THE TORTURE REPORT: A COMMENTARY BY AN AMERICAN

American soldier prepare for deployment in 2004

EDITORIAL
By Rev. Jim Purcell

In December, 2014, 525 pages worth of an "executive summary" was published, which is supposed to represent a 6,000-page, in-depth study about the Detention and Interrogation Program the CIA operated between 2001-2006. It was published by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The larger report is classified, and no doubt will be until doom's crack.

Millions of pages of materials were examined by the SSCI. And, according to nearly every decent reference out there, the Obama Administration and the CIA have done little to actually assist this investigation. Yes, they've talked it but they sure as Hell haven't walked it.

There were allegations the CIA attempted to hack the SSCI computer network used during the investigation. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, was pretty sure the CIA did it. At the end of the day, that too was covered up by the CIA and the Justice Department. Then there is Obama, the supposed "Good Guy" who "fights for the people" and all that. Well, he used executive privilege to hold back documents and other materials requested specifically by the SSCI. Why? Because those documents would 'clear' the CIA?

I doubt it. I doubt it very much.


Ft. Bragg's "Iron Mike" embodies America's ideals

Everyone is walking around on egg shells here about what is hitting everyone in the face: The CIA used "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- torture -- on detainees. And, they didn't actually get anymore information from detainees than they would have if they had been using conventional tenants allowed under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which we, as a nation, have been a party to since World War I.

American officials broke those tenants, though, purposefully and with malice. By definition, those are acts of war criminals. Anyone who exceeds what is allowed under the Geneva and Hague Conventions is, irrefutably, a war criminal. It appears we have quite a few of those hiding behind our stars and stripes now.

A moron could put together that innocent people do not destroy evidence, as CIA Clandestine Services chief Jose Rodriguez did when he destroyed 100 recordings of interrogations of detainees from 2005. President Barack Obama has used executive privilege to keep 9,400 pieces of evidence away from SSCI investigators. And, even the SSCI has balked at providing Americans, who paid for this failed Big Top from stem to stern, the full, unedited report of atrocities done in the name of this country by at least one of its agencies.

Well, here is where the commentary comes in: I am an American who has served my country in its uniform in peacetime and wartime. I love my country and what it stands for, and always have. I have spent my career fighting for causes like Civil Rights, Women's Rights and Peace when not in an Army uniform. And, I know what America should be and what it shouldn't be. The United States should never be a nation of evil, regardless of the enemy or the era, and the leaders of that dark time, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, presided over the destruction of our American ideals and wrapped a flag around it to shut people up. There are many people who will not shut up, and if I haven't shut up by now then I guess I'm not going to do that either.


A color guard of vets from the 82nd Abn Div. Assn.

We, as a nation, are the Great American Experiment in democracy and freedom -- still. And, if we are not that then we are nothing. If our nation has sunken to being similar to some sweaty, Third World banana republic then someone in power needs to send that memo to the people of this nation. Already, some of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have, from what I have heard and seen, accepted that torture is OK because that is the generation they come from. Most don't and thank God for it. But, that contamination of spirit will be felt for years in our services, and not easily be turned to Right.

I served in an Army that was dedicated to freedom for our country and its neighbors. It observed the Geneva and Hague Conventions. My uncles served in that Army too, as did my father and his father. And, none of us were serving in the Mexican Marine Corps, where looting, murder and torture were 'just fine.' Years after I have left the military, I still salute our flag every morning and every evening. I do it not because I want to be some 'rah rah' guy; I do it out of respect for what America is supposed to mean. I salute for those who have served our nations and made terrible sacrifices. I salute the American flag because I still hear the words of our late President John F. Kennedy talking about our nation as a "City on the Hill." I salute the flag because I took an oath when I entered the service, and to me it has no time-stamp or expiration. America is a place where intelligence, reason, strength, determination and peace is emblazoned onto our hearts, or should be. When we must fight a war, we do it with all resolve in the name of freedom or defense.

On Main Street, USA

None of this affair is consistent with any of the principles of the nation I grew up under and served, of the nation I love still and always shall. I hear this era's wartime vets today talking about how this was a "different war." Well, my ass it was. If you look back through the trenches of World War I, the global war throughout the planet in World War II, the nightmares that were Korea and Vietnam, among others, these were not walks in the park. Still, though, our nation managed to stay our nation through these trials by fire -- still America represented what our Founders stood for, and what every American since them have stood for.

