Ralph Nader's letter to President-Elect Obama

Open Letter to President-Elect Obama

By Ralph Nader
January 09, 2009 --

Dear President-Elect Obama:

You have been receiving a great deal of advice since November 4, 2008 from people and groups who either want you to advance policies not covered in your campaign or who want you to be more specific about initiatives you emphasized.

There are two suggestions which may not be among your store of recommendations that need to be considered before you take office on January 20, 2009.

First, the public would benefit from a concise recounting of the state of the union and where the Bush Administration has left our country. As is your style, you can render such a bright line of serious problems inside and outside the government in a matter-of-fact manner. Otherwise, a blurring of who was responsible for what can taint your presidency.

Second, you need to make a clean break from the Bush regime’s law of rule to our declared commitment to the rule of law as in the firm adherence to constitutional requirements and statutory and treaty compliance. There is a Bush-Cheney stream of criminal and unconstitutional actions which are on auto-pilot day after day. You have pointed out some of these abominations such as a policy and practice of torture and violations of due process and probable cause. The task before you is to break these daily patterns just as soon as you ascend to the Presidency or be held increasingly responsible for them. This can be significantly accomplished by executive orders, agency or departmental directives, whistle-blower protections, enforcement actions and explicit legislative proposals.

With Americans wishing you well in this most portentous of times, the last thing they want to see is you tarnished by the preceding rogue regime and its ruthless monarchical forays. To avoid this contagion of power over law and its contiguous accountabilities at a time when you are striving for a “clean slate” administration, you must be decisive and eschew any excessive harmony ideology which has seemed to be your nature vis-à-vis those who are powerful but are opposed to your views.

One possible impediment to your making a comprehensive clean break for restoring the rule of law is that you have too easy an act to follow. There are a long list of violated civil liberties that need to be restored (the American Civil Liberties Union has compiled a list of immediate actions for you to take), and resolute commitments must be made so that it is clear the United States, for example, will not engage in, or countenance, torture. Only a few restorations, however, would produce a sense of relief and flurry of accolades -- but they are hardly sufficient.

There are also regulations and interpretations of statutes that scholars believe to have been erroneous as a matter of law. As one guide for your new era of overdue regulation or reregulation—given the corporate wrongdoing these days—you may wish to refer to the Center for Progressive Reform’s report By the Stroke of the Pen.

The Bush lawlessness and state terrorism are like a contagious disease. If you do not remove their sprawling incidence, you will become their carrier. This means you must move fast to eject the mantle of war criminality and repeated unconstitutional outrages committed in the name of the American people here and abroad.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

I don't suppose Ralph Nader could define torture.

Aaron wrote:I don't suppose Ralph Nader could define torture.

Listening to him is torture. I'd rather listen to fingernails scraping on the chalkboard.

Aaron wrote:I don't suppose Ralph Nader could define torture.

Could you define torture?

It is pretty well defined by the Geneva Conventions.

So then what is severe pain and suffering SodGeneral?

And to answer your question Ziggy, I can easily define it for me. For our military, intelligence and police, it's not quite so black and white.

What I do know is that the United States has always been on the upper end of nations when it comes to how we treat captured combatants and prisoners of war and that includes the current administration.

We are housing captured combatants at Gitmo, giving them access to their religious leaders, adhering to their religious beliefs and treating them in a humane manner.

They are cutting captured combatant’s heads off.

If they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions why should we be?

And to answer your question Ziggy, I can easily define it for me. For our military, intelligence and police, it's not quite so black and white.

I kinda' figured you might say something like that.

It's a copout answer.

Words either have meaning, or they don't. And it's handy for outlaws to be able to pretend that words don't have specific meanings.

If they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions why should we be?

Because we are a signatore to those conventions.

ziggy wrote:

And to answer your question Ziggy, I can easily define it for me. For our military, intelligence and police, it's not quite so black and white.

I kinda' figured you might say something like that.

It's a copout answer.

Words either have meaning, or they don't. And it's handy for outlaws to be able to pretend that words don't have specific meanings.

No, it's not a copout.

We were condemned by the international community for playing loud music when Manuel Noriega was held up in the Apostolic Nunciature after the invasion of Panama.

How is that torture?

And after that, perhaps you can tell me what a legitimate, across the board meaning of "pain or suffering is?"

We were condemned by the international community for playing loud music when Manuel Noriega was held up in the Apostolic Nunciature after the invasion of Panama.

How is that torture?

Do you like opera?

I don't care for it. As my mother said, opera often sounds like a pig caught in a rail fence. But if I were forced to listen to it at loud levels, and endlessly, I would consider that a kind of torture.

Thank your for proving my point Ziggy.

Aaron wrote:And after that, perhaps you can tell me what a legitimate, across the board meaning of "pain or suffering is?"

Well, you are making progress. You have gone from being confused about "torture" to being confused about "pain and suffering". At least you are thinking about some of it

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

As to what is / are pain and suffering, you can look it / them up here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

It's not that simple. You just gave the perfect example.

And now you are arguing against yourself. If anyone is confused, it is you.

I'm crystal clear in understanding that there are gray areas and that it is never as simple as what a piece of paper says.

Aaron wrote:It's not that simple. You just gave the perfect example.

And now you are arguing against yourself. If anyone is confused, it is you.

I'm crystal clear in understanding that there are gray areas and that it is never as simple as what a piece of paper says.

So is "waterboarding" torture? Or is that one of those "gray areas"?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:It's not that simple. You just gave the perfect example.

And now you are arguing against yourself. If anyone is confused, it is you.

I'm crystal clear in understanding that there are gray areas and that it is never as simple as what a piece of paper says.

So is "waterboarding" torture? Or is that one of those "gray areas"?

Is it? And if so, how? You tell me and then we'll compare thoughts.

I figured you would avoid a direct answer. So waterboarding is one of those "gray areas", eh? With that mindset, everything could be a "gray area".

Yep, like I said earlier, outlaws and enablers of outlaws just love to pretend that words don't have meanings and that everything is a "gray area". That way they can justify anything.

No, I don't think it is a gray area but I want to know your thoughts on it and we'll discuss it. And as you are the one who brought it up, I think that's more then fair.

Make it quick though as I'm getting ready to hop in the shower and then have lunch with my brother and sister before moving tomorrow.

I gotta get to other staff too, Aaron.

Maybe I'll get back to this later today.

Have an enjoyable lunch and visit w/your brother & sister.

Some other time then.

I think that a reasonable person would consider this torture:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

I didn't ask for a reasonable persons thoughts, I ask for yours.

There are proponents of water boarding remaining as an effective method of interrogation and I can post their thoughts.

But here's why waterboarding is not torture.

Do you know the U.S. military waterboards hundreds of our own soldiers every year? It is part of the conditioning Special Forces troops undergo to prepare for battle and the possibility of capture by the enemy.

In other words, it's OK for us to do this to America's best and brightest but it's too horrible for our worst enemies?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Many Americans are simply confused about the real definition of torture. Since so little sacrifice is required of most Americans today and because so few have ever experienced combat, they equate momentary discomfort or fear with torture. They are not the same.

My definition of torture is simple: It involves physical or mental abuse that leaves lasting scars. Cutting off fingers, toes, limbs – that would be torture. Forcing prisoners to play Russian roulette – that would be torture. Sticking hot pokers in the eyes of prisoners – that would be torture.

But a few seconds of dripping water on a prisoner's face? That's not torture to me.

source