Super Tuesday is finally past us and Donald Trump has pole position for the Republican Party nominating contest. In the last few days, Trump has received some well-earned admonition for failing to condemn David Duke and the KKK when given the opportunity. Amazingly, Trump tried to blame it on a faulty ear piece despite mentioning David Duke by name. But even more disturbing is that these types of tertiary issues have displaced the issue that should be central: torture. That Donald Trump has achieved pole position on a message of torture should disturb everybody who reads this.
Let’s look at what the Republican candidates said on the matter of torture during the February 6 debate, where Jeb Bush gave the least bad response, in this brief clip:
In the most recent Republican debate preceding super Tuesday, we learned that the late Justice Antonin Scalia is considered to be a paragon of constitutional scholarship by the top Republican contenders. It seems as if Republicans have been obtaining their legal advice from Scalia. And therein might be the problem.
The matter of torture is just one reason why Scalia was no friend of the Constitution. My purpose here is not to gloat, and I offer my condolences to his family. I may be tough on some political figures, but I’m animated by love for humanity. My purpose here is to deconstruct the myth that Scalia was a friend of the Constitution. Go look up his position on torture. Maybe that’s why Dick Cheney admired Scalia so much. See: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dick-cheney-praise-justic-scalia-originalist/2016/02/13/id/714262/ Scalia was either myopic or intellectually dishonest by failing to consider the Fifth Amendment, which had been carefully excised from his legal worldview.
Scalia went through mental somersaults to argue that the Constitution proscribes using torture only if referred to as punishment. Therefore, Scalia reasoned, as long as torture’s stated use is for an interrogation rather than punishment, then torture is permissible – a position Rubio has also taken, albeit he makes a distinction where there is none. Pursuant to Scalia’s calculus, the Constitution only proscribes the use of torture after a trial as punishment, but somewhere approves the use of torture as long as we call it an interrogation while depriving the victim of a trial. Where in the Constitution torture is permitted, I’m uncertain.
Not that torture is good under any circumstances, but, if anything, the neocons get this inverted. After all, people receive life in prison as punishment, and life inside of a cell could be considered a form of torture. The issue is due process. Was the person given a fair trial? Was the person lawfully convicted? Is the sentence justified by the offense? This, then, is what separates those who are on the side of liberty and justice from those who are on the side of tyranny.
The neocons are trying to spin the issue, saying that as long as it’s not called punishment, then it’s okay to torture people for an interrogation. But I would make the case that using torture on somebody during an interrogation is punishment, and it’s being meted out anterior to due process. The act of torture is, itself, punishment. In fact, it is used to coerce a person into self-incrimination, which most definitely infringes upon the Fifth Amendment. If we accept the neocon standard, then we can all be found guilty of something. It’s only a matter of if the government decides to exercise such power. There’s a good reason why evidence extracted through the use of torture would be inadmissible in any lawful court. So the neocon detour around that obstacle is to overthrow habeas corpus altogether. William Blackstone, who said torture is an “engine of state, not of law”, must be spinning in his grave.
Ted Cruz apparently doesn’t understand what federal statutes say about torture. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113C Cruz isn’t defining torture pursuant to statutory law. As I wrote on February 7, he’s defining torture pursuant to a Bush administration memo. Waterboarding most definitely is torture. We need no further legislation to establish the fact that waterboarding is illegal. Even if waterboarding were legal, it would still be a criminal act. Do we really want somebody incapable of discerning that waterboarding is torture ruling over us?
Cruz does seem to understand waterboarding isn’t that nice, because he says he is opposed to lower level government employees being able to waterboard people. But he’s all for President Obama having the power and ability to waterboard people. In other words, Cruz supports an executive waterboarding program. Thankfully, President Obama doesn’t listen to Ted Cruz. Do Republicans not know what they ask for? It seems as though I’m not getting anywhere by writing commentaries like this one, so, trying to illustrate the absurdity of the Republican position, I write a commentary like this one: https://libertyeconomics.com/why-i-choose-michele-fiore/ For writing commentaries like that, I’m treated as though there’s something wrong with me and my thinking, yet that’s literally what Republicans are asking for.
