A TALE OF THREE GEORGES

A Guest Commentary -with permission -by FreddieVee

"In the beginning there were two: George Washington & King George IIIrd of England. George IIIrd allowed his Red Coats to torture the captured freedom fighters of the colonies, but George Washington was more than the prospective father of his country; he was also 230 years ahead of his time.

Washington refused to allow his soldiers to follow suit, because he knew even back then, that (what was to become the United States of America) had to care more for the individual's freedom and dignity than a king did. So, for the next 225 years, the USA led the world in it's treatment of captured enemy combatants. And then the 3rd George showed up, and he threw history and tradition out of the White House window.

You may have heard recently that former members of George W. Bush's administration have been making the circuit complaining that without torture (my word, not their euphemisms) we could not have stayed safe after 9/11.

Do they forget that until George W was President we did pretty well? We won the first and second World Wars, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, and quirte a few other wars and police actions...without torture. And, as far as the remarks being made that George W kept us safe after 9/11 (using torture), didn't Bill Clinton keep the homeland save after the February 1993 WTC bombing-without torture, and he "kept us safe" for seven more months than Bush "kept us safe."

Well, what is all the fuss about?

It seems that around the time of 9/11, George W decided that he needed information. Some think it was to protect the country from another 9/11, although others think it was a need to trick the American public into authorizing an invasion of Iraq.

Either way, the orders came down from the White House that we needed 'intel' (short for that oxymoron 'military intelligence'). So, some big brains in the White House decided to have a group of patriots (who at the time were running a program to teach US servicemen how to withstand torture), to devise a set of protocols for obtaining intel.

The only problem was that these 'patriots' had studied the methods used by the Red Chinese, the North Koreans and the Soviet Union for getting captured soldiers to confess to lies. The US Military personnel could then be put on trial where their confessions to fabrications would embarrass the USA. The program succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Our interrogators were able to torture lies and fabrications at will from anyone turned over to them. Of course there were some embarrassing cases. There was one Al Quaida operative who was interrogated by experienced FBI interrogators using conventional tactics (based on guile, empathy and persuasion), who talked so much that the agents could not keep up with him. Then one day, the CIA came along, took away that prisoner based on jurisdictional rights, and then tortured him. When torture didn't work, they got permission to use more force and more invasive methods. Sometimes torture led to death, but as long as death was not the objective, it wasn't the torturer's fault. Right?

Of course it was right. Why? Because a group of lawyers with no background in interrogation methods, working out of the White House and in the Department of Justice wrote legal memos to explain what torture wasn't. And, they said it was OK so long as the interrogators weren't trying to kill him.

At a seminar, they gained much of their knowledge of interrogation techniques because they were led by a man who was infatuated with Jack Bauer of "24", a TV show who's main character Jack tortures people all the time and always saves the day with the intel garnered. Whether Jack's reluctant informant survived or not is never seen as being important.

Lest some think that charging Bush administration officials with crimes is just a squabble over a difference in philosophy between Conservatives and Liberals, there were many Conservative Republicans who worked in the White House and DoJ who objected to the memos which sanctionned torture. Many resigned in protest. Some fought the good fight, but eventually gave in, and some were able to reverse the course after many years of sinking to levels that would have made George Washington sick. However, the White House never returned to the color it was before the administration of George W moved in.

On another note, the US Supreme Court has taken up the case of a 13 year old female honor student who was strip-searched because of a rumor that she was dispensing Ibuprofen pills. The school, in its defense, argues that they would not be able to keep students safe unless they have the right to extremely controversial and invasive procedures. What do these two topics have in common?

Many might remember the logic of Spock (an emotionless Vulcan in the Star-Trek TV series and movies who only used logic to make decisions). They remember Spock saying: "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." Well Mr. Spock, there is a hole in your logic.

You see, when we use the argument that the rights or safety of society (or the collective student body) is more important than the individual's rights, we make a glaring mistake. Because society is a large mass of individuals (just as a student body is a large mass of students) and as each individuals rights are less than those of the society's, then the society, per force, has no rights either.

Taking away from one individual means potentially taking from every individual. Not protecting one student (from another student or from the unbridled power of the school) leaves all students defenseless.

So, why do some people say that we must protect the greater student body at the expense of an individual student - or why do many people think that the only way to protect the US homeland (society) is by torture, and if torture is the only way, then why not torture individuals? Is it because they invoke Spock-like logic, "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" without realizing that "the many" are just a large collection of "the few(s)"? No, I think the reason is cowardice.

That is why we may have to change the words of the "Star Spangled Banner." All four verses now end with "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." We can no longer credibly say "the home of the brave" because we have become such cowards that we are afraid of our own children and afraid of a band of terrorists with no ability to destroy us and only the ability to watch us harm ourselves.

Further, we can no longer say: "the land of the free" because once we start strip searching our children and torturing those we suspect of crimes, then no one is free. So, how about we change "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave" to "O'er the land once free and the home of no one brave"?

But maybe, if we are brave enough to deal with George W and his people in the politically analagous way that we treated King George III and his Red Coats, we can keep singing "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Alas, only time will tell."