freeSpeech: Natan Sharansky

Former Soviet Dissident Speaks About American Freedom

(CBS)  Some believe that certain controversial interrogation techniques are acceptable. But after nine years in the Soviet Gulag, and 400 days in punishment cells, I know that sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, and enforced hunger are forms of torture.

Maintaining our principles in the face of terror is sometimes dangerous. Abandoning those principles would be even more dangerous.

Still, I am deeply concerned that some of those who insist that America not cede the moral high ground do not recognize that America stands on the moral high ground.

Those who would use abuses at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay to accuse America of being no different than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Sadaam's regime have lost all sense of moral clarity.

America is different because your citizens can protest without going to prison. America is different because your courts can defend rights and your press can expose injustice. America is different because your Congress can hold hearings and because your people can hold your leaders accountable. America is different because America is free.

In standing up against torture, I hope that all Americans will remember the profound moral divide that separates the free world from the world of fear and work to advance abroad the very principles you so rightly cherish at home.

---

Natan Sharansky, born Anatoly Sharansky in 1948, personified the desperate plight of many Soviet Jews. Caught in the vise of great power politics, Sharansky suffered a prolonged and difficult imprisonment because of his wish to emigrate to Israel and his prominence in the Helsinki Watch Group. Following his release, he was welcomed in Israel as a conquering hero.

After the Helsinki declaration guaranteeing human rights was signed in 1975, Sharansky helped organize the Helsinki Watch Group in Moscow, which was designed to monitor Soviet violations of the accord where he became the group's leading spokesman.

Shcharansky soon fell victim to a classic entrapment. His roommate, secretly working for the KGB, made contact with U.S. Central Intelligence Agency agents in Moscow and apparently began passing information on the Helsinki Watch Group. American suspicions soon caused the ties to be broken, but the damage was done.

On March 15, 1977, surrounded by a crowd of Western reporters who Shcharansky had invited to walk with him to see what it's like to be constantly shadowed," he was arrested. In July 1977 the 30-year-old dissident went on trial for high treason, accused of passing information to an unnamed Western intelligence agency.

In late 1985, after the historic first meeting between Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan in Geneva, the new Soviet leader decided to make a gesture in the direction of improved relations. Still officially insisting that Shcharansky was a spy, the Soviets agreed to his release as part of an exchange of convicted espionage agents on both sides. He was released early on the morning of February 11, 1986

[njones0002]

I wish to commend CBS on their airing of the freeSpeech segment tonight. These segments appear that CBS is finally not giving the terrorists and anti freedom factions what they want to hear - that America is a corrupt bad place. But, instead, you air the comments of an individual who has endured far worse treatment than any of the current detainees, and he defends America and what it means to be free. It is very refreshing to see CBS finally defend America instead of telling the world how "bad" we are.

[aviran14]

It's very sad how most of these free speech segments have been slanted to the right.

[Americansoul]

I find what Natan Sharansky spoke of very dear and near to my heart. Freedom. Yes we, THE USA, are the moral high ground. Although I think what went on at Abu Graib was no more than what goes on at some college hazing parties, and in some cases those at Club Gitmo simply do not require as many stitches as occurred at a recent college hazing.

While Natan Sharansky was getting arrested we only had 3 networks to trust back then, and now I know the power they held. But not anymore. In fact, even in 1977 I suffered brainwashing techniques from the Main Stream Media that I think was torture. And in years to come Ronald Reagan would suffer at the hands of the Drive-By-Media, and I considered that torture, too. These days we have more choices and I only stop by CBS to see free speech, as it is the only value added feature in all of CBS News worthy of my time.

The only product endorsement I care to focus my power of purchase on is Bush's Best. Simply because of the name, I will refrain from purchase of Smart Spread as I was forced by the Strong Arm of CBS News to view the previous segment on Iraq. The only good that came out of Laura Logans' report on Muqtada Al-Sadr was her British accent.

When will the Main News Broadcast contain that which is for the country that gives them the freedom they abuse to tear down the country they broadcast from.

The Smart Spread Boycott starts now; maybe in a year I'll buy some. Get a clue CBS, free speech comes with responsibilities.

Americansoul

[fedora1958]

I was taught that rights come with responsibilities. In America we have the Constitution. That doesn't make us morally superior to anyone else, it just makes up luckier. Having the right to speak out against torture doesn't give us the moral high ground if we don't speak out against torture.

[scottish26]

Ask yourself this if one of your loved ones was captured by an enemy force would you want them to do to your loved one what the US is doing to it's enemy captives?

Tourture is tourture and do you really want to take being on the high ground and end up in the sewer with those who attack innocent civilians. Tourture is never justified no matter the reasons it is morally wrong and should never be done period!

