Jacob Hornberger:"We Don't Torture... But Torture Does Work"

[galtgulch]

This appeared today on the Campaign For Liberty site thus read by the 151,620 members there who are spreading the word in keeping with the advice of our Founder: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."—Thomas Jefferson

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

He is a regular writer for The Future of Freedom Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily, and is a co-editor or contributor to the eight books that have been published by the Foundation. Visit his blog.

We Don't Torture. . . But Torture Does Work

By Jacob Hornberger

Published 05/09/09

John Ashcroft, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2001 to 2005, has an op-ed in the New York Times where he exclaims, "The government must hold accountable any individuals who acted illegally in the financial meltdown…."

Oh? And why is that, Mr. Ashcroft? Why not simply "move on"? Why not let bygones be bygones? Why not just schedule a financial-meltdown truth commission? How about just some promises that the wrongdoing will never happen again? Why must you be so vengeful? Why do you want retribution? Why not just leave the malefactors alone? Why would you want to tear the country apart with criminal prosecutions?

After all, isn't this what people are saying about the torturers and those who authorized and ordered the torture? What's the difference?

Torture advocates claim that torture is justified because it produces valuable information that helps save people's lives. But if that's the case, then why even have the Geneva Conventions, which another U.S. attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, described as "quaint"? Don't POWs taken captive almost always possess information about enemy troop positions, movements, plans, and strategy? Wouldn't acquiring that information help save the lives of U.S. soldiers? Aren't the lives of the troops as valuable as the lives of civilians? Why not scotch that quaint Geneva Convention and just treat enemy POWs in the same way that suspected terrorists are treated?

What also befuddles me is why torture advocates limit themselves to "enhanced interrogation techniques" or what they might call "soft torture," such as waterboarding, walling, beating, sleep deprivation, sex abuse, prolonged standing, sensory deprivation, cold water, temperature extremes, and isolation. If acquiring valuable information is the goal, why not go all the way? Why not employ the stuff that really works, such as thumbscrews, the rack, sawing a person in half, pulling fingernails, or rape? Isn't that what government officials throughout history have done to acquire information?

Of course, I cannot help but wonder how the CIA and the Pentagon's use of "soft torture" brought about the deaths of several people in their custody. Wouldn't it be nice to at least know how and why those people were killed? Alas, we live in an era in which the murder of a few detainees produces nothing more than a ho-hum, lackadaisical, let's-move-on reaction from public officials.

President Obama continues to steadfastly oppose criminal prosecutions for those who violated the torture statutes. He also opposes public investigations into the scandal. Apparently he takes the position that because he has repeated President Bush's mantra, "We don't torture," the matter has been put to rest.

However, let's think back to the Pentagon's infamous School of the Americas torture manuals that the school was using to teach torture to Latin American military brutes. When those torture manuals came to light in 1996, weren't the American people treated to the same sort of pronouncements that we're being treated to today? Didn't U.S. officials express the same sorts of regrets and promises that we hear today?

Yet, did any of the regrets and promises arising from the disclosure of the School of the America's torture manuals dissuade U.S. military officials and CIA officials from employing the torture tactics described in those manuals some 15 years later as part of President Bush's war on terrorism?

No.

So, in the absence of criminal prosecutions, why should anyone believe that the current set of expressions of regret and promises will produce a different result?

Could the reason that so many U.S. officials oppose accountability in the torture scandal be that they know that accountability might reveal that the torture scandal has been going on for decades rather than just a few years?

Copyright © 2009 Future of Freedom Foundation

Edited May 9, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch: As usual you and Campaign for Liberty get it wrong.

[Selene]

Folks:

Can we define torture first.

Second, it is argued that the Geneva Conventions apply to members of an armed force that meet certain criteria, agree or disagree.

Thirdly, is it justified to use effective torture to gain information under any, some or all situations.

Finally, is water boarding a "torture" or an enhanced interrogation technique?

Hell, in the D/s, BDSM community there are interrogation "scenes" which folks voluntarily engage in and are publicly watched at "play" parties.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Gulch: As usual you and Campaign for Liberty get it wrong.

