Thanksgiving Torture

by BOB SHIRLEY

Torture and Thanksgiving are not usually part of the same conversation, but this year the Vice President of the United States’ opposition to an anti-torture statute has put torture on the table right next to the turkey. The resemblance of one turkey to the other is striking, but not because our Puritan forebears approved of both torture and giving thanks to God. Indeed, Puritanism is one important reason why torture is not the legal policy of the United States government.

Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, Puritans in England were disfavored by monarchs and some were hanged for their beliefs (as were some Catholics). Imprisonment and fines were far more common than death, but torture was sanctioned officially and could accompany imprisonment. If a Puritan coupled criticism of the monarch’s tax policy with Puritan religious beliefs, he was likely to have a nostril slit, or an ear lopped off.

While many Puritans sailed for America to find liberty, most Puritans stayed in England and fought a bloody civil war for religious and political liberty in opposition to the divine right of kings. The discord in England that led to civil war was mirrored, on a much smaller scale, in the American colonies. There were many struggles between royal governors and colonists allied with the kings of England on one side, and those seeking religious, political, and commercial freedom on the other side. Puritans who sought their own religious liberty from the Church of England generally did not provide the same religious liberty to those they governed in England and America.

The tumultuous 17th Century ended with the bloodless replacement of the Stuart monarchy by William and Mary, who agreed to the English Bill of Rights, including the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." The English Bill of Rights was the beginning of the end of torture in England.

Remarkably, colonial officials rarely tortured citizens during the 17th and 18th centuries. The only torture commonly sanctioned by governments in America was to permit, under colonial and state laws, cruel and unusual punishment of African slaves (non-citizens) by their owners. Opposition to torture conducted by the government of the United States is reflected in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Until now, our law concerning torture had not changed in more than 200 years; not even during our Civil War, when rebellious armies were sometimes within thirty miles of the capitol, was torture made lawful. But opposition by the Vice President to a ban on torture means we now can conclude that the denials of the use of torture are admissions of support for torture from a Commander-in-Chief who claims authority to make law with respect to non-citizens in custody of the armed forces.

There is no circumstance that excuses the official, governmental sanction of the use of torture because it degrades humans and does not stop outlawed behavior. Puritans were not stopped by official torture; instead Puritans, and many non-Puritans, disdained torture and created a nation "conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Why give thanks at this time of year? Give thanks for liberty that was not purchased with torture.

BOB SHIRLEY lives in Olympia, Washington, and was recently elected to the school board. He can be reached at: bobandlynne@comcast.net








 

Thanksgiving Torture

by BOB SHIRLEY

Torture and Thanksgiving are not usually part of the same conversation, but this year the Vice President of the United States’ opposition to an anti-torture statute has put torture on the table right next to the turkey. The resemblance of one turkey to the other is striking, but not because our Puritan forebears approved of both torture and giving thanks to God. Indeed, Puritanism is one important reason why torture is not the legal policy of the United States government.

Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, Puritans in England were disfavored by monarchs and some were hanged for their beliefs (as were some Catholics). Imprisonment and fines were far more common than death, but torture was sanctioned officially and could accompany imprisonment. If a Puritan coupled criticism of the monarch’s tax policy with Puritan religious beliefs, he was likely to have a nostril slit, or an ear lopped off.

While many Puritans sailed for America to find liberty, most Puritans stayed in England and fought a bloody civil war for religious and political liberty in opposition to the divine right of kings. The discord in England that led to civil war was mirrored, on a much smaller scale, in the American colonies. There were many struggles between royal governors and colonists allied with the kings of England on one side, and those seeking religious, political, and commercial freedom on the other side. Puritans who sought their own religious liberty from the Church of England generally did not provide the same religious liberty to those they governed in England and America.

The tumultuous 17th Century ended with the bloodless replacement of the Stuart monarchy by William and Mary, who agreed to the English Bill of Rights, including the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." The English Bill of Rights was the beginning of the end of torture in England.

Remarkably, colonial officials rarely tortured citizens during the 17th and 18th centuries. The only torture commonly sanctioned by governments in America was to permit, under colonial and state laws, cruel and unusual punishment of African slaves (non-citizens) by their owners. Opposition to torture conducted by the government of the United States is reflected in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Until now, our law concerning torture had not changed in more than 200 years; not even during our Civil War, when rebellious armies were sometimes within thirty miles of the capitol, was torture made lawful. But opposition by the Vice President to a ban on torture means we now can conclude that the denials of the use of torture are admissions of support for torture from a Commander-in-Chief who claims authority to make law with respect to non-citizens in custody of the armed forces.

