Torturing the truth more than our enemies

On September 11, 2001, a date which certainly ought to "live in infamy," 19 violent enemies of the United States carried out vicious airliner attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 persons. This is known to all, of course. Yet the ruling party today is determined to deprive us of the necessary means to prevent more attacks by abandoning the policies which protected us for the last eight years. President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress profess to be horrified at the specific tactics which the Central Intelligence Agency used to elicit information from three"high-value" targets. These men were seized in our successful campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 and other acts of mayhem, such as the previous bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

I say "profess" because the "torture" to which these mass murderers were subjected did not elicit any outrage from Democrats when they were briefed on the techniques back in 2001. There appeared to be general agreement that no stone should be left unturned in the effort to gain whatever information that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri could provide.

Although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denies it now, others present with her at the briefings the Bush Administration gave to congressional leaders have said that she not only knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques but approved of them, even urging that the CIA go beyond them if necessary. She was responding then as virtually every other American would have in her circumstances, given the enormity of the evil inflicted upon us and the undeniable evidence that these three men were either directly responsible for or fully informed about the 9/11 outrage.

The most useful information obtained was that an airliner attack was planned for Los Angeles. Was thwarting that attack not worth the CIA’s best efforts?

Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as "the infliction of severe pain, as to force information or confession." While any definition is only as accurate as its correspondence to reality, and that depends upon the judgment of those who understand what it is, a dictionary provides an impartial reference point.

However, the Wikipedia definition of waterboarding, which is based upon the contributions of "editors" who may or may not be impartial, describes waterboarding as "a form of torture" which "consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passage." It adds: "In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water [the technique used in the Spanish Inquisition], waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage."

This is torture?

The rest of this story is that waterboarding has been used on American servicemen for years to prepare them for the abuse they will be subjected to should they be captured by enemy forces. There is no evidence that they have ever been subjected to the unspeakable methods favored by despotisms.

Few of us do not know that mutilation and decapitation have been resorted to by Islamist terrorists. It beggars belief that men who are that brutal will be inspired to change their ways by our refusal to use a harsh method that actually falls short of real torture.

Meanwhile, two Bush Administration legal advisors who thought through the constitutional and legal implications of enhanced interrogation techniques and wrote extensive memos about them, have been treated as evil men who provided cover for the government’s allegedly brutal policies. This is second-guessing at best and witch hunting at worst.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."

The first duty of the government is public safety which, if it is to be adequately provided for, cannot be restricted as to means unless those means are immoral. It is not clear that subjecting a highly select group of known terrorists to maximum discomfort amounts to torture. If our government actually shrinks from its duties, the torture for millions of people will be far worse than that on three al-Qaeda operatives.

Hedgehog beats the fox every time

British political philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously contrasted the hedgehog, who does one big thing, and the fox, who does many things. This was a particularly apt metaphor for Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, as the former sought to win the Cold War and revitalize American commerce and the latter despaired of Americans’ "malaise" just as the long Iranian hostage crisis began to undermine his presidency. Reagan was under considerable pressure from his strongest supporters to solve a host of long-festering problems and certainly Reagan never lacked convictions for confronting them. But he was convinced that national security and world peace demanded his greatest efforts, which culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Empire. He built up our armed forces and thereby negotiated from strength with our less capable communist adversary.

No less demanding was the need to encourage vitality in our stagnant commerce, buffeted by decreasing purchasing power and increasing unemployment, with cuts in income tax rates. Unfortunately, we are currently in the beginnings of a resurgence of big government that we gained some relief from a quarter century ago.

Berlin was mindful of other statesmen of a similar single-minded determination. His countryman, Winston Churchill, set out to save Great Britain from defeat to a Nazi tyranny which had already conquered most of Europe, and ultimately helped save Western Civilization from collapse.

Such is statesmanship. Is George Washington remembered by anyone except historians for the positions he took on tariffs, excises or treaties? He devoted himself to winning independence from Great Britain, providing a national constitution and serving as the first president. A multitude of lesser problems survived him but so did the nation.

Our greatest national challenge came in 1861 when 11 states defied the results of a presidential election and its mandate for stopping the spread of slavery. Abraham Lincoln had hated slavery since childhood and gave it his single-minded attention when the Democratic party resolved to remove all obstacles to its movement into western territories previously closed to it.

Indeed, Lincoln was severely criticized for talking about virtually nothing else after passage of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed slavery in the old Louisiana Territory. His response was simply, "I’ll stop talking about it when everyone else stops talking about it."

Lincoln was not being perverse. Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, author of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sought to end slavery agitation by removing the controversy from the halls of Congress and throwing it out to the western frontier to be resolved by the first few settlers in territories forming into new states. But his plan backfired as southerners wanted guarantees for slavery and anti-slavery northerners were outraged at a massive equivocation on this fundamental question.