Here’s a brief clip of Donald Trump weighing in on torture in South Carolina:
On torture, Donald Trump is maneuvering to take the gold. He’s gone so far off the deep end, he’s morphing Michael Hayden into an Oath Keeper. What ISIS is doing is indisputably evil, but Trump is playing on people’s fear to overthrow the rule of law. When Trump starts using terms like “they”, watch out. We can all disagree on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. But federal statutes make it self-evident that waterboarding is torture and torture is illegal. Dick Cheney may never be brought to justice over 9/11, but he can easily be brought to justice over torture. But not with the leadership of Donald Trump, who supports torture. On torture, Trump is Dick Cheney on steroids. Donald Trump undermines a compelling legal case against Dick Cheney. Trump gives Cheney legal cover. There is a certain level of duplicity in Trump simultaneously pledging to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
Pursuant to some people – even within the liberty movement – who aren’t paying attention, Donald Trump is a non-interventionist on foreign policy. Donald Trump recently said he would keep Guantanamo Bay open and keep filling it up with people – Rubio’s position as well. Trump promises us a much more cost effective torture program. In just this one minute clip, Trump simultaneously criticizes the cost of running Guantanamo Bay, and President Obama for wanting to shut it down. See the brief video clip below:
Trump’s plan should raise some eyebrows. I’m not too clear on the details, but it sounds like he will maybe outsource parts of the torture program to other countries. If Trump is truly a non-interventionist, and if we aren’t at war overseas, then how will he fill up Guantanamo Bay? Either Guantanamo Bay will be filled up with foreigners because we keep our promiscuous foreign policy intact, or Guantanamo Bay will be filled up with Americans. Either way, it’s bad.
Here’s Joe Heck’s position on Guantanamo Bay: https://heck.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-joe-heck-statement-presidents-plan-transfer-guantanamo-detainees-us Here’s Catherine Cortez Masto’s position on Guantanamo Bay: http://catherinecortezmasto.com/post/139917446974/catherine-cortez-masto-statement-on-guantanamo-bay Thank goodness we can choose between Democrats and Republicans.
As you can see, Catherine Cortez Masto is just like Donald Trump and Joe Heck on Guantanamo Bay. Or are Donald Trump and Joe Heck just like Catherine Cortez Masto? Masto and Heck are carbon copies of one another. Masto is out-Hecking Heck. Rather than helping pursue justice and protecting the people of Nevada by calling for the arrest and prosecution of people like Dick Cheney, Masto is laying down a smoke screen for the criminals. She, too, has jumped off the delusional deep end. She wants to leave Guantanamo Bay open for…a Trump presidency. Masto, like Heck, is Donald Trump’s enabler.
It shouldn’t require people like myself to convey this message. But politicians in both parties are derelict in their duty. Masto will not engage on real issues. Instead, the criticism will be over Joe Heck’s alleged latent anti-statist tendencies. Notice the point of attack in this article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/86bd054e066443079d377f72cdd157ab/angle-mulls-us-senate-bid-testing-waters-money-support But also think about how Republicans could be capitalizing on Masto’s metamorphosis into a pro torture neocon, cutting into her base rather than buttressing her support. But they can’t, because they don’t support the rule of law, either. Instead, Masto will be accused of being insufficiently supportive of the war on terror – facts to the contrary be damned.
In my defense I only said I wanted Masto to beat Heck. I didn’t say I wanted either of them to be my ruler. Both parties are so corrupt and criminal that the slightest bit of difference between the two is reason enough to support divided government and neither one obtaining a supermajority. It’s the synergy of one party rule that I find to be terrifying. If I were a single issue voter, that wouldn’t be the case. But I’m not a single issue voter. I look at the abstract picture. My top choice between the two major parties for POTUS was Rand Paul. But my next choice was Martin O’Malley. On a micro level, both parties lurch into truth and error in seemingly paradoxical ways. On a macro level, both parties are a threat to constitutional order. Even if both parties were 100% identical, the danger in voting for candidates like Heck is that statist ideas are ratified as conservative ideas, helping to construct confusion about what conservatism is in the minds of the grassroots.