There is no circumstance that excuses the official, governmental sanction of the use of torture because it degrades humans and does not stop outlawed behavior. Puritans were not stopped by official torture; instead Puritans, and many non-Puritans, disdained torture and created a nation "conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Why give thanks at this time of year? Give thanks for liberty that was not purchased with torture.

BOB SHIRLEY lives in Olympia, Washington, and was recently elected to the school board. He can be reached at: bobandlynne@comcast.net








 

Like What You’ve Read? Support CounterPunch
Weekend Edition
August 28-30, 2015
Randy Blazak
Donald Trump is the New Face of White Supremacy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Long Time Coming, Long Time Gone
Mike Whitney
Looting Made Easy: the $2 Trillion Buyback Binge
Alan Nasser
The Myth of the Middle Class: Have Most Americans Always Been Poor?
Rob Urie
Wall Street and the Cycle of Crises
Andrew Levine
Viva Trump?
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Behind the Congressional Disagreements Over the Iran Nuclear Deal
Lawrence Ware – Marcus T. McCullough
I Won’t Say Amen: Three Black Christian Clichés That Must Go
Evan Jones
Zionism in Britain: a Neglected Chronicle
John Wight
Learning About the Migration Crisis From Ancient Rome
Andre Vltchek
Lebanon – What if it Fell?
Charles Pierson
How the US and the WTO Crushed India’s Subsidies for Solar Energy
Robert Fantina
Hillary Clinton, Palestine and the Long View
Ben Burgis
Gore Vidal Was Right: What Best of Enemies Leaves Out
Suzanne Gordon
How Vets May Suffer From McCain’s Latest Captivity
Robert Sandels - Nelson P. Valdés
The Cuban Adjustment Act: the Other Immigration Mess
Uri Avnery
The Molten Three: Israel’s Aborted Strike on Iran
John Stanton
Israel’s JINSA Earns Return on Investment: 190 Americans Admirals and Generals Oppose Iran Deal
Bill Yousman
The Fire This Time: Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me”
Scott Parkin
Katrina Plus Ten: Climate Justice in Action
Michael Welton
The Conversable World: Finding a Compass in Post-9/11 Times
Brian Cloughley
Don’t be Black in America
Kent Paterson
In Search of the Great New Mexico Chile Pepper in a Post-NAFTA Era
Binoy Kampmark
Live Death on Air: The Killings at WDBJ
Gui Rochat
The Guise of American Democracy
Emma Scully
Vultures Over Puerto Rico: the Financial Implications of Dependency
Chuck Churchill
Is “White Skin Privilege” the Key to Understanding Racism?
Kathleen Wallace
The Id(iots) Emerge
Andrew Stewart
Zionist Hip-Hop: a Critical Look at Matisyahu
Gregg Shotwell
The Fate of the UAW: Study, Aim, Fire
Halyna Mokrushyna
Decentralization Reform in Ukraine
Norman Pollack
World Capitalism, a Basket Case: A Layman’s View
Sarah Lazare
Listening to Iraq
John Laforge
NSP/Xcel Energy Falsified Welding Test Documents on Rad Waste Casks
Wendell G Bradley
Drilling for Wattenberg Oil is Not Profitable
Joy First
Wisconsin Walk for Peace and Justice: Nine Arrested at Volk Field
Mel Gurtov
China’s Insecurity
Mateo Pimentel
An Operator’s Guide to Trump’s Racism
Yves Engler
Harper Conservatives and Abuse of Power
Michael Dickinson
Police Guns of Brixton: Another Unarmed Black Shot by London Cops
Ron Jacobs
Daydream Sunset: a Playlist
Charles R. Larson
The Beginning of the Poppy Wars: Amitav Ghosh’s “Flood of Fire”
David Yearsley
A Rising Star Over a Dark Forest
August 27, 2015
Sam Husseini
Foreign Policy, Sanders-Style: Backing Saudi Intervention
Brad Evans – Henry A. Giroux
Self-Plagiarism and the Politics of Character Assassination: the Case of Zygmunt Bauman