Obama also went on record, calling her remarks “Offensive.” Her effectiveness as a reporter having come to an end, she resigned her job. On her death in 2012 newspapers across the land reported that she, a Semitic woman, had been an anti-Semite!

Legalize All Drugs, Place Them Under FDA Regulation, Tax Their Sale Moderately, and Treat the Addicts

One hundred years ago, before the first war on drugs began, 3% of Americans were addicted to drugs.

Beginning in 1914 the federal government engaged in a continuing and escalating war on drugs. Each escalation brought more violent crime committed by desperate addicts, more incarcerations, incredible expenditures of taxpayer money, more gang wars, violence in nations producing/transporting the drugs, and monumental profits for criminals.

Yet, today, 100 years later, 3% of Americans remain addicted to drugs. Almost all of them wind up in the clink. Only 11% get treatment even though treatment methods have advanced.

Haywood ran almost a dozen ads in the New Hampshire Sunday News during the 2012 Granite State presidential primary. Which got us to wondering: Is the Times spread a trial balloon for the 2016 race?