« More Foreclosures, and a Joke About Larry Summers | Rutabaga Ridgepole's Blog | Wall Street's Indian Rope Trick »

Evil, and the Liberal Vocabulary


(This was the very first diary I ever posted on the internet, way back in June 2007, and some of it is dated, but since Dick Cheney has been all over TV recently urging President Obama to stop "dithering" and "do what it takes to win" in Afghanistan, I decided it was worth reposting.)

If you're a liberal, you can say that George Bush isn't very smart, and Dick Cheney isn't very nice, and that's about the end of it. A million liberal blogs and columns grind away at synonyms for "not nice" and "not smart" year after year, but the Republicans still control 49 seats in the Senate, and Fox News still has a license to broadcast.

Bush-Cheney chained up a 78 year-old Afghan man in a fetal position at Guantanamo for more than 24 hours, while he pissed and shat all over himself. The New York Times and the Washington Post are still a little fuzzy about what to call this procedure, and the rest of the media is even more obtuse. When John McCain sponsored a very weak bill to restrict this method of "interrogation," Dick Cheney ran through every office in the Capitol trying to defeat it, and he succeeded. The same sort of thing is happening at this very moment in a secret CIA prison somewhere, and if you don't know what to call it, I can tell you.

It's torture, Stupid!

Sometimes the CIA asks agents in training to undergo water-boarding for as long as they can possibly stand it, in order to familiarize themselves with this standard tool of the Agency.

They don't last a minute.

If you don't know what to call water-boarding someone for hour after hour, and then water-boarding him again the next day, and the next, and chaining him up in "stress positions" in the intermissions... if you don't know what to call it, I can tell you, Stupid!

It's torture.

Fox popularizes torture on its program "24," and this thing won the Emmy for best drama last year. The bomb is always ticking, and nothing can prevent the end of the world except torturing a prisoner.

In a recent debate, all the Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination in 2008 except John McCain endorsed torture under the pretext of this ridiculous scenario. Has such a thing ever occurred in the history of the world? When? Where? Nobody seems to know, or care.

Somehow the United States managed to destroy the Nazi juggernaut and outlast the Soviet Empire without torturing prisoners. Roosevelt never endorsed torture, and neither did Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, nor any of the Presidents who came before them, nor any of the Vice-Presidents who served with them.

Why now?

Any idiot could have alleged the same "ticking bomb" scenario for a Nazi counter-attack or Soviet missile launch at any time in the last 60 years. The armies of great industrial nations attacked us, we were threatened with weapons of apocalyptic power, but torture continued to be condemned as the most contemptible and disgusting of all human actions.

What changed?

We lost the concept of evil. Evil... it sounds a little quaint. Who would use such a word except for a few Bible-bangers in some forgotten valley? The word went away, and the concept went away, and we didn't recognize the thing when it came upon us.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are evil men, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, but somehow almost none of us have seen it or said it in all these years.

The men and women who chain up prisoners like pretzels and suffocate them in sound-proof chambers work for Bush-Cheney, and even if the blood and piss and shit of the prisoners never stains the fingers of Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney, or their supporters in Congress, or the Generals who saved their careers instead of the honor of the United States, all of them are guilty of torture, and more guilty than semi-educated hillbillies who carry out their orders.

All these men must be driven out of every position of trust or authority. Every prisoner who underwent the obscenities of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and all the other nightmare installations must be compensated to the limit of our power to heal and restore them.

But the honor and decency of the United States cannot be reclaimed, and we cannot heal ourselves or our prisoners, until we recognize the thing that entangled us in the most contemptible and disgusting of all human actions, and name it with its ancient, forgotten name.

Evil.


23 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

1. Wikipedia:

"Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to STEER MORAL SUPPORT"

2. Future of Freedom Foundation:

Obama “has decided not to seek legislation to establish a new system of preventive detention to hold terrorism suspects.”

"the administration has realized that it can CONTINUE TO HOLD prisoners based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the congressional resolution passed the week after the 9/11 attacks, which authorizes the president “to detain persons who he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible” for the attacks."