What was done at Abu Ghraib was degrading and nothing else it was done by lowly soldiers who were not interogating the enemy. They did it cause they felt like it and that is morally wrong.

As for Gitmo these prisoners should either be charged and tried or released. This certainly would not stand in the US. If a person was arrested and not charged the authorities would not have a right to continue to hold a person year in and year out without charges. Accusations are not charges. Either charge them and put them on trial or release them plain and simple.

The US signed the Geneva conventions because they (The Geneva Conventions) are morally right and to now want to change them because you can't do imoral things is morally wrong!

Tourture is tourture and should never be allowed under any circumstances.

[fedora1958]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture

Tor%u2027ture%u2002 /%u02C8t%u0254rt%u0283%u0259r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur%u2027ing.
%u2013noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, AS A MEANS OF GETTING A CONFESSION OR INFORMATION, or for sheer cruelty.

[scottish26]

you can still be torturing someone even though it is not to the level of sadistic.

Also torture does not have to be physical it can also be mental such as dripping water on someone's head for hours on end is a form of mental torture. How would you feel if you had water dripping on your head for hours on end with no way for you to move out of it's way. And please don't patronize me cause I know the answer that most sane people would give. It would drive then nuts.

[scottish26]

Lets put you on a table strapped down and start dripping I bet you crack within a day.

And the CIA does this type of stuff longer then 24 hours sometimes days. But there many types of mental torture water. You have to realize that water-board produces a sensation of drowning. How would you feel if you felt like you were drowning and couldn't do anything to save yourself.

The St. Petersburg Times in Florida reported last week that %u201CWater boarding is so terrifying that military tribunals created after World War II considered it a crime.%u201D In fact, according to this article, %u201CSome of the Japanese who used water treatment and other forms of torture on Allied prisoners were executed.%u201D

So if it was a crime in 1945-46 then why now is it now not torture. Cause it was torture by US standards when it was done by some one else, but then that's the typical cry of a criminal. It's a crime for everyone else but me.

[hamiltongrad]

Speaking about "feelings", how do you think the people of the World Trade Center "FELT" when they jumped out of those windows ?

Please take a momment, close your eyes, be quiet, and think just how horrific that must have been. We can not even imagine.

Then think about the other attacks that our brave men and women have stopped , including one in LA ! , because they have used techniques that the liberals find too offensive to their "feelings" for the enemy. I live in LA, I am glad and thankful we have strong leaders in the White House, who take thier responsibilities seriously, and not politically.
Good job !!! And Thank you !!

[scottish26]

I don't need to rethink my position it is never right or even legal to commit a crime to take care of another crime not even in normal society. You do that and you are just as guilty as the first party no matter how horrific the first crime was.

If someone killed your relative and you went after him and shot him you are just as guilty as he is. Plain and simple.

No different here be it 1 killed or 3000 killed you don't commit one crime to take care of the first crime.

Problem in in this day and age Bush is feeding the fear machine and peoplelike you are gobbling it right up before stopping to think if it's good to swallow. And that's sad.

[scottish26]

I never said that I said you go after meaning he/she has left your home and you track him down and shot him. You try that and see if you don't end up in jail for taking justice into your own hands.

Besides I notice you have yet to comment on the fact that after WW2 war crimes tribunals considered water type tortures to be a crime and executed some who performed such water tortures. Just because the enemy has changed doesn't mean that water tortures are now legal if it was a crime in 1945-46 then it is a crime in 2005-06.

Face it you have history against you and you can't change history just because it doesn't agree with your immoral ideas. Your ideas would sink us to the same level as those who attacked The World Trade Center.

But face it Bush is feeding you loads of whooee (being polite here) and you are just gobbling it right on down.

Heil Bush!

[scottish26]

Bush is no president the Supreme Court has no constitutional duty in electing the president at all issues about majority as per the constitution are to be handled by the House of Representatives.

It is offensive that King Bush be allowed to commit some of the same crimes Hitler did and get away with it because of people like you who just gobble up his manure. But then I guess unlike Germany who tried and failed to use the excuse of Preemptive strikes King Bush is allowed to use that excuse regarding a country that had not attacked the USA Or how about violate the rights of average citizens and don't use the excuse that if you aren't breaking the law what do you have to hide that is the lamest line of those violating peoples rights. Exercising ones rights is not a crime unlike Bush whose doing everything he can to violate citizens 4rth amendment right to privacy at every turn he gets and if he can't get it he'll try and sneak it through hoping no one finds out like with the NSA spying

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6

The US under King George is committing a war against peace by invading a country that did not attack the US

As for Hiroshima don't even get me going on that horrific war crime that went unpunished. Section c from above link

Hiroshima the US clearly targeted innocent civilians making it a war crime. Do you really think these abominations would kindly ask those not of a military nature to step aside? 100,000 civilians death=war crime