Later, even historians were critical, not only of Lincoln, but also of Douglas, as the two senatorial candidates in 1858 debated slavery in the territories and practically nothing else. Again, tariffs, excises and treaties were ignored as these longtime rivals explored the political, constitutional, legal, social and moral aspects of slavery. How could they be so single-minded?

The answer is, both Lincoln and Douglas understood that, until fundamental principles are resolved, action on other issues not only would have to wait but no prudent solutions for them were possible. If slaves may be taken to new territories, might Congress revive the international slave trade? What principle can distinguish the one form of "commerce" from the other?

No act of statesmanship, no matter how great, can guarantee results forever. Democrats imposed segregation, something very much like slavery, in the Southern states for a century following its official extinction.

Fortunately, no American president after World War II squandered the ascendancy maintained for the Western world, although Carter seriously underestimated the Soviet threat, militarily and strategically. However, the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union opened the door to the long-dormant ambitions of Islamic extremists.

The quarter century of dynamic commerce generated when Reagan persuaded Congress to enact cuts in income tax rates was undermined by out-of-control credit in the federally subsidized housing market, which has corrupted all of finance, even as union contracts and retirement plans, public and private, have proved unsustainable.

Everything depends, then, as it so often does, on the character of the occupant of the Oval Office, for our Constitution designed the government for leadership in the various crises of human affairs. In this rich and powerful country, many things are going on but all pale in comparison to the requirements of the common defense and the general welfare.

Obama misrepresents Lincoln

We have grown accustomed to Barack Obama invoking the name and memory of Abaham Lincoln, this day of the 16th President's 200th birthday being no exception. But even in this brief news article, our current President manages to be so grossly wrong in his lessons and parallels that is almost laughable. Here it is:

Obama urges Americans to follow Lincoln's example

By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer

Published: Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama called on citizens Thursday to follow Abraham Lincoln's example of showing generosity to political opponents and valuing national unity - above all else.

At a ceremony in the stately Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol marking the 16th president's 200th birthday, Obama said he felt "a special gratitude" to the historical giant, who in many ways made his own story possible. On Thursday night, Obama, the nation's first black president, will deliver the keynote address at the Abraham Lincoln Association's annual banquet in Springfield, Ill.

As lawmakers and guests looked on, Obama recalled Lincoln's words in the closing days of the Civil War, when the South's defeat was certain.

Lincoln "could have sought revenge," Obama said, but he insisted that no Confederate troops be punished.

"All Lincoln wanted was for Confederate troops to go back home and return to work on their farms and in their shops," Obama said. "That was the only way, Lincoln knew, to repair the rifts that had torn this country apart. It was the only way to begin the healing that our nation so desperately needed."

A day after House and Senate leaders agreed on a costly economic stimulus plan that drew scant Republican support, Obama said, "we are far less divided than in Lincoln's day," but "we are once again debating the critical issues of our time."

"Let us remember that we are doing so as servants to the same flag, as representatives of the same people, and as stakeholders in a common future," Obama said. "That is the most fitting tribute we can pay and the most lasting monument we can build to that most remarkable of men, Abraham Lincoln."

Surely Obama is correct to call attention to Lincoln's generosity following the Civil War, a powerful symbol indeed. But it is one thing to forgive rebels after they have been defeated following four long, bloody years of battle. It is something else to summon up such virtue when it is not called for. Is Obama forgiving Republicans for losing the election?  Should they be returning to their homes or more likely simply retreating in the face of the Democratic victory not only in November but even the predictable victory on the "stimulus" [re: Big Government] package flying through Congress? Is asking your political opponents, in other words, to roll over and play dead an example of Obama's magnaminity? Shouldn't that be reserved for graver situations than getting bills passed? We should be pleased, I suppose, that Obama and congressional Democrats aren't seeking revenge! (Although congressional committees are planning to hold hearings on possible Bush Administration "war crimes.")

As to the plea for unity, Obama is not even close. When Lincoln ran for President, nay, as he campaigned against the spread of slavery for six years prior following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that permitted slavery to go into the Western Territory under the deceptive slogan of "popular sovereignty," he was hardly calling for unity but accepting the unavoidable consequence of hard and bitter division over the nation's most pressing issue. He was denounced for uttering the Biblical saying that "A house divided against itself cannot stand," which put the onus on pro-slavery Democrats for dividing the nation even as he knew that existing divisions would be exacerbated. It was the speech, as political philosopher Harry Jaffa has written, that changed the world, for it made clear that Lincoln was prepared to accept  "disunity," and even Civil War, to prevent slavery from being enshrined forever by the imperialist impulses of its apologists and advocates.

If Lincoln was denounced for recklessly dividing the nation, not to mention stirring up war, that was unfair, but it is even more unfair to misrepresent Lincoln when he knew that fighting for the equal rights of all under a central government able to exercise its constitutional authority after a free and fair election, was the right thing to do, even if it "divided" the country.

Doubtless Obama will not abandon the useful device of brow beating his opponents with the authority of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, we who know what Lincoln's statesmanship actually consisted of, should not hesitate to point out his errors. It is our turn to "speak truth to power."