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0909g.asp

3. Obama ("major speech", may 2009)

"We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.… "

4. Wikipedia (reprise):

"Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to STEER MORAL SUPPORT"

5. Wired dot com:

"However, another form of torture was not JUST used on detainees, but is being used on at least 25,000 Americans right now. That’s the number of people currently held in long-term solitary confinement in the United States..."

6. Banality of Evil (wikipedia):

"the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal."

7. The OP (Rootie):

"But the honor and decency of the United States cannot be reclaimed, and we cannot heal ourselves or our prisoners, until we recognize the thing that entangled us in the most contemptible and disgusting of all human actions, and name it with its ancient, forgotten name. "

Indeed.

user-pic

Well Said. To you both.

user-pic

Thanks for your very thoughtful post, Lalo.

user-pic

Yes, thank you both.

user-pic

If Bush and Cheney aren't evil, then torture-approving liberals like Chuck Schumer can't be either.
Here is the fact: When someone blows up a marketplace in Baghdad, that's evil. When we destroy the government there, destroy the infrastructure, torture innocent Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, those are "failures of oversight," "mistakes," or some such.
Liberal self-absolution, and reactionary self-righteousness, are twin sins of our national consciousness. Twin 'evils,' in fact.

user-pic

I'm not even sure what you're saying here.
Are you saying Liberals are the ones trying to justify these kinds of actions? Really?

Liberals (at least the ones I know and trust) have never tried to apologize for Abu Ghraib or the Occupation of Iraq as a "mistake"... or a "Failure of oversight". Those were Rumsfeld's and Bush's words.

We said words like "Illegal", "War Crimes", and "Evil".

I'm sure there are some wicked phrases coming out of the mouths of complicit Dems in DC... but I don't think that makes a dent in the clear thinking of those of us who have always called it what it is "Evil" (RR is good to drive that nail).

To equate Chuck Schumer (or any other politician with the exception of Kucinich, Feingold and a few others) to the rest of us is a false equivalence.

user-pic

Really?

Try this:

"In a way, Mukasey's confirmation was always inevitable.

The votes were there on the Senate floor, where a simple majority suffices, and where the necessary crossover Democrats were predictable from the start.

The rougher water was in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Pat Leahy of Vermont and most of the other Democrats were ready to block Mukasey and leave Justice rudderless, rather than accept yet another episode of White House defiance.

Leahy & Co. had been open to the Mukasey nomination at the outset. But they felt ill-used on the second day of hearings, when Mukasey balked at answering questions about torture. The nominee said he could not define torture — or rule techniques such as waterboarding in or out — until he had seen all the classified documents on the subject. And as a mere nominee, he added, he had not yet seen the relevant information.

That remarkable assertion from a judge who had been handling terrorism cases for more than a decade clearly affronted the Democrats on Judiciary...

he tough line temporarily froze even the original champion of the Mukasey nomination, Charles Schumer, the senior Democratic senator from New York. Schumer found himself needing political cover just to vote for the man he himself had been pushing for the job for months.

Luckily for Schumer, he did not have to look too far or wait too long. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, long a voice of moderation on the committee, stepped up to say she would vote yes. That gave the nominee the votes he needed — and gave Schumer the support he needed to also vote "aye." The two Democrats announced their intention together."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16001610&ps=rs

Interesting, and amusing in a sick way, that these two Democratic apologists for torture, are depicted as "voices of moderation."

God damn these "voices of moderation."

Go waterboard yourself, Ickyma.

user-pic

Thanks for your outstanding post, diachronic. I didn't know Feinstein played a critical role in Mukasey's confirmation.

Meanwhile the war in Afghanistan is a very good thing for Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum...

Blum and Feinstein are laughing all the way to the bank as URS Corp and Perini grow fat on the military appropriations gravy train – the only sector of the U.S. economy that seems to be thriving. Perini, in which Blum owns a controlling interest, is the Democrats’ Halliburton – indeed, Cheney’s old corporate digs is Perini’s chief competitor. Blum bought it when it was nearly broke in 1997. In 2005, Feinstein’s membership on the subcommittee was "routinely" rotated, as the Soros-funded shills over at Media Matters made sure to point out, contrary to Byrne’s assertions that she might have resigned under pressure. By that time Perini was raking in $1.7 billion in annual income.

