quote:

---

Louis Vitale, 75, a Franciscan priest, and Steve Kelly, 58, a Jesuit priest, were each sentenced to five months in federal prison for attempting to deliver a letter opposing the teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. Both priests were taken directly into jail from the courtroom after sentencing.

Fort Huachuca is the headquarters of military intelligence in the U.S. and the place where military and civilian interrogators are taught how to extract information from prisoners. The priests attempted to deliver their letter to Major General Barbara Fast, commander of Fort Huachuca. Fast was previously the head of all military intelligence in Iraq during the atrocities of Abu Ghraib.

---

Hmm.

I think it is quite wrong for the authorities to jail the Priests because they were protesting the teaching of torture in the United States.

quote:

---

Speaking for myself, I don't go blindly supporting people without knowing what they are alleged to have done, because it could be something which I think SHOULD be prosecuted.

---

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2007/10/18/news/doc471702c1b9702424023887.txt

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
...They should have been jailed for hypocrisy.

---

So...

is hate speech generally tolerated on this forum or do you just have everybody already whipped into shape so they treat yours as an exception?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And what self correcting mechanism did the Catholic Church adopt to make sure it would never revert back to the use of torture itself?

Hmm.

I think it is quite wrong for the authorities to jail the Priests because they were protesting the teaching of torture in the United States.

They should have been jailed for hypocrisy.

---

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And what self correcting mechanism did the Catholic Church adopt to make sure it would never revert back to the use of torture itself?

Hmm.

I think it is quite wrong for the authorities to jail the Priests because they were protesting the teaching of torture in the United States.

They should have been jailed for hypocrisy.

---

Romero

quote:

---

Oscar Romero gave his last homily on March 24. Moments before a sharpshooter felled him, reflecting on scripture, he said, "One must not love oneself so much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those that fend off danger will lose their lives." The homily, however, that sealed his fate took place the day before when he took the terrifying step of publicly confronting the military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
BitWhys, before you go accusing other babblers of hate speech, how about having a bit more to go on. Also, concerns about hate speech on the board go to moderators.

---

gee

The poster clearly assigned very negative characteristics to all Catholic priests. This board would not allow the same kind of broad brush being used against all rabbis or all moslem clerics.

Edited to add: It was likely not hate speech but it was something you might have commented on as being unacceptable negative sterotyping of a discernable group.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Oldgoat you are usually right on the money but this time you are not.

The poster clearly assigned very negative characteristics to all Catholic priests. This board would not allow the same kind of broad brush being used against all rabbis or all moslem clerics.

Edited to add: It was likely not hate speech but it was something you might have commented on as being unacceptable negative sterotyping of a discernable group.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

---

I take your point, but perhaps we just gave it a different reading. When Tommy said "And what self correcting mechanism did the Catholic Church adopt" I pretty much took that to mean the Catholic hierarchy, or the administration. As someone who grew up in the Church, I seperate those in a policy making position from the rank and file, and consider it to be open season on the former.

I do fully agree with what you and contrariana said right after which probably answered Tommy's point more fully, because there are also lots of priests I wouldn't lump in with those in the policy making circles, but who fight bravely against it.

quote:

---

They should have been jailed for hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You mean:
....

---

Is that a joke or something? Because if it's not you're being an ass. It doesn't matter whether or not I think they should or shouldn't have been prosecuted for trespassing, because I don't make USian law so don't try to personalize the issue. What it means is that if they break their laws, regardless of whether or not the laws are unjust, they will be prosecuted. You know, you'd get a lot more agreement if you didn't put words into people's mouths and translate into what they really "mean."

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

That's my paraphrase of Tommy's charge about Catholic priests accusing others of torture.

If that's "hate speech", then it comes on the Highest of Authority.

In a statement read to supporters who gathered outside the courthouse and then filled the courtroom of Magistrate Hector Estrada, Frs. Vitale & Kelly declared:

quote:

---

The real crime here has always been the teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca and the practice of torture around the world. We sought to deliver a letter asking that the teaching of torture be stopped and were arrested. We tried to put the evidence of torture on full and honest display in the courthouse and were denied. We were prepared to put on evidence about the widespread use of torture and human rights abuses committed during interrogations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in Iraq and Afghanistan. This evidence was gathered by the military itself and by governmental and human rights investigations. Because the court will not allow the truth of torture to be a part of our trial, we plead no contest. We are uninterested in a court hearing limited to who was walking where and how many steps it was to the gate. History will judge whether silencing the facts of torture is just or not. Far too many people have died because of our national silence about torture. Far too many of our young people in the military have been permanently damaged after following orders to torture and violate the human rights of other humans. We will keep trying to stop the teaching and practice of torture whether we are sent to jail or out. We have done our part. Now it is up to every woman and man of conscience to do their part to stop the injustice of torture

---

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

My commentary was based on a couple of factors. One, that I thought was obvious, was that I would not jail people for hypocrisy. It was a rhetorical flourish.

