I agree with those who say it is time for a Nuremberg type truth finding tribunal on the torture question.
But what is the torture question? In particular I am interested in discovering those individuals who have made the legal justifications for a policy which allows the dismemberment and torture of innocent civilians for the material comfort and protection of Americans at home and others abroad.
Let me read to you one of the procedures that has been legally justified by government attorneys as well as their allies in Congress, the media and in academia:
"The primary form of abortion used at or after 16 weeks’ gestation is known as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E.” 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1103, 1129 (Neb. 1998). When performed during that stage of pregnancy, the D&E procedure requires the physician to dilate the woman’s cervix and then extract the fetus from her uterus with forceps. Id., at 1103; App. 490 (American Medical Association (AMA), Report of the Board of Trustees on Late-Term Abortion). Because of the fetus’ size at this stage, the physician generally removes the fetus by dismembering the fetus one piece at a time.3 11 F. Supp. 2d, at 1103—1104. The doctor grabs a fetal extremity, such as an arm or a leg, with forceps and “pulls it through the cervical os … tearing … fetal parts from the fetal body … by means of traction.” Id., at 1104. See App. 55 (testimony of Dr. Carhart). In other words, the physician will grasp the fetal parts and “basically tear off pieces of the fetus and pull them out.” Id., at 267 (testimony of Dr. Stubblefield). See also id., at 149 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson) (“[Y]ou grasp the fetal parts, and you often don’t know what they are, and you try to pull it down, and its … simply all there is to it”). The fetus will die from blood loss, either because the physician has separated the umbilical cord prior to beginning the procedure or because the fetus loses blood as its limbs are removed. Id., at 62—64 (testimony of Dr. Carhart); id., at 151 (testimony of Dr. Hodgson)." Stenberg v. Carhart (Thomas, J., dissenting).
The dismembering of a child is not illegal in this country. The partial-birth abortion ban did not eliminate it. Partial-birth abortion involves carving out a baby's brain with scissors. But back to the above torture method.
The dismembering of innocent people to kill them is torture. Under any international law regime, I'm sure we can agree on that. Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, states that: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."
But on the same day that President Obama announced waterboarding is torture, he stated that he was in favor of removing all restrictions to abortion through the Freedom of Choice Act, even if it was "not highest legislative priority." In other words, he has promised to sign FOCA, but it is not at the very top of his agenda. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1P9NpsaoSA1i90w91eoA3oXq1OwD97SGVI00
FOCA would spread child torture. As President, Obama has already rescinded the Mexcio City Policy, which has authorized funding of international child dismemberment and torture. I want to have the names and memoranda of the people who justified this. President Obama has also nominated, Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the White House. Dawn Johnsen has crafted the legal justification for child dismemberment and torture by comparing pregnancy to slavery. http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=
Additionally, President Obama's Secretary of State has expressly stated that she intends to spread Margaret Sanger's vision abroad. This includes child dismemberment and torture as well. I want all legal memoranda and persons who gave Mrs. Clinton the legal justification for this as well. http://www.sba-list.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ddJBKJNsFqG&b=4149803&ct=6866179
I also want any name of any person who legally justified the President allowing funding of UNFPA which forcibly tortures and dismembers children without even the consent of the mothers in China. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040114.html. What torturers might refer to as a twofer.
I also want Senator Patrick Leahy and his staff to be included in the Nuremberg-type inquiry. This Catholic United States Senator voted against reinstituting the Mexico City Policy, to prevent child dismemberment, but is calling for a truth commission to investigate the forcible pouring of water over three terrorists' heads. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00019, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200903/030409a.html, http://www.lifenews.com/nat4965.html.
We need to see the memos that helped Senator Leahy justify funding child dismemberment and the elimination of conscience protection for doctors so that they will be forced to participate in child dismemberment and torture.
We also need to investigate those outside of government who have produced legal and moral opinions justifying child dismemberment. For example, on October 17, 2008, Dr. Douglas Kmiec, who has called for a Nuremberg style inquiry of Judge Bybee, stated the following legal justification for child dismemberment and child torture: "Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,163397.story , http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-torture-lawyersapr23,0,3839563.story. In other words, we need a legal space for child torture. We need an inquiry of all academics who have produced legal and moral opinions of this sort to justify child dismemberment and torture.
So you see now, who the real torture president is: President Barack Obama. He appoints those who promote, he argues for and he funds child torture. More than that, he is implementing regulations that will require doctors to betray their calling to heal by forcing them to torture children. Not only that, but many Catholics are using the Faith in a blasphemous way to justify this horrendous torture policy. Additionally, to add to the injustice, these same engineers of a legal system which tortures 42,000,000 innocent children worldwide every year are calling for the prosecution of an administration that approved the waterboarding of 3 guilty terrorists but who dared to speak out against child torture. They want you to be distracted by these "torture memos."
I will not keep my eye off the ball. And neither should you. The real torturers need to be stopped. The child torturer President Obama is receiving an honorary award from a Catholic University named after the world's best Mother. This is a disgrace. I would take a moral lecture from King George III more seriously than from President Obama.
President Obama has no credibility on the torture question, because he is the most powerful supporter of child torture in the world and he is using his influence at home and abroad to spread it. Let us not act otherwise and be fooled into labeling anyone else the "torture president" that title belongs to the man currently occupying the White House.
Obama/Clinton adding further evidence to be used against them at the future international human rights tribunal: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1134/pub_detail.asp
I've been officially blocked from commenting on Mark Shea's blog after I criticized him referring to those who justified torture of evil doers for the defense of others as "moral idiots" by pointing out that would mean St. Thomas Aquinas is a moral idiot. Additionally, he singled out Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., a contributor to This Rock magazine, which is produced by Catholic Answers an apostolate that Mark Shea advertises and comments on. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/rhetorical-creep.html
Mark Shea's tone has gotten so bad that The Anchoress has stated that she is unsure if she can read his blog anymore. (see the above website's combox).
Plus, I pointed out that perhaps he should focus on the mote in his own eye considering he contravened the Catechism by implying that not voting in the presidential election was a valid choice: "2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country." (emphasis added).
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#2261908891378464539 , http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/09/unfair-to-mark-shea.html.
I think this last point I made is what got me blocked from commenting on Mr. Shea's blog. But that is pure speculation, I'd be interested to here why I got blocked.
Mark, if you are reading this, I'm praying for the both of us. But I am really worried about the ugly name calling that you have consistently engaged in on this issue. It is not good.
MOST RECENT UPDATE
As far as I know, I'm still blocked but at least Mark, to his credit has apologized for the "moral idiot" name calling. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/mea-culpa.html. I still think he needs to recognize that the ideas espoused by those who do not agree with him are well considered and not idiotic in light of those Doctors of the Church who disagree with him.