The infrastructure-intensive warfare championed by McChrystal and the COIN crowd is precisely the strategic framework that will enrich the Perini/URS military-industrial combine. All those bases stuck out in the middle of nowhere that Feinstein wants to construct and defend will need to be built, supplied, reinforced, and regularly maintained. This is a job tailor-made for the Blum/Feinstein war profiteers and all the other politically connected firms that feed at the public trough.

user-pic



Feinstein?

She is and has always been a god damn pig.

I've never voted for her and never will. If she spit out her last breath this morning her family may miss her, but I sure the hell wouldn't.

~OGD~

user-pic

Exactly!!!!

I said that it is a false equvalence to say that complicity DINOs are the same as honest Liberals. I even cited a couple names to shone a light on that difference.

Feinstein??? Bwahahaha!

Repules and complicit dems used those words to apologize for their crimes and evil. The liberals never did and Diachronic is wrong to characterize it thus.

user-pic

Sorry for so many spelling errors... Posting from an iPhone ain't always pretty.

user-pic



Hello ... Ickyma . . .

Don't miss my second comment.

You can find it here below . . .

~OGD~

user-pic

OK, I see your point.

The problem is (which is why I misunderstood the last sentence of your initial reply to me) that you are wrong to characterize Schumer, if not Feinstein, as a 'DINO.' Whether Schumer is a liberal is another , probably not very worthwhile question, which is why many (far from all!) liberals have ditched the label in favor of 'progressive.'

IMHO, Schumer is a liberal, not a progressive. He is to the left of Obama, who is neither liberal nor progressive.

user-pic

PS. Obama himself is in no way a 'DINO.' DINOs are:
Ben Nelson
Joe Lieberman (before the party ditched him)
Mary Landrieu
Various Blue Dogs
Anybody to the right of Olympia Snowe (If Snowe were a Dem, she would not be a DINO).

The trap lists like this (and why your comment was so equivocal, if not misleading) fall into is that the -INO acronym is RELATIVE TO THE MAIN STREAM OF THE PARTY. It means nothing else. Thus, the liberal Lincoln Chafee of RI was a RINO, but if he were in the Dem party, he would not be a DINO (he voted against the AUMF for Iraq, to take the most important metric). Likewise, Arlen Specter became a RINO over time, as liberal Republicanism became extinct, but he is not a DINO.

As you can see, the word 'liberal' is slippery, if I can call Specter a 'liberal.' But if you look at his positions, on the card check, on executive power, hell, on the concordance of his positions with Schumer in judiciary, to say nothing of his views on choice- he is a liberal.

user-pic

Believe me... I am aware of Obama's nature... have been all along. He's NOT the most Liberal senator (as the lying Repugs said during the campaign)... He's a middle of the road kind of guy.
I am quite disappointed with a lot of what's gone down so far.
But that's another story...
He still beats the shit out of having McCain as Pres.

user-pic



And the "Oil Queen" Feinstein ain't alone from California . . .

Take ol' El Segundo "Oil Queen" Jane Harman as an example.

Take a read of this puppy from 2005 in her trilogy about her visit to Iraq from the Cafe archives:

The Good Life in Kuwait

It takes just 15 bucks to fill up an SUV like the GMC Envoy! Citizens enjoy free health care, electricity, and water, and the per capita income is $19,000. Lots of folks work just 4 hours a day, from 10am -2 pm.

The Harman bullshit is a must read in it's entirety and read and make sure you read all the comments.

And then there was this second one from Harman's trilogy:

The View From Iraq

So much pivots on the outcome of the elections over the next 90 days, as evidenced by the impressive high-level effort underway to accommodate moderate Sunni demands before the October 15 referendum. If the Constitution passes, the hope is that Sunnis will turn their attention from supporting an insurgency to campaigning for office in December's legislative races. And even if the referendum fails, one senior military officer told me the Sunnis could be even further motivated to participate in the political system to influence the redrafting of a constitution more acceptable to them.

