Can I Use The "Following Orders" Excuse, Too?

It's an understandable desire for the American people to put the Bush Administration behind us, along with all the dark shadows of his regime. The eight years we made it through were marred with scandal and questionable ethics, and weren't the kind of thing you find celebrated in history books. However, in President Obama's assertion that doing just that is the thing to do in order to move forward, he is letting people, literally, get away with murder. Included in those dark shadows we are putting behind us is an ever growing stack of evidence that torture, in some cases causing death, was used against detainees in the War on Terror.

As I'm sure you know, President Obama has already taken steps to put an end to the questionable practices that have come under fire. Guantanamo Bay, where torture knowingly took place, is being closed, and along with it, the numerous overseas CIA prisons used to duck out of international law. You know, like that pesky Geneva Convention. He has spoken out and assured the American people torture would not be used under his administration. Well, that's wonderful. It really is. We need to make sure these things don't happen in the future. But when Obama also claims going after those people who have committed these acts of violence is counterproductive, he's sorely mistaken.

It's easy to look at the situation and try to make it less than it was. They were "supposed terrorists." We needed "intelligence." America is, after all, the great spreader of Democracy and Freedom, and not the dreaded abusers of power. Well, sorry, but we apparently became just that while interrogating these "enemy combatants." By ambiguously pressuring soldiers to obtain intelligence from those brought into prisons such as Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo, and then giving them few (if any) directions in regards to how to do this, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and President Bush are directly responsible for the violence that took place in all three prisons, as well as others. Of course, they act surprised these things -- the photos of prisoners being sexually humiliated in Abu Ghraib, the numerous homicide deaths of detainees, the videos of men driven to their breaking point, pounding their heads against the wall -- but how can they not know what the shackles on the ceiling are used for? How do they not know their soldiers are, as in the case of one detainee, "pulpifying" their legs using knee kicks?

The detainee referred to above was picked up by Afghan militia in Yabuki. His name was Dilawar and he was a taxi driver. If you've seen the film Taxi to the Dark Side, you know this story. After being hired by three men in a nearby town, he was taken in with them as the "get away driver" after a bombing. Dilawar had nothing to do with the bombing; he had picked the men up afterwards on the street when they said they were going to Yabuki. He was taken to Bagram prison, where he died a week later. The cause of death was ruled homicide -- blunt force trauma. Soldiers who dealt with -- or rather, beat -- Dilawar have since admitted use of force was unnecessary. After days of sleep deprivation, the detainee was hallucinating and hysterical, calling out for his parents late into the night. The soldiers used the knee kicks -- digging into the upper thigh with one's knee, which is supposedly non-fatal -- to silence him, or, in some cases, to hear him scream out, "Allah!" The same soldiers have also said they didn't think he was guilty of anything from the very beginning. And yet, Dilawar was killed.

So, where's the justice in that? What about the other 37 homicides caused by this same kind of violence? If that's not torture, I don't know what is. War on Terror (a term which will not be used in the Obama administration, according to Secretary Clinton) aside, there comes a time when you need to look at it for what it is. People beating people to death. People humiliating people. People playing on the fears and cultural values to demean people. Much like these things were unacceptable during World War II, they are unacceptable in this supposed War on Terror. The claims that people were "just following orders" is ridiculous. Let the courts decide who was "just following orders," and who was just giving those orders.

The issue of torture is not a partisan battle. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. It's a moral issue, a human issue. A matter of people not accused of anything but, in many cases and like Dilawar, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To use one of those precious Nazi references thrown around lately, Hitler himself never gave explicit orders to kill any Jews. He just said to take care of the problem. Rumsfeld never said to "torture" anyone, he just said to get the information. Well, as information slowly leaks to the American people, I can only hope more of us become as outraged as we should be that these things were carried out in our name. And let's hope we do carry out the promises of leading the world morally, not just militarily, under Obama. So let's all take step one together. Let's bring the people responsible, at the highest levels, to justice.