Only now, because of their majesties King George of America and Prince Cheney has the American dream been disfigured, mangled and turned into a mockery of its once glorious self. And, every official that supports not being open and honest about the events from 2001-2006 as part of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program stand against the echoes of real American patriots who have sacrificed so much for our land. Yes, that means President Obama is in the wrong here too.

If there is not an actual accountability of what happened, when it happened and who was involved then justice has not been served. I say our nation stop thinking about what the damn world thinks and clean our house clear of the traitors who sanctioned and operated this criminal program within the CIA.

I say to hell with pleasantries. No one is above the law, or no one should be. If they are, and commit the despicable acts outlined in this report, then we, as a nation, have traveled far afield of what we once were.

I don't care a good goddamn about the detainees. They can all go to Hades for all I care. I do not speak in their defense, but in the defense of our nation, our homes, our ways of life. This abomination that has been visited upon our land, the torture of prisoners in direct contrast with the Geneva and Hague Conventions deserves being answered by courts of either this country or in the world.

As for the official air of government lackeys being jerks and calmly citing some self-indulgent law protecting wrong-doers in our government -- I say their lying should not rule the day, and it will certainly not win out in the Judgment.

(This is the second of a four-part series about "The Torture Report")

(Rev. James J. Purcell is a graduate of the New York Theological Seminary, in NYC. He is also a former Paratrooper and NCO who served within the U.S. Army's Intelligence Corps. As a journalist after the service, Rev. Purcell wrote for several daily newspapers in the state, and formerly published the weekly Courier, in Monmouth County, NJ.)

Service, patriotism and professionalism

AMERICA: Love it or get the hell out

I served in the United States Army and its various components between 1983 and 1998. I was nothing special, just another soldier doing the best he could, among so many other soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines doing the exact same thing.

What disturbs me about today, on Facebook and other social media, on television, radio and along Main Street, USA, is this feeling that individual members of the Armed Forces should be so loud and vehement about their political or personal feelings regarding the American president (regardless of who it might happen to be) or Congress and what is 'right' or 'wrong' governmentally in this nation.

I think there is a point here that bears repeating at least once: Members of the Armed Forces preserve the principles of our Democratic Republic, they do not participate in them. Consequently, they serve to protect the freedom of speech for all Americans, which does not mean they possess it while on Active Duty in any way, shape or form.

A professional armed service is not staffed by professional philosophers, loud civic naysayers or the barroom politicians who spend their time 'devil's advocating' for un-American causes (like those who advocate domestic overthrow and the like). Advocating too loudly for causes potentially hostile to the elected U.S. Government is and has always been punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for very good reasons.

Besides, the U.S. armed services have never been melting pots for the opinions of the disenfranchised, disloyal or deranged opinions of its members and I do not advocate for them becoming so now.

I have heard service members speaking loudly about their dislike for the current president, Barack Obama. I have heard extreme things said by some of them, particularly on Facebook -- in agreement with causes like the "Tea Party Movement," which I do not think particularly well of as a so-called "American" political entity. Regardless, though, of the agency of the derision against the Government of the United States and the governments establish by the governments of the United States, be it Democrat or Republican, Communist or Socialist, Pepsi or Coca Cola, a member of the armed forces of the United States adding their voice to any echo of dissent is patently wrong.

Inasmuch as I do not approve of the Tea Party or its principles, it is my right, according to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for me to be able to express this feeling loudly and publicly. In addition, should a president be selected from the ranks of the Tea Party Movement (God forbid), it is my right to protest actions by that president in all the ways acceptable to our government. Why? Well, I am no longer in the military: I am a civilian.

When I served in the military, I did not particularly like several actions taken by then-President George H.W. Bush. I thought he was a good person but some of the things he did were inappropriate where it involved the U.S. military. But, while I held these opinions privately, I did not make these views public in any way. At the time, I was a soldier serving in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). It would have been a clear conflict to my service to make disparaging remarks about the commander-in-chief. And, I am fairly certain that, at the time, my chain-of-command would have rightfully pursued charges against me for doing so if I had.