You may be right, Chris. I read the posting twice and found it to be terribly unclear. I think the writer wrote it as a stream-of-consciousness effort.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

Gulch: As usual you and Campaign for Liberty get it wrong.

You may be right, Chris. I read the posting twice and found it to be terribly unclear. I think the writer wrote it as a stream-of-consciousness effort.

Bill P

Bill P

I agree with you. It is not clear what his position or attitude is. I did post it in part hoping that one of the more probing minds here might clarify the whole issue. Unfortunately Chris chose to lump me in with Hornberger with whom I often agree but not necessarily on this issue, which I thought is unfair.

Thomas Friedman wrote a column in which he lets Obama off the hook for not charging Bush and those who carried out his orders to engage in acts of extreme interrogation or whatever euphemism they are using, because to charge Bush would "tear the country apart." The same excuse which let Nixon off the hook.

The only ones who pay are the producers who get taxed to keep the ball rolling.

Anyone notice the poor slob who was convicted of taking nude photos of a sixteen year old teen boy and was sentenced to something like 24 years in prison for child porn! He is quoted in the paper as saying, "Well I guess I just about ruined my whole life!" He was a respected member of the community, worked for a living.

And his crime was what? On this consenting adult criterion just where does it make sense to draw the line?

gulch

[Selene]

Gulch, if you liked the 24 years, somehow a piece of your Federal tax dollar is going to be spent defending this incompetent school district.

"The Pacific Justice Institute is suing a California school district after students were addressed by a lesbian pastor.

Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, tells OneNewsNow a lesbian minister visited Castro Valley High School and gave a presentation called 'Out for Good.' The parents found out about the incident after the fact.

'A lesbian minister was invited to guest lecture for math and science classes,' he explains. 'At that time, she shared her personal views on homosexuality, including a discussion of her lesbian wedding, the homosexual prom, and other such events and things that many parents were very concerned about once they heard this had taken place.'

Parents requested information on what her teaching entailed, and the high school and district refused to share the information.

Brad Dacus PJI 'So we at the Pacific Justice Institute have filed a lawsuit against that school district on behalf of the parents to defend their rights under the Ppublic Records Act to have access to that information as to exactly what the teacher said, what did she do, and how the students responded,' Dacus says.

Dacus also contends the district ought to develop a written policy to make sure parents are informed in advance so they can opt to have their children removed from the environment."

What is not raised, is the issue of inviting, apparently secretly, a politically "sensitive" pastor to come in to guest "lecture" on math and science and then allegedly add a political agenda.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Gulch, if you liked the 24 years, somehow a piece of your Federal tax dollar is going to be spent defending this incompetent school district.

"The Pacific Justice Institute is suing a California school district after students were addressed by a lesbian pastor.

(snip)

And this incident is just another illustration of what happens from a compulsory publicly-financed education system. It becomes the natural battleground for competing special interest groups.

You see - - - it is not just the competing governments / police departments / courts which leads to permanent civil war. So does state control of education.

We need separation of state and education for similar reasons to why we need separation of state and economy, and state and religion. It keeps leading back to the same place - - - once the state has the power, then the tug of war begins.

Bill P

[Selene]

Perfectly put "P":

Point Game Set Match.

Forced mate in three.

If we were going to amend the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause needs some real heavy work as it has been the progressive marxist major method of extending and entrenching Federal power.

There is absolutely no Federal right or Constitutional power for the Department of Education. To be honest I do not remember how and what the damn justification was at the time.

"A federal Department of Education was created in 1867. As an agency not represented in the President's cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in the Department of the Interior. In 1939 the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of Education. In 1953 the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to cabinet level status as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A separate Department of Education was created by Congress in 1980 as an executive department represented in the cabinet.

The principal duty of the Department of Education, which in 1996 had less than 4,800 employees, is to provide federal assistance to the state and local agencies primarily responsible for education in the United States. Grants designed to improve education are administered by the department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Post secondary Education, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. The department also maintains an Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Following President Bill Clinton's State of the Union address in 1997, the Department of Education developed a list of priorities that included having every classroom connected to the Internet and all students technologically literate by the year 2000. Priorities also included the creation of clear standards of student achievement in all states. In addition, the department asserted the goal of having all students prepared for and able to afford a college education by the age of 18.