I Feel Lost

Alright, look. I became politically aware during the 2000 election. Yes, that battle royale between Bush and Gore was what lit my little political flame. I was 11 years old, and read my parents' Newsweeks and watched CNN religiously. I even made collages to hang in my windows. I wasn't the coolest kid in Junior High, okay? Of course, this interest blossomed into full blown obsession after 9/11. While the rest of the world was rallying behind Cowboy Bush, I was once again researching and reading, and even made a collage or two. During high school, politics was my main hobby. I read the Communist Manifesto when I was sixteen, making me the beloved Socialist I am today (please don't stone me to death.)

But that whole time, I had someone to rail against. I had the Bush administration. I was driven by the desire to make things better, to change foreign policy, and to open the eyes of my peers to the lies the country was being fed. Again, I wasn't the coolest kid. I was angry. I was very, very angry. Change was needed. It had to come.

And then it did. With Obama, our country is (hopefully) going to turn a new leaf. And that is wonderful. It's necessary, and it's great, and while I'm not trying to be unrealistic, I really think things are going to get better. So here's the problem: I'm happy.

I know. It's awful. I have no sense of condescension when I think about who is running the country. No sense of being able to do it better myself. I'm not bitter, or disillusioned, or anything like that. I'm hopeful, happy, and proud of my own country. This has never happened before, and I honestly don't know how to feel about it. I suddenly have faith in who is running the show, and even feel protective of him. It's . . . it's. . . shocking.

In time, I will learn how to deal with my new found patriotism. I'll come to terms with the fact that I don't want to flee the country and actually agree with the president. But until then, I'm stuck in this uncomfortable state of contentment, and will have to find something else to target my resentment on. At least I'll always have Bill O'Reilly. . .

Something Vague

I'm not going to lie -- it took me multiple days to watch Thursday night's presidential debate. Literally, days. I started watching it live, but . . . but . . . it was too painful. I couldn't possibly sit through the whole thing without breaking the window behind the couch, so I recorded it. And slowly, meticulously, I watched it all. It hurt a little.

I had high hopes for this debate, which was really my own stupid fault. I forgot, briefly, that all excitement has been drained from politics, leaving just shells of personalities careful to tread on the correct side of party lines. And that's what this debate was, a debate alone party lines. If you like Obama, you no doubt liked what he said. If you liked McCain, you probably laughed at all his stupid little jokes. The graph type thing on CNN, gadging the audience's response, never moved that much, besides the initial changes when either candidate came on screen. I kept waiting for a drastic reaction, when those lines when haywire and flew way up or way down, the way they tended to during the 2004 debates. It never happened.

And ya know why it never happened? Because nothing drastic was said. There was no major breakthrough, or breakdown, or anything. It was strictly petty, "He said he'd do such and such a thing," sprinkled with random self congratulations for things done way back in the day. I'm totally with Obama, but does it really matter that he's been against the Iraq war since day one? No. We are there now. We have to deal with the realities of this war in 2008, not what should or shouldn't have been done.

I was really hoping for major breakthroughs on this debate in particular, because it was the Foreign Policy debate. Awesome, right? Wrong. It wasn't even a little enlightening at all. Even the question I was dying to hear, "What will you do about Iran," was dull. Why did McCain feel the need to say about a million times that Obama wants talks without preconditions? Did he think that maybe if he repeated it one more time, we'd think to ourselves, "Why yes! Putting demands on leaders before we grace them with our presence is really the only way to conduct business!" I wanted so badly for Obama to wipe that smirk off McCain's face, but no. It never happened.

After I finished watching the debate, I didn't feel any kind of rush of pride for my candidate. I didn't feel like painting my face blue and knocking on every Republican's door, chanting "O-bam-a!" No one won, because no one stepped out of their little box to actually speak to the American people about real issues. Now what am I looking forward to? Easy -- that vice presidential debate on Thursday, if for no other reason than to see Palin actually be asked direct questions, assuming the moderator is allowed to ask anything relevent.