None of us would be free, if hypocrisy was a criminal offense.

Also, in the somewhat belated apology to Galileo, I distinctly remember the Pope finding that the Inquisition was just doing it's job. I took that perhaps more generally than it was intended.

Double checking today, I did find that the Catholic church does find the nastier aspects of the Inquisition "regrettable."

Catholic Education Resource Center

However, I do not believe, as the author does, that torture was a result of the ugly influence of "secular" authorities. It's a difficult argument to put forward when no such beast existed.

I would argue that it was secular governments that made the use of torture by the Inquisition a thing of the past.

And keeps the Inquisition, which is certainly not the only, or ugliest, examples of religious excess, a thing of the past in many nations.

And yes, I know there are many fine Priests, and many fine Nuns, along with many fine examples of leadership from other religions. And in this I was perhaps hasty. The two gentlemen arrested, truth be told, are perhaps more gutsy than I.

But I find it odd, to be against torture, and at the same time hold a leadership position in an organization whose philosophy has made the use of torture explainable in the past, with not much to exclude it from the future.

Which is not, by the way, anything particular to Catholicism or even Christianity in general.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And what self correcting mechanism did the Catholic Church adopt to make sure it would never revert back to the use of torture itself?

Hmm.

I think it is quite wrong for the authorities to jail the Priests because they were protesting the teaching of torture in the United States.

They should have been jailed for hypocrisy.

---

Uh...all Catholics are responsible for torture carried out by other professed Catholics?

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

You act like all Catholics are equally reactionary and equally responsible for every horrible thing the Church ever did.

The Catholic Church had Torquemada, Hitler(as a boy) and half the Reagan Administration(as well as Brian Mulroney).

But the Catholic Church ALSO had Hildegard Von Bingen, James Connolly, Cesar Chavez, Archibishop Romero, Sister Helen Prejean and the Berrigan brothers.

The issue is torture, not Christianity. There are far more non-Catholics(such as Stalin, The IDF, most of the Bush Administration and General Rios Montt)who've done loathesome things then there are Catholics.

Being a Catholic does not mean you have no moral right to condemn the use of torture.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Let's get away from religion for a moment, and put it in terms of political beliefs. There was a time before the war when the Liberal policy on Jewish immigration was "One is too many." This policy ensured that Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, aboard the St. Louis, were turned away, like it was from the other democratic nations of the day. And most died in the concentration camps, as a result of that policy.

Would you join the Liberal Party if that policy was still on the books, even if the party said, "well, we don't actually believe that stuff anymore, and the law of the land prevents such policies anyway."

I think almost everyone wouldn't sign on and say "this is what I believe". At least not anyone here.

I think many Christians, Jews and Muslims don't actually read their Holy Books. Or if they do, they don't really absorb them. But I am certain the priesthoods of those religions do. They cannot hide behind ignorance.

If one truly believes, for example, that it is wrong to murder a "witch", then why sign on and say, "this is what I believe." Why not "When you take that bit out, I'll be back." ?

So no. I don't think it is right and proper to hold accountable the descendants of those who have committed crimes in the past, although there are holy books that instruct otherwise.

It's the abandonment of responsibility for future atrocities that should be everyone's concern.

And without some serious house cleaning on the part of the people of the book, a moral stance from those pulpits will always be compromised.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

I have no particular love for Brian Mulroney, but he was no Hitler. Bennedict Arnold, perhaps, but no Hitler

---

I realize that. I wasn't meaning to Godwin Brian The Chin. I was pointing out how ludicrously broad a brush you were painting with your extreme anti-Catholic position.

To me, these priests were working to address their own church's responsibility for torture in the past by speaking out against it now. For centuries the church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, gave psuedo-Godly sanction to un-Godly acts of state brutality.

So they are doing part of the work the Church needs to do in taking this action.

And, for the record, the Church itself isn't going to torture anybody now or in the future. You can't do that if you don't have temporal power. It's not like they're gonna start waterboarding Jesuits or radical nuns in Vatican City.

And, of course, the School of The Americas should close. It serves no purpose in this day and age, if it ever did.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:

The School should close. I think its naive to think that this will have any impact whatsoever on torture or behavior by soldiers in Latin America. The US does not have a monopoly on this sort of training. I am sure that other countries will be more than willing to fill the void.