---snip---

We have hugely talented people in Iraq, and I took time to tell them so. From the very capable Ambassador Zal Khalilzad to our intelligence community all the way down to the young soldiers from California who shared a quick bite with me in the mess at Camp Liberty. They are giving this everything they have - even in some cases making the ultimate sacrifice.

And down around 32 of the comments is my reply to this airhead:

Representative Harman wrote:

So much pivots on the outcome of the elections over the next 90 days...
Well let's see how much more and how many more ultimate sacrifices . . . pivot on the outcome of the elections:

Using the current metrics . . .

1933 / 926 days = 2.08747 per day

2.08747 X 90 days = 187

1933 + 187 = 2120

So . . . By New Year's day there will be an additional 187 military fatalities that will bring the un-grand total to 2120 ultimate sacrifices.

Happy New Year 2006

This whole fiasco is nothing short of an absolute travesty!

OldenGoldenDecoy

Los Angeles, CA
Posted by OldenGoldenDecoy
September 30, 2005 6:25 PM

This totally poor excuse for a representative who bought in to the AUMF hook-line-and-sinker needs a flash light to see with that head of her's stuck so far up her own ass it's not even funny.

Talk about your "PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE" as Dick Day posted about yesterday.

From my days in the 60s it was, "We had to destroy the village to save it."

Throw all these shitheads out on their collective asses.

~OGD~

ps: I hope the poor Cafe formatting works OK...

user-pic



And . . .

You can find Dicks' "PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE" piece here that he posted yesterday.

~OGD~

user-pic

Nice.

user-pic

Your words are as true today as they were in June 2007.

We as a nation will only regain the moral high ground when we either impeach Bush and his cadre, or turn them over to the International Criminal Courts for prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So far we have failed to act. Our failure has tarnished us as a nation of hypocrites.

It is said '...All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...'

The question is, when will we do something?

user-pic

I don't know, Mr. Ridgepole... when Dubya was still in office, I called the man evil every chance I got. It made for some hellacious arguments, and once, in a small pub in the English countryside, I took on a table of ten men... all ex-military... and at this moment in history there is still an odor about that pub from the shite that hit the walls that night. I considered it a victory and occasionaly I think back on that knock-down-drag-out and smile fondly at the memory.

Yep, "evil" is the right word... and for more reasons than torture alone...

user-pic

Excellent post, Rootie.

I'm not usually a fan of the 'situationist' literature, but this caught my eye:
http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/the-painful-situation-of-guilt/

It's about how sensing that you are somehow complicit, however passively, in torture can cause one to rather tortured sub-personal logic:

“Our research suggests that torture may not uncover guilt so much as lead to its perception,” says Gray. “It is as though people who know of the victim’s pain must somehow convince themselves that it was a good idea—and so come to believe that the person who was tortured deserved it.”

You have an elected president doing horrendous things, and pretty much no one standing up to him. "we're just being a bit aggressive with the most immediately dangerious terrrists", "ok, we're being real aggressive", "okay we're torturing random people", "okay we're torturing random people to justify illegal wars", etc. In a democracy, when this happens, not only is there a tacit approval in a broad section of the population who find themselves complicit on the first level and so feel the need to rationalize every new heinous revelation. But when the institutions of the country as a whole fail, there is a collective guilt that people are emotionally invested in trying to avoid.

It's a hard situation to turn around, psychologically. I'm not making excuses for anyone - on the contrary. But it is a fact that needs to be dealt with. And I don't think soft-spoken, soothing tones will really do the job.

user-pic

I appreciate the progressions you described, Obey, both among the torturers and the general population.

user-pic

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Obey, but I just can't think any more about this subject for a while.

Leave a comment

Rutabaga Ridgepole

user-pic

Following: 21
Followers: 31

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Malibu, California

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address