Public Law 96-98, known as the Department of Education Organization Act, established the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) on 4 May 1980.It was established to increase the commitment of the federal government to assuring equal access to educational opportunity; improving the quality of education; encouraging greater involvement of parents, students, and the public in federal education programs; promoting federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information; enhancing the coordination of federal education programs; improving the management of federal education activities; and increasing the accountability of federal education programs to the public, Congress, and the president. The department was the first cabinet-level education agency of the U.S. government. It superseded the U.S. Office of Education, established in 1867, and replaced the National Institute of Education, established in 1972.

The Federal Role in Education

There are several organizations within the DOE. They include the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, the National Center for Education Statistics, the Planning and Evaluation Service, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Office of Special Education Programs, and the National Research and Dissemination Centers for Career and Technical Education.

In the United States, state and local governments decide most education policy. The role of the federal government is restricted by the Tenth Amendment to that of guarding the right of its citizens to equal access to public institutions and equal opportunity within them. Additionally, through the funding of research, financial aid to students, and the dissemination of information, the federal government is involved in improving the quality of education. The federal government also funds and administers elementary and secondary schools for dependents of civilian and military personnel abroad, operated by the Department of Defense, and has some control over postsecondary institutions that prepare students for military careers. Otherwise, it is not involved directly in post-secondary educational institutions except for certain responsibilities delineated in the Civil Rights Act of 1864. Education funding comes primarily from state, local, and federal taxes.

Programs of the Department

The DOE has undertaken programs in elementary, secondary, postsecondary, vocational, bilingual, and special education, and has fulfilled specified responsibilities for four federally supported institutions: the American Printing House for the Blind; Gallaudet University; Howard University; and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. The department coordinates its efforts with the cabinet departments of defense, commerce, health and human services, and labor; the National Science Foundation; the National Endowment for the Humanities; and other federal agencies with education-related assignments. The department works primarily to ensure both equal access (for such groups as the disadvantaged, racial and religious minorities, the disabled, women, and at-risk children) and educational excellence in terms of measurable performance.

National Goals

In 1981, Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell created a National Commission on Excellence in Education, whose report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Re-form (1983), called for widespread, systemic reform, including stronger graduation requirements, more rigorous and measurable standards, more time in school, and significantly improved teaching. A national debate ensued, and throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, the department remained at the forefront of campaigns to introduce national curriculum and assessment standards to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for higher levels of achievement.

Following President George Bush's Education Summit in 1990, the nation's governors adopted six National Education Goals to enable the country to develop standards of performance for all schools and to measure progress toward the achievement of these standards. The original goals, intended to be met by the year 2000, follow: first, all children will start school ready to learn; second, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent; third, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, with every school in America ensuring that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in a modern economy; fourth, U.S. students will lead the world in science and mathematics achievement; fifth, every adult American will be literate and will possess the ability to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; and sixth, every school will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

Federal Legislation

Between 1990 and 1994, a number of new laws were enacted that changed the American education system: the National Literacy Act (1991); the Education Council Act (1991); the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (1992); the Education of the Deaf Act Amendments (1992); the Rehabilitation Act Amendments (1992); the Student Loan Reform Act (1993); the Rehabilitation Act and Education of the Deaf Act Technical Amendments (1993); the Migrant Student Record Transfer System Act (1993); the Higher Education Technical Amendments Act (1993); the National Service Trust Act (1993); the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994); the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (1994); the Safe Schools Act (1994); the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act (1994); the Student Loan Default Exemption Extension Act (1994); the Improving America's Schools Act (1994); and the National Education Statistics Act (1994).

