Torture and Agression: The New American Way

As President Obama is now fighting to keep detainee abuse photographs from being released, I have been alarmed by the widespread “American” support of both a lack of transparency in Government, and even the inhumane practices of torture and abuse of detainees. Some have sought to justify their position by referencing the atrocities of Iraqi insurgents, seemingly supporting the irrational conclusion that two wrongs may somehow make a right. Equally disturbing is the frequent defense of such disgusting displays of humanity as somehow “American.” Many cry that it is in the interest of our national security to cover our nation's sins, while I contend that every American has a right and even need to know of the atrocities which have been allowed and even condoned by our elected officials, both past and present. Perhaps through such actions, the American people may be awakened to the evils which we collectively have allowed and often times condoned. Preemptive war and torture of war criminals, though descriptive of the erroneous “New American Way”, are not in harmony with the philosophy of our nation's founders, nor the humanitarian principles once embodied by our great nation – a nation whose people once honored the rule of law of the land, namely the Constitution of the United States.
Some have mistakenly quoted the words of the Preamble of the Constitution as justification for our interventionist actions in Iraq and the undisclosed torture of Iraqi detainees. The words are familiar to all, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence ...”1 It is the term “common defense” that seems to be most frequently erroneously applied to justification of our nation's actions which are in opposition to the very Constitution which the Preamble introduces. I'd like to submit that the inspired men who penned those words would abhor torture of war criminals, and furthermore would view our presence in Iraq as a great detriment to our national security. Allow me to reference a few of their sentiments concerning the subject, and clearly explicate that our success in winning the Revolutionary War was bolstered by our principled, anti-torture philosophy.
In the year of 1776, the inception our nation's birth, American leaders believed that it was not enough to merely win the war fought on battlefields, but also the war which raged in the hearts and minds of men. Thus, they were deeply concerned with winning the war in such a way that was consistent with the ideals for which the young nation stood, principles which they believed had power to change the world in which they lived. Perhaps one of their greatest, yet largely unknown achievements was to successfully win the war while maintaining the humanitarian ideals for which their countrymen had been fighting. It is for this reason that they were wholly opposed to torture of war prisoners. This was more than fanciful idealism. It was the official policy of both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army.2
Despite the inhumane treatment of the British regulars and German mercenaries toward captured American soldiers, Washington refused to abrogate the ideals for which he was fighting. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered his men to treat their prisoners with the same decency and recognition of rights granted to the people living in the country for which they were fighting. In an order concerning prisoners which were taken during the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."2
John Adams believed that the humane treatment of prisoners was not only vitally consistent with the ideals of the American Revolution, but also of vital strategic value to winning the war as well. In a 1777 letter to his wife, Adams wrote: "I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed."2
British military leaders conversely recognized the counterproductive nature of their violent and inhumane treatment of American prisoners and felt that such atrocities stifled their military success. A 1778 letter from Col. Charles Stuart to his father, the Earl of Bute, reveals this sentiment,"Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate."2
Furthermore, many modern Americans would be surprised to learn that the first code of conduct for the ethical and humane treatment of prisoners of war was created by President Abraham Lincoln, a personal hero of mine, in the year of 1863 and forbade any form of torture and cruelty. This official American code of conduct eventually became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention.2
I do not believe in the current actions of our nation, but believe in the principles upon which it was founded. I do not believe in Bush or Obama, but in the principles of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, yet wholly disreagard. The "war" in Iraq is wholly unconsitutional - it was never declared by Congress. It was also pre-emptive, violating the non-interventionist policy and wisdom of our founders (try looking up their thoughts on foreign involvement and you may be surprised at how much we have strayed). I have yet to understand how firing a few bullets into a hornets nest somehow increases our nation security. I have yet to understand from a logical perspective how bombing the cities of a nation who performed no acts of aggression toward our people prior to invasion will somehow cause them to like us. What would you do if China was bombing your city out of mere suspicion?
We don't increase our national security by stationing and delocalizing our soldiers internationally in needless wars which have conveniently changed their meaning and justification. Terrorism membership has risen at an alarming rate, and so has our federal deficit. We are spending a trillion dollars a year to finance our oversees interventionist empire, and yet we wonder why the value of the dollar is depreciating and our economy is collapsing.
I pray for our soldiers - I pray that they will come home as quickly as possible. I pray that we might be transparent in our efforts to stand for liberty by encouraging freedom by example rather than campaigning a paradoxical effort to force others to be free. I pray that we might be awakened to the erosion of our civil liberties as we fight a war supposedly aimed at granting such liberties to others. We find ourselves in a dangerous time and must hold to just and holy principles. If we bend for everything, in the end we will stand for nothing.
So if you are going to reference the words "We the people", you ought to familiarize yourself with the principles and ideals of those inspired men who wrote them. I believe if we hold these just and holy principles inviolate, we can become the kind of people they envisioned when they wrote those sacred words.
I think another important aspect of the words found in the Preamble of the Constitution is the word "defense." Preemptive action and interventionism does not constitute defense, but offense. The war in Iraq is aggressive, not defensive. They never struck until we did. Therefore, I feel it is imperative to recognize that the founders were dedicated to maintaining domestic strength rather than a strong foreign presence. I'd much rather adhere to the founders' foreign policy of building our strength at home so that no nation would dare attack us, rather than spreading our troops in 700 bases across the world in interference of the sovereignty of others, at times through blatant nation building. Meanwhile, as we struggle to build our own bridges in America, we are blowing them up in Iraq, and using taxpayer money to build them again. No nation can continue to spend a trillion dollars a year in “national defense” while simultaneously expecting to remain prosperous and impervious to the constraints of reality. Iraq did not willingly choose to be our enemy in this conflict, we made them our enemy through preemptive attacks. How long will we point to our self created enemies until we recognize the enemy within? We are engaged in very real self destruction, a destruction which is being fueled by pride, arrogance, and ignorance.
Imagine how much stronger we could be at home in building our national defense if we were to eradicate our exorbitant overseas presence in nations that grow in hatred toward us as we grow in numbers in their countries. Substantial evidence points to the fact that extremist terrorist groups do not fuel their fire out of hatred toward democracy or American wealth. They hate us because we are meddling in their domestic affairs with no sovereign right or elected jurisdiction. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Therefore, we can't expect to have respect or power to govern a people that never gave us their consent. They have a right to retaliate. I am not a supporter of terrorism nor do I sympathize with evil of any form, but I wonder why we are so quick to disregard the illogical and unjust nature of our presence in Iraq. We are torturing individuals who are retaliating for their people being tortured. That isn't defense.
1.“Preamble to the United States Constitution.” Wikipedia.org.
2.Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. “America's Anti-Torture Tradition.” LA Times. December 17, 2005.