Browse By

Will You Be 1 of 68 in Direct Civil Disobedience to Protest Torture?

How do you feel about recent, far-too late admission by the U.S. Government that it has tortured innocent people to death? Does this bother you?

How much does this bother you? Does it bother you right down to your bones? Have you had enough of it? Are you sick and tired of the United States of America putting on airs as if it were a morally superior nation while behind closed doors it tortures in your name and covers up the act? Are you tired of the lawlessness? To this day the United States government protects torturers from prosecution for their very real and very serious violation of federal law, refusing to prosecute them while it shoves people in jail for decades because they take drugs without a prescription?

On January 12 2015, Witness Against Torture will engage in an act of civil disobedience in Washington DC, a peaceful yet bodily aggressive protest of the United States’ chain of actions and inactions to engage in, aid and abet torture.

Witness Against Torture is looking for 68 people willing to put their bodies in jail to protest American torture. Could you be 1 of the 68? If you think the answer is yes, get in touch with Witness Against Torture today.

P.S. If you’re interested in protesting but can’t afford to get arrested, consider the Witness Against Torture DC rally taking place the day before: January 11 2015.

6 thoughts on “Will You Be 1 of 68 in Direct Civil Disobedience to Protest Torture?”

  1. DrRGP says:

    I did, of course, read about the American government’s interrogation (torture) of suspected terrorists (water-boarding, playing “hard rock ‘music,'” etc.), but I completely missed any stories documenting the torturing “innocent people to death.” Where can learn more about this?

    I have no problem believing that the now-omnipotent state, Leviathan–the federal government of the United States–is out of control in the sense that it is not in the least accountable to “We, the People,” but I have almost no confidence that the public, which is more uninformed and misinformed than, perhaps, at any time in the history of the American republic, can be made to stir from its stupor for even a moment, much less be galvanized to rise in concerted opposition to entrenched, progressive tyranny. But good luck to you, none the less.

  2. Jim Cook says:

    DrRGP, see this summation of the torture report here:

    “Similarly, the CIA had reacted swiftly when the Gul Rahman died of hypothermia. ‘The agency made a big mistake. It put a young officer into a position for which we had not prepared him. The incident was immediately turned over to the Department of Justice. It has been investigated twice and each time prosecution was declined.'”

    “Feinstein’s report concluded Rahman was not a terrorist but a victim of ‘mistaken identity’.”

  3. Charles Manning says:

    You ask how your readers feel about the recent disclosures. I feel disappointment in the shallow and misleading way many important things related to torture have been treated in the MSM.

    Government approved torture of detainees has for many years been outlawed under the Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the War Crimes Act of 1996, and the federal torture statute, none of which have been repealed. How often have you heard that mentioned in the MSM reports and discussions?

    Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, who was interviewed this weekend by Charlie Rose, said it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks constitutes torture except for the U.S. officials who authorized the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” and the courts. Of course Rose didn’t ask probing questions about that. No court has ruled upon the incidents in which prisoners were subjected to EIT. And obviously, people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Jim Haynes, John Yoo, Steven Bradbury, and Jay Bybee are trying to justify what everyone knows is torture. Why should we accept their definition of torture?

    By the way, Morell claimed when prisoners were subjected to EIT, they gave more definitive answers than when they were interrogated using FBI protocols. But Morell didn’t say the answers were true. Even Senator John McCain knows better.

    It annoys me that the MSM never brings out that the architects of torture bear even more responsibility for authorizing it than those who carried it out. And that the U.S. lacks moral standing to condemn others who torture because the U.S. condones torture by its own agents.

    Republicans continue to resist closing Guantanamo. We hear that the people being held there are too dangerous to be detained in the U.S. (although evidently not too dangerous to be kept in Cuba). What we don’t hear is that the Guantanamo facility was set up because it was thought U.S. citizens torturing people there wouldn’t be subject to U.S. laws against torture, and detainees kept there wouldn’t have rights, such as the right to a trial, to remain silent, and to be represented by counsel, that they could assert on U.S. soil. At the same time, it’s seldom mentioned in the MSM that people like Bush and Cheney could be arrested if they go to many foreign countries because of their sponsorship of torture. I don’t recall any of them ever being asked why they aren’t taking overseas vacations.

    It also bothers me that the official U.S. position is that the ends justify the means when it comes to torture. If torture “works” (itself a discredited idea), then logically anyone, such as law enforcement personnel, should be free to torture persons suspected of crimes or who might have plans to commit crimes, such as murders, abductions, and robberies.

    Dick Cheney says that the attacks on 9/11 were more damaging than the torture committed by the U.S. after 9/11. No one questioning him points out that what makes the torture described in the Senate report more serious is that, while the 9/11 crimes were committed by non-state actors, U.S. torture was committed and condoned by the United States. I’m unhappy that the U.S. flag, instead of reminding me of the ideals of equality, justice, and freedom, now reminds me that I live in a country that condones torture.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Thanks for writing, Charles. I agree; a scream is a more definitive answer. It doesn’t make it more true. And even if torture “worked,” it wouldn’t make it the right thing to do. I’m pretty sure that hauling a suspect’s kids into the room and cutting off their arms would elicit confessions. It would “work.” Are we going to do that?

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Thanks for the thanks, Jim. The point you make deserves elaboration. As you point out, why would a Dick Cheney exempt Abu Zubaydah’s relatives from the sort of torture you describe if it was believed that would save American lives? But why stop there? According to the logic of Michael Morell (again featured on CBS this morning), Abu Zubaydah would probably have revealed information if anyone he liked or respected, not just his relatives, was threatened with death, or was tortured, in his presence. I’ve never seen this sort of slippery slope mentioned in the MSM. The possibilities are endless. A prisoner could be told that unless he provides information, drones will take out innocent persons where the prisoner came from. If he refused to talk, he could be made to watch the attacks as they occur. I say let’s draw the line to forbid what the Senate torture summary says was done with U.S. authorization so that our country will never go where that slippery slope might lead us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!