Today, though, as the country is more polarized as it has ever been between what is perceived as "Republican" or "Democrat," "Conservative" or "Liberal," "Ignorant" or "Progressive," service members have indulged themselves to new heights of participating in political arguments -- while in uniform and on Active Duty -- than ever before, in my humble opinion. It would take an investigator only a few moments to find nests of ne'er-do-well service members on Facebook, making outrageous claims and boasts about what they will or will not do when ordered by the chain-of-command to perform various orders. And, I find that quite alarming. Since when did the U.S. military become a haven for people of questionable or marginal loyalty to the country and the officers appointed over them?

I have said several times I do not find the evolving way of the world to my liking very much, insofar as technology, relationships, education, the economy or politics. Nevertheless, I have equally made the statement that simply because I do not like something does not mean it is bad or innately wrong -- I simply might not like certain things (as I am entitled to do). But, where the new 'trend' becomes disloyalty to one's nation while serving under arms -- I draw the damn line.

Is it wrong for members of the Armed Forces to protest? I say 'yes'

The first soldier of our American Republic was a fellow named George Washington: surveyor, planter and back woodsman. He was also commander of the Continental Army during the Revolution and our nation's first soldier and president. After the Revolution, when victory had been secured, many officers in the U.S. Army thought it best that Gen. Washington be offered a kind of kingship over the newly minted American colonies and so they approached him with this idea and offered him the services of the U.S. Army to facilitate his transition to power.

Washington was outraged that officers, all of whom he had led during the Revolution, would ever contemplate such a thing. He turned away and railed against any notion of the United States being a monarchy or of the Army daring to usurp a civilian-elected government. He was astonished that his soldiers would ever dream of such a thing.

It was a 'lesson learned' early in the history of this nation that soldiers with too much time on their hands and too much leniency to speak and act in the realm of the political create havoc, tyranny and disorder. However, the very job of military service, in itself, is intended to be the very example of order and discipline. Well, Washington sorted that nonsense out, and so have commanders for time immemorial after him, right up until today.

In my opinion, American service members who loudly protest the elected Government of the United States are not suitable for military service. Members of our military are trained to and, in the course of their service, do use firearms and are given assignments of great trust. No one needs such things to be done by an unstable person, unsure of their loyalty or the responsibilities of their positions.

"The Great Experiment" of the United States is now almost 250 years old. It has weathered a great deal, but there are surely storms ahead. Yet, the prospect of compromising the political seclusion of members of the armed services, and the granting of permission to them to participate in political processes of this country, is nothing but dangerous and flirts with disaster for every man, woman and child in this country.

Excellent service to this nation while in uniform is characterized by many things, and among those things is political silence. Patriots do not attempt to abridge the codes of conduct that our nation's fighting men and women have lived by for centuries. Rather, they make every effort to abide by the codes and provisions in place for political involvement of Active Duty military service members.

Of course, service members are welcome to take part in the revolution that takes place at the polls in every city and hamlet, from sea to shining sea, in the United States at the end of every office holder's term -- it's called an election. During elections, which currently only about 20 percent of Americans participate in, on average, who will or will not serve in office is decided. Once that election is over and the votes are counted then the result of that election is characterized as "...the will of the people."

To be plain, I thought the presidency of George Bush (the younger) was terrible. I thought and still believe he was an absolute idiot. Consequently, I legally protested the Iraqi War in New York City in 2004 and wrote one or two editorials (in the newspaper I published at the time), decrying some of his policies. Well, this is how Americans are permitted to agitate for change when they are not in the U.S. military. When they are in the military, after they have sworn an oath to serve and protect the United States and accept orders from the president of the United States and those officers appointed over them, it is a whole other kettle of fish.

Even if "W" were the president during my tenure in service, I would have shut my mouth, voted my conscience and concentrated upon my work -- not make a spectacle out of myself or, by extension, my branch and chain-of-command.

Yes, things change -- they certainly do. Everything marches on, from hairstyles to television shows, sports and even social norms. However, generations tinker with fire when they move too far away from the blue print first established by the framers of this nation; a blue print, I might add, that was etched in the blood and service of countless men and women through the march of time.

Sometimes, on rare occasion, it can unilaterally be said that change is not for the better. And, in this case, I think it is so. What would I do with members of the Active Duty U.S. military who engage in political activities, the likes of which I have described in this opinion? I would identify them, charge them and adjudicate them and, subsequently, separate them from the U.S. military with an "other than honorable" discharge.