Today I decided that my business will not advertise on the radio. I was considering a ’special’ Ad campaign promotion that costs about sixteen hundred per month, then decided to tune in to the station in question to sample the air…
So yesterday I heard afternoon host on WISN 1130 AM in Milwaukee, Mark Belling, create an imaginary scenario straight out of a movie; millions of lives in the balance and torture is the only way to get information to save all. I don’t always agree with the radio jockeys, and I am willing to advertise somewhere if it’s an audience that I generally wish to target… however I am usually not outraged enough to change my mind and avoid all those who actually agree with the host’s position.
Belling went on to defend water-boarding and “any other means necessary” if the lives of millions hang in the balance. Any means necessary? – sounds like Malcolm X of the right-wing!
I may have been persuaded that - should such a situation occur, and that’s a huge IF because it assumes a movie-like scenario where a clock may be ticking and the same folks who couldn’t stop 911 have someone in custody - well IF that happened then maybe I could have been persuaded that president would possibly be justified in BREAKING the law at his or her own peril – and by going ahead with torture (in order to save those millions of lives) this nation’s commander-in-chief risks his or her own personal liberty and authorizes torture (breaks the law) and must be willing to resign or face whatever charges necessary once this hypothetical disaster is resolved.
Perhaps the next president will pardon the president who is forced to make such a decision, but that’s not the screenplay Mr Belling was reading from. He was definitely advocating for torture ‘exceptions’ which need to be part of the written playbook and fully allowed by the law. Oh really Mark? And just who is to say the use of torture will not be used against everyday citizens?
This cannot and should not be a part of policy or the law, as the exceptions will undoubtedly be used in scenarios where millions of lives are not in jeopardy. Once we give government the right to do a bad thing in limited scenarios, then the line is slowly moved until that bad thing can happen to any of us, any time, anywhere.
Sure, there could be a disaster. Sure, we need to protect the homeland from terrorists.
We can avert such a disaster in the future by pulling out of the middle east and changing our foreign policy. We can avert the hatred against America and what we stand for by standing up for the constitution of the USA as our country’s forefathers intended it – peace and trade with all, entangling alliances and intervention with none unless a war is declared by congress.
If the surreal scenario of a nuke does happen on US soil it will be because of our foreign policy, neo-conservatives, and the policy of ’creative destruction’ that we as the American Empire have allowed our leaders to inflict upon the middle east (meanwhile bankrupting the nation and killing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency).
I’m sick of talk radio supporting neo-conservative policies which doom our nation. Until there is a new radio show in where my (falling) US Ad Dollar is able to support those who are standing up for the constitution, I’m making a business decision to take my Ad dollar elsewhere in the hopes that others will follow.
Bravo. Way to take a stand.
I sometimes feel like the Republican candidates (Ron Paul the exception, of course, and on this issue, McCain) watch the t.v. show 24 and think it’s a documentary.
The entire idea that we’re even having a debate about waterboarding makes me sick to my stomach.
Comment by Justin Offermann — November 2, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Wonderful post and excellent point.
I have made a similar point in the past concerning “search warrants” — IF a police officer believes there actually exists one of those 1-in-a-billion “Hollywood” scenarios of an IMMINENT DEADLY threat, then he is both “justified” and “responsible” to act, regardless of the consequences to his own career, to the possible “legality” of the act, etc.
Then he/she should be willing to face charges before a Jury — with CONFIDENCE that they will justify his actions by acquittal.
But there is NO NEED to revise law down to the point that a police officer can “write his own warrant” on a whim. Responsible people are WILLING to be held ACCOUNTABLE. They do not cower behind secrecy and “movie-land” paranoid propaganda.
So kudos for driving the point home!
Comment by Warren L. Miller — November 4, 2007 @ 1:53 pm