Abraham Lincoln truly was a great man

In his famous Lyceum Speech in 1839, Abraham Lincoln expressed his hope that George Washington would always be revered. Little did Lincoln know that he too would be revered and that more would be written about him than anyone except Jesus Christ. Lincoln’s fame is deserved. He did not run for President simply to hold the office. Rather, he sought the office in order to deal with the nation’s greatest crisis. When the Civil War ended, the nation finally ended slavery, the institution that massively contradicted our nation’s principles.

Not only that, the end of slavery invigorated commerce and caused a steady rise in the standard of living for millions of Americans. Whereas the nation once had enslaved nearly half of its population and had provided limited opportunities for much of the other half, after war’s end it turned its energies to an industrial revolution that made America rich and powerful.

Millions of Americans admire Lincoln for his statesmanship, yet some on the extreme left and right accuse him of hypocrisy, offenses against the Constitution and even tyranny. These charges are false.

The black power movement and remnants of Confederate sympathizers would seem to have little in common, but in fact both have denounced Lincoln. Both believe that Lincoln didn’t really care as much about freeing Americans of African descent as he did in wielding power. Their common error, to put it charitably, is to ignore the circumstances in which Lincoln’s statesmanship was employed.

In his campaign against the spread of slavery following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Lincoln found himself in the middle between passionate abolitionists who disregarded public opinion, and pro-slavery men who were determined to spread slavery wherever they could.

There was no majority in favor of the abolition of slavery, but many Americans were determined to prevent domination of the country by slavemasters. This position was grounded in the judgment that slavery was wrong and, though too powerful to be abolished, must be prevented from spreading.

We need to understand that when slavery was legal most people were slow to turn against it. Lincoln walked a fine line in the North between those few who favored abolition and many more who hated slavery because it had brought Negroes into the country.

Lincoln contended that slavery was wrong because it denied the fundamental rights of human beings, and that its expansion ultimately threatened the rights of whites no less than blacks. Color may have been an excuse but it hardly limited the desires of slave masters.

Lincoln was reviled by northern Democrats for declaring in his 1858 Senate campaign in Illinois that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln invoked that Biblical passage to condemn the efforts of slavemasters to make slavery national. He did not call for the abolition of slavery where it existed.

Lincoln did not originally support full civil rights for those held as slaves for such a goal was not yet possible. It was enough that slavery should be restricted to where it already was.

Fortunately, more Americans opposed than supported the spread of slavery and even more the attempt at secession by 11 southern states. While both abolitionists and Democrats wavered in the face of rebellion, Lincoln never abandoned his determination to preserve the Union or his commitment to the ultimate extinction of slavery.

After hundreds of thousands of Americans became casualties in a terrible conflict, it became clear to Lincoln that the war could no longer be fought simply to preserve slavery. As a war measure, as well as to propound a greater purpose, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in rebel states and thereby encouraged them to abandon their masters and even to join the Union Army.

Lincoln was no usurper, but he did not hesitate to use his powers to preserve the Union. When the Maryland state legislature met to vote for secession, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and arrested all those who intended to take that fateful step. The loss of Maryland would have isolated the nation’s capital behind rebel lines.

As political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa has written, President Lincoln in dealing with rebellion exercised extra constitutional power to protect freedom, in contrast to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who may have been more scrupulous but was dedicated to preserving slavery. That made all the difference.

This Thursday, Feb. 12, we should honor Lincoln on the 200^th anniversary of his birth, for he well deserves the titles of Savior of the Union and Great Emancipator. He saved America for freedom.

Merci, Monsieur le Président

Dear President George W. Bush: As you open a new chapter in your life down in Crawford, Texas, after eight, sometimes turbulent years as the 43rd President of the United States, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly express my eternal gratitude to you for strengthening my faith in America’s destiny as a truly exceptional nation. It all goes back to March 2003. Back then, I remember huddling over my ancient radio trying to pick up medium-wave signals of the BBC World Service for the latest English-language news about the outcome of a summit meeting which you were holding in the Azores with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to work out a U.N. resolution that might eventually lead to military intervention in Iraq. In hindsight, I can truthfully say that when the report ended with the view that war was imminent, I was born again.

Please, do not get me wrong. I agree that war is ugly and should always be used as a last resort. However World War II taught us that the use of force in a just cause is an eminently virtuous course of action. In March 2003, most Europeans were still wilfully denying the essential truth of that painfully poignant lesson and you were trying hard to educate them.

Therefore, Mr. President, although your brand of conservatism eventually turned out to be too compassionate for my small-government predilections, I want to thank you again for courageously standing up for good against evil. I want to thank you again for steadfastly promoting freedom and democracy in the world. Above all, I want to thank you again for relentlessly protecting America and the American people and conserving the enduring values which your blessed country uniquely stands for.

May God bless you, Sir. May God bless the United States of America.

Yours Faithfully, A French friend of America

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.