Reform at the federal level, stemming from the America 2000 Excellence in Education Act, called for funding for Presidential Merit Schools (rewards to schools that make progress in raising achievement, fighting drugs, and reducing the dropout rate); Presidential Awards for Excellence in Education ($5,000 awards to teachers who meet the highest standards of excellence); National Science Scholarships (annual scholarships for high school seniors to encourage them to take more science and math courses); and Magnet Schools of Excellence (competitive grants awarded to local districts to support magnet schools for purposes other than desegregation).

On 8 January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which mandated that states and school districts develop strong systems of accountability based on student performance. The act also enabled federal Title I funds to be used for supplemental education services, such as tutoring, after-school services, and summer programs, tripled the federal funding investment in reading through the Reading First program, and provided almost $3 billion during the first year to improve teacher quality."

We had a higher literacy rate in 1867 than we do today.

What a nightmare.

Adam

[Christopher]

Torture...

There are two things to talk about it. First, current research and evidence suggests that 25% of confessions made through interrogation today for crimes within the U.S. are false confessions. 25% false confession rate often because people simply say anything to get out of the discomfort of interrogation... and this isn't even torture! (sources are listed below). So, is torture really effective at the costs of invalidating the human?

Second, and as I've said before, Constitutional protections extend to all individuals. Human rights protections, according to the founding philosophy of this country, are universal and natural. Human rights are not something a nation grants, they are something that a nation must respect. If the U.S. government can disregard the human rights (cruel and unusual punishment) of non-citizens, then the goverment no longer operates according to the ethics it was founded upon; it operates according to subjective interpretations of those in power and law. Personally, I think this is very scary and only one step away from the government turning on its own citizens.

Chris

Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Psychological Science(?), 17(4). 249-253

Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and iterrogative suggestibility. (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.774

[Selene]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

Adam,

Speaking of numbers the Campaign For Liberty with the superb help of the Young Americans for Liberty on over 125 college campuses now on 10 May at 1AM has 151721 members. Some of them are actually going door to door handing out C4L brochures or leaflets after getting lists of people likely to sympathize with our mission from the Republican Party.

The pace appears to have slowed but hopefully will keep going. I thought I would try to compose an article to submit to the local newspaper. Also there should be a way to use the availability of local community access TV to submit videos.

Is it a stretch to consider confiscatory taxation to be a form of torture because it sure hurts psychologically to realize how many hours, days, weeks and months I work for the enemy, I mean the protection racket. I know it is slavery!

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch: As usual you and Campaign for Liberty get it wrong.

You may be right, Chris. I read the posting twice and found it to be terribly unclear. I think the writer wrote it as a stream-of-consciousness effort.

Bill P

Bill P

I agree with you. It is not clear what his position or attitude is. I did post it in part hoping that one of the more probing minds here might clarify the whole issue. Unfortunately Chris chose to lump me in with Hornberger with whom I often agree but not necessarily on this issue, which I thought is unfair.

Thomas Friedman wrote a column in which he lets Obama off the hook for not charging Bush and those who carried out his orders to engage in acts of extreme interrogation or whatever euphemism they are using, because to charge Bush would "tear the country apart." The same excuse which let Nixon off the hook.

The only ones who pay are the producers who get taxed to keep the ball rolling.

Anyone notice the poor slob who was convicted of taking nude photos of a sixteen year old teen boy and was sentenced to something like 24 years in prison for child porn! He is quoted in the paper as saying, "Well I guess I just about ruined my whole life!" He was a respected member of the community, worked for a living.

And his crime was what? On this consenting adult criterion just where does it make sense to draw the line?

gulch

Gulch; First point: If you don't agree with Hornberger don't post his stuff. On the war against Islamic you, Ron Paul and Hornberger don't get it.

On the out-rageouse texting sentences we are in agreement. When you're right I'll agree you.

[galtgulch]

Gulch; First point: If you don't agree with Hornberger don't post his stuff. On the war against Islamic you, Ron Paul and Hornberger don't get it.

On the out-rageouse texting sentences we are in agreement. When you're right I'll agree you.

I don't have to agree with something or someone's opinion in order to post it. Or would you suggest that I send it to you to get your permission first?

