The United Nations reported yesterday that the government of Syria has been caught torturing its citizens in its effort to repress their rebellion against its autocratic rule. Of course, Syria isn’t the only nation that has been caught engaged in widespread regimes of torture.
In the 2012 presidential election, which candidate can you trust to take a consistent stand against torture, both by foreign governments and by our own? Justice Party Rocky Anderson has made torture a central issue in his 2012 presidential campaign. As founder and director of High Road for Human Rights, Anderson has been a leading anti-torture activist for years. The Republican presidential candidates can’t say that. Barack Obama can’t say that either – he’s kept alive secret prisons that have been used for torture, and created new ones.
As a presidential candidate, Rocky Anderson has written, “Enhanced interrogation apologists claim that pragmatism and national security justifies all that was done, because information was gained that ‘saved thousands of lives.’ To date, not a single such claim can be validated. If, in fact, such an instance existed and is classified, there is no longer a legitimate reason to keep it secret: that the CIA and military interrogators relied upon specific kinds of torture or enhanced interrogation (a semantic distinction without a difference) to obtain information has been a matter of record for several years; the persons from whom the information was derived are or were in U.S. custody, and their information is no longer of current value. The claims by politicians of thwarted plots from timely intelligence that was obtained only by torture have been repudiated by the interrogators who questioned the prisoners and relied upon legitimate interrogation techniques. Experienced and professional interrogators eschew torture as unlawful, unnecessary and unreliable.”
We desperately need a President with this clarity of opposition to torture in the White House. No more apologies. No more excuses. No more claims that torture makes us more secure.
If you want to see a comprehensive push against torture, voting Rocky Anderson for President is a good place to start.
How likely is it that once elected, Anderson will dismantle the unconstitutional, incomprehensibly expensive homeland security apparatus (including TSA and those gawd-awful scanners/gropers)?
Anderson has a tremendous grasp of this crucial issue. The Bush and Obama administrations have nearly destroyed the soul of our country by stamping out civil liberties and humanitarian values. The MSM and all the candidates featured in the MSM are complicit in this. When was the last time you heard an MSM reporter challenge any of our leaders or candidates about these issues?
It’s time we started paying attention not only to the vast sums being poured into the campaigns of the factotums of the military industrial complex — Democrats and Republicans — but also to the enrichment of the MIC’s chief propaganda tool, the MSM. The billions being spent benefit “news” outlets that don’t report the news, political commentators who ignore the most important political issues, and talk shows that exclude people like Rocky Anderson, who stands head and shoulders above “mainstream” candidates like Obama and the Republicans. Citizens United and other rulings allow the 1% not only to buy candidates, but to control the MSM. This must stop!
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties
While civil liberties are supported by the likes of Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson. Gary Johnson has been ignored despite having the same stance on such issues!
Gary Johnson in particular, and libertarians in general, fail to gain credibility on these issues because while he pays lip service to civil liberties, he would demolish the structures of government through democracy that most realistically protect civil liberties. His policies don’t match the rhetoric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties
Wikipedia says civil liberties are the responsibilities of the citizens of a free society. Government destroys civil liberties more often than it proetects them. Authoritatian regimes are the states where the government is in charge of civil liberties,
Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to defend one’s self, the right to own and bear arms, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, it is important to note the distinctions between positive rights and negative rights.
Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.
The formal concept of civil liberties dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215, which in turn was based on pre-existing documents namely the English Charter of Liberties, a landmark document in English legal history.
Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It might be said that the protection of civil liberties is a key responsibility of all citizens of free states, as distinct from authoritarian states.
The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil rights. Controversial examples include property rights, reproductive rights, civil marriage, and the right to keep and bear arms. Whether the existence of victimless crimes infringes upon civil liberties is a matter of dispute. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.
An individual who “actively supports or works for the protection or expansion of civil liberties” is called a civil libertarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States
Civil liberties is the government restraining itself from infring on civil liberties like the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, property, reprdoction, marriage, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
I reccomend the Liberty Canon of texts which are based on the Englihtenment Era thought down to the modern era!
Stephen, when you say things like “Government destroys civil liberties more often than it proetects them,” you engage in a fundamental error of lumping all forms of government together.
It would make as much sense to talk about “relationships” in general, when conducting marital therapy, as to talk about “government” in general, when addressing matters of citizen activism.
It’s absurd to ask us to fail to differentiate between forms of government as distinct as monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, and democracy.
I’m not an anarchist, I believe government can protect liberty. Yes, I also believe in liberal democracy / constitutional republicanism with a strong emphasis on strict constructionism, original intent, original meaning, and originalism.
Actually, there are tons of varieties of democracy as seen under the democracy Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
What protect civil liberties the best? If you asked people that question different people would give different answers. Sharon Angle would say “Second Amendment solutions”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
I reccommend reading the Liberty wikipedia page.
What government structures are you reffering to in most reallistically protecting civil liberties? I don’t remember there being a Department of Civil Liberties or a Secretary of Civil Liberties last time I checked the Cabinet.
I’d add a Department of International Free Trade to the Cabinet to add a government structure to protect economic freedom, but I’m not sure if a bureaucracy is the best tool for that ends.
It’s a myth that libertarians won’t the dismantle the whole government, just the bad parts. They also favor stregnthening the good parts. Yes, libertarians do believe there are good parts ie rule of law, property law, contract law, economic freedom, elections, etc…