The ultimate irony here is that while both Masto and Heck disagree with President Obama, I don’t. I’ve said before that with a Republican controlled Congress, I could make a libertarian case for making President Obama a permanent dictator if the choices are people like Hillary Clinton and a pro torture Republican. The saying that politics makes strange bedfellows is true. As a libertarian, I’m in complete agreement with the President on this issue, and it’s no insignificant matter. I am with the President. That said, it appears to be little more than Shakespearean theater. If it isn’t, then President Obama needs to cease the war crimes and stop protecting war criminals.
If there isn’t accountability now, and if politicians can get away with very serious crimes with impunity, the crimes will continue on unabated. Torture is making a comeback. When programs start, they tend to metastasize. The torture program will be no exception. While Democrats like Masto are fine with passing such power to Republicans like Donald Trump, Republicans better think about what Democrat will inherit Trump’s torture program.
Do Republicans believe Trump’s torture squads will be overseen by squads of constitutionalists? Do Republicans believe that we can have a “good” torture program under Trump, who will at some future time come to his senses, moving the way of this author on torture before exiting, so that we don’t end up with a bad torture program under a Democrat? If Trump is going to come this author’s way four or eight years from now, then why deviate today? This is a genie that ought not be taken out of the bottle. Once she’s out, she’s out.
Why believe the American people will come to their senses at some later date if they won’t now? My anti-torture, pro Fifth Amendment, pro American and Marine Corps values, pro divided government position has only engendered the animosity of people in both major parties. It’s not like my phone is ringing. It’s not like this writing endears me to Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps that’s because I have made it my focus to stand for truth, and truth exposes politicians and certain radio show hosts in Texas who market themselves as defenders of the Constitution as little more than charlatans.
Rather than tackling the issue of torture, Republicans are obsessing over immigration and how best to wall off the United States. No longer is the narrative about what politicians in Washington are doing to us or what negative real interest rates are doing to us, but what immigrants are supposedly doing to us. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
When establishment candidates do engage, it’s not over torture, but Trump’s latent racism. Democrats and Republicans alike are calling Trump a racist. I’m not here to play defense for Trump. I’m not saying racism is acceptable. Racism is a sin. Trump’s defenders like Mike Huckabee are also wrong. Huckabee says Trump isn’t a racist. Let’s pretend Trump isn’t a racist. Does it really matter? Trump is a pro torture sadist. Apparently, being a sadist is a qualifying trait – as long as you aren’t a racist sadist. Even noticing that makes one a heretic. Republicans and Democrats are both too corrupt to hold each other accountable. They are incapable of engaging on the right issues. Americans are supposed to sit in front of their television sets believing that as long as it’s equal opportunity torture, it’s okay.
If we are going to right this ship, almost everybody in Washington will have to go to prison. Trump will have to go, too. It would be of little help to the cause of liberty for only one politician, or politicians in only one party, to be deposed while leaving the rest in place. I hope you, gentle reader, mentally process just how serious is the constitutional crisis we are facing. This prospect of a fascist torturer in the White House, which some Democrats have themselves acknowledged, is exactly why Democrats ought not be advocating gun control schemes. That there are dangerous groups like ISIS and dangerous people with guns is exactly why people need the right to keep and bear arms.
Don’t be naive. We won’t get good government that’s ran by evil people. It’s a government of the sociopaths, by the sociopaths, and for the sociopaths. The problem won’t magically go away. The only way this stops is if we all demand justice. It’s time to demand we bring the real 9/11 masterminds to justice, not the decoy who was waterboarded 183 times in one month. If we don’t, we are about to be walled off into a torturing police state. But at least we’re all against the torturing sadists being racists, because non racist sadists are much “better” than racist sadists!