I have learned a great deal in the years that I have been subscribing to Freedom Daily the publication each month of Hornberger's Future of Freedom Foundation. His own articles appear in each issue and are invariably clearly written and as lucid as the essays of Ayn Rand or the essays of Ludwig von Mises.

You shouldn't conclude that just because I post something here for you all to see that I necessarily agree with it. For example it is not justifiable to conclude that I agree with Ron Paul on all his positions. I don't. He has ignited a movement which admires him, has learned from him, and will outlive him. They don't all agree with him on everything any more than I do. But in crucial areas we are in fundamental agreement.

Notice that I am respectful to you in my response to you. I would be unhappy if our disagreements became vicious and turned off new people who might be browsing here.

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

I don't have to agree with something or someone's opinion in order to post it. Or would you suggest that I send it to you to get your permission first?

I have learned a great deal in the years that I have been subscribing to Freedom Daily the publication each month of Hornberger's Future of Freedom Foundation. His own articles appear in each issue and are invariably clearly written and as lucid as the essays of Ayn Rand or the essays of Ludwig von Mises.

You shouldn't conclude that just because I post something here for you all to see that I necessarily agree with it. For example it is not justifiable to conclude that I agree with Ron Paul on all his positions. I don't. He has ignited a movement which admires him, has learned from him, and will outlive him. They don't all agree with him on everything any more than I do. But in crucial areas we are in fundamental agreement.

Notice that I am respectful to you in my response to you. I would be unhappy if our disagreements became vicious and turned off new people who might be browsing here.

gulch

Dear gulch -

I don't think he was suggesting that you vet your posting with him. I would suggest, however, that you would do well to give the reader an indication when you post something where you strongly disagree with the thing you are posting. Otherwise, the reader wastes time trying to determine why you support what you have posted. Only to be told, when they ask - - - oh, I didn't mean that.

Regards,

Bill P

[galtgulch]

Dear gulch -

I don't think he was suggesting that you vet your posting with him. I would suggest, however, that you would do well to give the reader an indication when you post something where you strongly disagree with the thing you are posting. Otherwise, the reader wastes time trying to determine why you support what you have posted. Only to be told, when they ask - - - oh, I didn't mean that.

Regards,

Bill P

Bill P

I appreciate your suggestion. It is not always possible. Sometimes I find something in the morning before I rush off to work. But I see the point and will suppress my eagerness to show something here unless I can comment as well as to whether I agree with it or not.

www.campaignforliberty.com 10May 5PM 151817 I encountered a few dealers whom I know at a flea market in Hollis NH today and informed them about the C4L. Most were excited to learn about it and I suspect account for a couple of new members.

I also met one fellow, retired from a job with the airlines and dealer of rare coins who is knowledgeable about the history. He had a gold 2 1/2 dollar Indian Head coin from 1787 which he said was in wide circulation at the time. He knew that there were also copper coins in circulation. I told him what I knew about the debtors who sought to repay in paper rather than the gold coins they had borrowed and that may have played a role in establishing the Federal Government to forbid paper currencies and to hold only gold and silver coin as legal tender. he was unaware of that.

When I told him about the C4L he became gently argumentative. "The Constitution is behind the times."

"There is a need for flexibility in applying it to present day situations."

So we have our work cut out for us.

gulch

[thomtg]

[...]

Dear gulch -

I don't think he was suggesting that you vet your posting with him. I would suggest, however, that you would do well to give the reader an indication when you post something where you strongly disagree with the thing you are posting. Otherwise, the reader wastes time trying to determine why you support what you have posted. Only to be told, when they ask - - - oh, I didn't mean that.

Regards,

Bill P

I'm in agreement with Bill. Whenever one reports something, there is a cognitive responsibility to pass judgment on it. (This responsibility is something modern journalism has shirked in the name of "neutrality." See DK's "Can Reporters Handle the Truth?") If someone posts a link and simply says "Oh, have a look at this"; this act is akin to uttering a sentence fragment "Raisin."

