Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Torture and the Rule of Law

Posted
CIA Torture Report (Cover)
CIA Torture Report (Cover)

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the pronouncement of the War on Terror, the U.S. government began capturing and detaining members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and long-standing international law, these detentions were perfectly legitimate. I addressed the question of the legality of these detentions and of military tribunals in The War in Iraq: Ten Myths (see Myth #1). But while the detentions and tribunals were legal in-and-of themselves, torturing those prisoners was not.

While prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere are not protected under the Third Geneva Convention because they do not meet the definition of ‘prisoner of war,’ they are most certainly protected under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment and Punishment. This treaty, commonly known as the United Nations (U.N.) Convention Against Torture, was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1984. It came into force in 1987 after having been ratified by twenty-six nations. Today, 156 nations are party to the treaty.

President Ronald Reagan (R) signed the Convention Against Torture in 1988, and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994. Since then, it has been the ‘law of the land’ under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” (emphasis added).

So what does the Convention Against Torture entail? Well, you can dig through the full text if you want, but I would like to highlight two important clauses. First, here the legal definition of torture under the treaty:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in[,] or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Part I, Article 1.1

And second, here is what the treaty has to say about making exceptions to the rule, and the ‘just following orders’ defense:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability[,] or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Part I, Article 2.2-2.3

Pretty clear if you ask me. . . .

Read more . . .

The Thanksgiving Proclamation

Posted
President Abraham Lincoln
President Abraham Lincoln

In 1621, the Puritan Christian pilgrims of the Plymouth Plantation (in modern-day Massachusetts) joined with their American Indian neighbors to celebrate the ‘first Thanksgiving,’ a celebration of thanks for all that God had given them.

One particular Indian named Tisquantum, or ‘Squanto,’ was a Baptized Catholic who was fluent in English. Squanto was instrumental in helping the pilgrims establish themselves in the New World and in building the close friendship between the pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians. That friendship would result in over fifty years of peace between the European settlers—including my ancestor, William Bradford—and the American Indians of the American northeast. You can read some more of the details in my 2010 piece, On Thanksgiving.

Many of the northeast colonies continued the tradition and celebrated annual Thanksgiving holidays, but the date of the celebration differed between the different colonies. After the establishment of the United States, the New England states continued to celebrate each fall, but the holiday was largely unknown (or at least uncelebrated) in the rest of the United States.

A magazine editor named Sarah Josepha Hale had begun advocating for a national, uniform Thanksgiving holiday in the late 1840s, but the request had fallen on deaf ears in a country that was then on the brink of civil war. And of course the war and all its horrors came in 1861. Before its end in 1865, more than 625,000 Americans were dead, 412,000 were injured, and unmeasurable harm had been done to lives and property all across the United States (and the erstwhile Confederate States).

None of this stopped Hale, who wrote to President Abraham Lincoln (R) in September of 1863—more than a year and a half before the war would end—urging him to proclaim a national day of Thanksgiving anyway. She had been advocating it for fifteen years, and had written to several of Lincoln’s predecessors, but none had acted on the request. Lincoln, in the midst of the unspeakable horrors of war, thought that Hale had a good idea. He asked Secretary of State William Seward (R) to draft an appropriate proclamation, which was then issued by the President Lincoln on October 3, 1863. This proclamation, printed below (with minor modernizations of spelling and formatting), established a uniform, national Thanksgiving holiday in the United States for the first time.

In case you have any question of what this holiday is about, or what it means, read on.

Read more . . .

Election 2014 Results and Live Blog (Final)

Posted
Updated
Ballot Races
U.S. Senate, Virginia
Ed Gillespie (R):48.34%
Robert Sarvis (L):2.43%
Mark Warner (D):49.15%
Other:0.00%
U.S. House, VA-10th
Diane Blais (IG):0.42%
Barbara Comstock (R):56.49%
Brad Eickholt (I):1.10%
John Foust (D):40.36%
Bill Redpath (L):1.52%
Other:0.12%
Ballot Issues
Virginia Tax Amendment
Yes:87.31%
No:12.69%
Loudoun Safety Bonds
Yes:68.23%
No:31.77%
Loudoun Park Bonds
Yes:59.24%
No:40.76%
Loudoun School Bonds
Yes:67.61%
No:32.39%

Election Live Blog

Read more . . .

I Voted; Now It’s Your Turn

Posted
I Voted (by Melissa Lew)
I Voted (by Melissa Lew)

Today is election day in America, and if you are a U.S. citizen who is eligible to vote you should make sure you do so. This year, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are on the ballot, as are thirty-six U.S. Senate seats and countless state and local offices and referendums all across the county. Virginians like myself will be voting for U.S. Senator, our local U.S. House seat, and a statewide ballot referendum. Here in Loudoun County, we also have three local bond referendums. The polls in Virginia are open until 7:00 p.m., and as long as you are in line by that time your votes will be counted. Find your polling location on the Virginia Department of Elections web site.

I have my opinions about who should win my local races, and I have shared them here on this site. I invite you to read up on what I have to say, but also to study the issues and the candidates, read other sources, and come to an informed decision—even if your informed decision differs from mine. The ballot box is our best opportunity as citizens to shape our governments and choose our national, state, and local paths.

Even if you happen to despise all of your options and choose to write-in a candidate or abstain from voting in one or more races, your vote still counts for something. I would rather have you go to the polls and cast a blank ballot than stay home, because every abstention and every write-in also sends a message (perhaps about the overall quality of the candidates). Staying home as an eligible voter sends a different message; it tells our leaders that you just don’t care, and you are happy to let them do whatever they like.

As in past years, we will be covering election night results here on Off on a Tangent. Beginning around 6:30 p.m., the site will include live results for all of my local races along with a live blog of the night’s proceedings (locally and nationally). I hope you’ll stop by!

The War on Terror Continues, Like It or Not

Posted

For many years, I have warned of the threat of Islamic terrorism and the need for strong measures to combat it. Obviously there are limits to what we should do; I have stood against the National Security Agency’s nationwide surveillance efforts and the Transportation Security Administration’s nude scanners and water-bottle-seizures, along with other policies that trample civil liberties without any significant positive effects. But, generally speaking, I support government action—domestically and internationally—to fight against the Jihadists.

Many Libertarians, along with their ‘small-l’ libertarian, paleo-conservative, and peacenik peers in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, believe that Islamic terrorism has its roots in western involvement in the middle east, and think that if we stopped interfering in their affairs they would leave us and the rest of the world alone. This is nonsense. To believe it, we would have to ignore the traditional Qur’anic teachings of Islam, the history of the religion’s spread throughout the world, and how modern Jihadists understand and act upon their faith.

For example, when Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians in Gaza put Hamas in charge and increased their terrorist and rocket attacks on Israel. When the United States and our allies pulled out of Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took control of large swaths of the country and went on a terrorist rampage, abducting and murdering western journalists, expelling Iraqi Christians from their homes, and calling for sympathizers in the west to attack and kill as many westerners as they can. If the peaceniks are right and all the Jihadists want is for us to leave them alone, well, they sure have a funny way of showing it. Every time the civilized world pulls back, they turn around and hit us harder.

While al-Qaeda preferred massive acts of terrorism like the September 11, 2001, suicide hijackings, other groups call for less spectacular actions at the grass-roots levels, and many individual Jihadists have planned and executed ‘lone wolf’ attacks on their own. Here are just a few notable examples:

Read more . . .

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.