---

Yes, it should close. And the U.S. should stop sending military and financial aid to Latin America's armies which inevitably become the tools of ruling classes. Donald Rumsfeld announced an increase in U.S. aid several months ago. Exporting terror and torture to Latin America and beyond is at cross purposes with democracy. I believe Colombia's military is one of the countries that still receives significant "training" from the SOA/WHINSEC. 42 Democrats voted this summer to keep the notorious school for teaching the black art of murder, torture and repression open for business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
To me, these priests were working to address their own church's responsibility for torture in the past by speaking out against it now. For centuries the church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, gave psuedo-Godly sanction to un-Godly acts of state brutality.

---

Yes, Ken. For centuries the Catholic church worked hand in hand with feudalists and colonialists to keep the peasants from rising up against cash crop colonialism and feudal capitalism. U.S. capitalists began to fear communism in Latin America long before Oscar Romero returned to El Salvador.

quote:

---

Ordained in Rome in 1942, he was appointed in 1967 as Secretary General of the National Bishops’ Conference. His ecclesiastical career was on track. In the twenty-five years of his priesthood Vatican II (1962-65), with its plea for aggiornamento (renewal), had not impressed him. He supported the arrangement whereby the Church kept the masses credulous and docile while the aristocracy exploited them and the military enforced it all.

Coffee had been planted in El Salvador in 1828. International demand soon found private interests commandeering vast tracts of arable land while expelling subsistence farmers. By 1920 the landowning class comprised fourteen families. Dislocated peasants were now either rural serfs or urban wretched, in any case trying to live on black beans and tortillas. One-half of one per cent of the population owned 90% of the country’s wealth.

In 1932, 30,000 people died in the first uprising. Aboriginals were executed in clumps of sixty. The Te Deum was sung in the cathedral in gratitude for the suppression of “communism."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

To me, these priests were working to address their own church's responsibility for torture in the past by speaking out against it now. For centuries the church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, gave psuedo-Godly sanction to un-Godly acts of state brutality.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

---

quote:

---

Thank you, Oldgoat, but if ever I run off at the mouth, my defense is best left to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:

The export of terror and torture should stop. Absolutely. Of course the challenge will be to find out who replaces the US in doing this and then attempt to stop them. Sadly, there are many, many countries who have institutional expertise in these areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
I guess my thinking was how against the SOA could Chavez be if he waited six years to stop Venezuela's participation in the training? He obviously saw some value in it.

---

You might as well ask why did he "wait" until January 2005 to institute a land reform program, and insinuate that he really wasn't in favour of land reform before then.

I suppose you also wonder why Evo Morales "waited" until this month to announce Bolivia's severing of ties with the SOA, and assume he must have been a supporter of US-sponsored terrorism and repression for the almost two years since he was elected president!

You have not one iota of evidence to support the implication that Chávez was uncritical of the SOA. The evidence is in fact to the contrary.

It took years for Chávez to consolidate his power, and particularly his control over the military - why do you think he succumbed to a military coup in April, 2002, at the hands of SOA graduates?

A year and a half after the coup he had reasserted his authority enough to sever Venezuela's military from ties to the SOA. He remarked: "This school deformed the minds of many Latin American soldiers, who from there went on to become dictators."

The Venezuelan press release announcing the move remarked:

quote:

---

Over its 58 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counter-insurgency techniques, sniper skills, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. Graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, unionists, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, "disappeared," massacred, and forced into refuge by those trained at the SOA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
I guess my thinking was how against the SOA could Chavez be if he waited six years to stop Venezuela's participation in the training? He obviously saw some value in it. Has he removed all those in the Venezualean army who received training there?

---

Venezuela was a good customer of the SOA for years, yes. It's stopped now under Chavez. Plan Colombia is still on with that country being one of the largest recipients of aid and training for paramilitaries and right wing death squads in the war on drugs communism. El Salvador and Guatemala are still using their armies as tools of repression against their own people with U.S. backing.

quote:

---

The export of terror and torture should stop. Absolutely. Of course the challenge will be to find out who replaces the US in doing this and then attempt to stop them. Sadly, there are many, many countries who have institutional expertise in these areas.

---

Right. It's always good to abate the problem at the source. The U.S. has been the largest exporter of torture and terror to Latin America since Monroe. The U.S. military should also close down the illegal base for imprisonment and torture at Guanatanamo Bay Cuba in an effort to foment an overall sense of security and respecting sovereignty in the region instead of representing a grave threat to democracy.

[ 20 October 2007: Message edited by: Will Hiscock ]