[Christopher]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

If you believe in Objectivism, in the principle of a universal objective set of ethics, then ethically you must extend and protect human rights universally. Rand supported the founding vision of the U.S. government because it represented a system consistent with Objectivist ethics. If you choose not to extend human rights protected by the Constitution (which in the Bill of Rights is relatively consistent with Rand's vision), then you are acting inconsistent with the ethical premises of Objectivism. In a statement, you're practicing "situational ethics."

[Alfonso Jones]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

If you believe in Objectivism, in the principle of a universal objective set of ethics, then ethically you must extend and protect human rights universally. Rand supported the founding vision of the U.S. government because it represented a system consistent with Objectivist ethics. If you choose not to extend human rights protected by the Constitution (which in the Bill of Rights is relatively consistent with Rand's vision), then you are acting inconsistent with the ethical premises of Objectivism. In a statement, you're practicing "situational ethics."

This specific question is not one to which I have given a lot of thought. However, citizens of countries often have legal rights non-citizens do not.

At the risk of being silly:

1) Carrying a U.S. Passport seems to be pretty much restricted to U.S. citizens. Do you believe it is a violation of Objectivism that citizens of other countries are not given the right to carry U.S. passports?

2) As a U.S. citizen, I can enter the USA by presenting my passport. My wife (a Chinese citizen) must have a visa to enter. Do you maintain this is a violation of her rights?

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

If you believe in Objectivism, in the principle of a universal objective set of ethics, then ethically you must extend and protect human rights universally. Rand supported the founding vision of the U.S. government because it represented a system consistent with Objectivist ethics. If you choose not to extend human rights protected by the Constitution (which in the Bill of Rights is relatively consistent with Rand's vision), then you are acting inconsistent with the ethical premises of Objectivism. In a statement, you're practicing "situational ethics."

This specific question is not one to which I have given a lot of thought. However, citizens of countries often have legal rights non-citizens do not.

At the risk of being silly:

1) Carrying a U.S. Passport seems to be pretty much restricted to U.S. citizens. Do you believe it is a violation of Objectivism that citizens of other countries are not given the right to carry U.S. passports?

2) As a U.S. citizen, I can enter the USA by presenting my passport. My wife (a Chinese citizen) must have a visa to enter. Do you maintain this is a violation of her rights?

Bill P

Human rights appertain to all humans. Period. A proper government cannot throw the rights' switch on and off to suit it purposes. Why? It can then throw the switch off on thee, better believe. To deal with all with one standard re-enforces that standard and those so exposed can carry that knowledge home where it may take root in a foreign clime. That is not to say that POW do not get a special category--only that that category be properly disposed of over time. Such treatment may turn your worst foe into your best supporter. Such a person would be much more valuable than ten foes turned loose still determined to roast your goose. The bad guys need state sanction and money to do their bad things. Don't worry about them. Worry about the money. To find and make possible the good guy you have to be the good guy too. Consider that the Bush Administration knew nothing about human rights. Just about oil and getting back at the hack who tried to kill dear old Dad in Kuwait. Here comes the United States! Crap!

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

If you believe in Objectivism, in the principle of a universal objective set of ethics, then ethically you must extend and protect human rights universally. Rand supported the founding vision of the U.S. government because it represented a system consistent with Objectivist ethics. If you choose not to extend human rights protected by the Constitution (which in the Bill of Rights is relatively consistent with Rand's vision), then you are acting inconsistent with the ethical premises of Objectivism. In a statement, you're practicing "situational ethics."

This specific question is not one to which I have given a lot of thought. However, citizens of countries often have legal rights non-citizens do not.

At the risk of being silly:

1) Carrying a U.S. Passport seems to be pretty much restricted to U.S. citizens. Do you believe it is a violation of Objectivism that citizens of other countries are not given the right to carry U.S. passports?

2) As a U.S. citizen, I can enter the USA by presenting my passport. My wife (a Chinese citizen) must have a visa to enter. Do you maintain this is a violation of her rights?

Bill P

Human rights appertain to all humans. Period. A proper government cannot throw the rights' switch on and off to suit it purposes. Why? It can then throw the switch off on thee, better believe. To deal with all with one standard re-enforces that standard and those so exposed can carry that knowledge home where it may take root in a foreign clime. That is not to say that POW do not get a special category--only that that category be properly disposed of over time. Such treatment may turn your worst foe into your best supporter. Such a person would be much more valuable than ten foes turned loose still determined to roast your goose. The bad guys need state sanction and money to do their bad things. Don't worry about them. Worry about the money. To find and make possible the good guy you have to be the good guy too. Consider that the Bush Administration knew nothing about human rights. Just about oil and getting back at the hack who tried to kill dear old Dad in Kuwait. Here comes the United States! Crap!

--Brant

As I said above, I haven't thought a lot about this. I do see a scope question...

A) Do you maintain that a human rights violations exists in either of the cases I enumerate as #1 and #2 above? Please clarify.

B) I think that the spans of "human rights" and of "legal privileges" are not the same thing. Hence, I don't think that the USA is violating someone's human rights if that person, not a citizen of the USA, is not granted a US passport. (I know that is not the original context of your question, but I'm trying to find out if you maintain that there is no appropriate difference in legal status between citizens and non-citizens of a given country.

I do agree that the Bush Administration showed major misunderstandings of human rights. That is not the question here, for me.

Bill P

[thomtg]

[...]

As I said above, I haven't thought a lot about this. I do see a scope question...

A) Do you maintain that a human rights violations exists in either of the cases I enumerate as #1 and #2 above? Please clarify.

B) I think that the spans of "human rights" and of "legal privileges" are not the same thing. Hence, I don't think that the USA is violating someone's human rights if that person, not a citizen of the USA, is not granted a US passport. (I know that is not the original context of your question, but I'm trying to find out if you maintain that there is no appropriate difference in legal status between citizens and non-citizens of a given country.

I do agree that the Bush Administration showed major misunderstandings of human rights. That is not the question here, for me.

Bill P

A proper government protecting individual rights, when properly defined and understood, will neither restrict the freedom of movement nor issue travel papers. (It may have to to help people travel to unfree countries, but not for anyone entering the country. That is not say there cannot be some border security.) I think the "privileges" of citizenship in relation to a government should be enumerated constitutionally. In the scheme of checks and balances, citizens are privileged to vote for or recall their representatives and to run for offices. Thus, individual rights and citizens' privileges are independent of each other.

[Brant Gaede]

Chris:

"...Constitutional protections extend to all individuals."

No they do not.

Secondly, I would like to look up the study, however, assuming a 40% false confession rate, that still leaves 6 out of 10 that are verifiable.

Better than Hall of Fame numbers. Pass the board and the water please which is not torture and seems to give better numbers than the 60% above.

Adam

If you believe in Objectivism, in the principle of a universal objective set of ethics, then ethically you must extend and protect human rights universally. Rand supported the founding vision of the U.S. government because it represented a system consistent with Objectivist ethics. If you choose not to extend human rights protected by the Constitution (which in the Bill of Rights is relatively consistent with Rand's vision), then you are acting inconsistent with the ethical premises of Objectivism. In a statement, you're practicing "situational ethics."

This specific question is not one to which I have given a lot of thought. However, citizens of countries often have legal rights non-citizens do not.

At the risk of being silly:

1) Carrying a U.S. Passport seems to be pretty much restricted to U.S. citizens. Do you believe it is a violation of Objectivism that citizens of other countries are not given the right to carry U.S. passports?

2) As a U.S. citizen, I can enter the USA by presenting my passport. My wife (a Chinese citizen) must have a visa to enter. Do you maintain this is a violation of her rights?

Bill P

Human rights appertain to all humans. Period. A proper government cannot throw the rights' switch on and off to suit it purposes. Why? It can then throw the switch off on thee, better believe. To deal with all with one standard re-enforces that standard and those so exposed can carry that knowledge home where it may take root in a foreign clime. That is not to say that POW do not get a special category--only that that category be properly disposed of over time. Such treatment may turn your worst foe into your best supporter. Such a person would be much more valuable than ten foes turned loose still determined to roast your goose. The bad guys need state sanction and money to do their bad things. Don't worry about them. Worry about the money. To find and make possible the good guy you have to be the good guy too. Consider that the Bush Administration knew nothing about human rights. Just about oil and getting back at the hack who tried to kill dear old Dad in Kuwait. Here comes the United States! Crap!

--Brant

As I said above, I haven't thought a lot about this. I do see a scope question...

A) Do you maintain that a human rights violations exists in either of the cases I enumerate as #1 and #2 above? Please clarify.

B) I think that the spans of "human rights" and of "legal privileges" are not the same thing. Hence, I don't think that the USA is violating someone's human rights if that person, not a citizen of the USA, is not granted a US passport. (I know that is not the original context of your question, but I'm trying to find out if you maintain that there is no appropriate difference in legal status between citizens and non-citizens of a given country.

I do agree that the Bush Administration showed major misunderstandings of human rights. That is not the question here, for me.

Bill P

No and no. No time to discuss, but I don't think passports are so important as to merit a locus of discussion. If your wife is a citizen of China I presume she'll eventually be a citizen of the United States if that's what she wants. Then she'll need a visa to go to China--if not a VISA card..

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Brant -

I wasn't really looking for insights on how to get visas, or how my wife can get a USA passport. I am well aware of that information. It is quite well documented.

My question had to do with whether you saw any human anywhere in the world as having, in the USA, each and every right and privilege accorded to US citizens.

Your "No and No" makes it clear that your answer is that you do not see that. So now the question boils down to what differences are appropriate.

Bill P

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

My point was that there is a difference between the Constitutional rights that apply to Americans under the American Constitution.

There is also a consensus as to the existence of human rights by the people in the world.

These are not co-equal and/or one and the same. That was my point to Chris.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

Rights are based on ethics (unless you believe in God). It's the "moral principle taken to the social level" thing.

When people resort to violence, morality usually goes out the window. As it has to. There is no reasoning with a gun. There is only persuasion, blind luck and another gun, and none of these options has a guaranteed success rate of convincing the aggressor to stop. In a "kill or be killed" situation, it is better to kill as a rule of thumb. That's about the best ethics you are going to get for that scenario since there is no real ethical principle governing such contexts.

Demanding that the rights of a thug caught in the act of aggression be respected—especially in wartime or when the country has literally been attacked by the same—is demanding sanction of the victim as a moral principle.

I am not for de-humanizing enemies, but I am for surviving and not allowing them to kill us. During hostilities, the issue of whether to use water-boarding and other border-line things like that is complicated. I believe in letting the President decide and sanction when to do it. We always get a new president in 8 years max, so abuses can be corrected.

The idea that water-boarding is torture in the same meaning as cutting off limbs, breaking bones, impaling people, etc., is a serious overreach.

As a general principle of benevolence—not right—I believe in granting enemy terrorist prisoners certain courtesies and even mercy if they show reasonable signs of changing for the better. They were lucky not to have been killed during capture and preserving their life as a prisoner until a decision can be made about what to do with them is all the rights I agree to holding our government to.

I also believe in treating enemy terrorist prisoners with general decency as common practice, but once again as a courtesy, not as a right. In fact, I do not believe in respecting their rights to the extent of allowing the rights of innocents to be violated by their cohorts, especially when they themselves have been caught violating the rights of innocents in the first place.

If we have capital punishment for murderers among our citizens, which is the ultimate "violation of a right" by the state, what lets foreign terrorists who have attacked us off the hook? Due process? Due process is for citizens and guests of the country. I'll even go so far as to say it should extend to prisoners where reasonable doubt exists. But not for kingpin terrorists who have attacked us and killed our citizens.

That is why it is wise to let our elected leader decide what to do with the borderline cases and exceptions to due process.

I sincerely believe our system of checks and balances and a free press—despite the cases of abuse that have occurred, do occur and will inevitably occur—will not allow this country to turn into a full-fledged dictatorship. I have lived under a military dictatorship in Brazil (which was "light" as far as dictatorships go), and the USA is nowhere near that.

Michael