« OPR Report: Most media got story wrong! (Update III) | TheraP's Blog | Like Big Brother: Fox Propaganda is EVERYWHERE! (update) »
Conspiracy to Sanction Torture (Update)
Lately there have been a number of leaks to the press trying to give credence to a theory that the Dem leaders are just as responsible for torture as those bush Principals (and their willing toadies in the law and psychology) who were privy to memos, transcripts, videos, and meetings where torture was designed, authorized, and supervised down to minute details. The "story" goes that certain Dem leaders were "in the know" and should have stopped the torture or blown the whistle or spoken on the floor of the House or the Senate, or brought impeachment charges, or asked more questions at briefings or "done something" about it.
Now, I'm sympathetic to the fact that we all knew about torture as soon as we saw those Abu Ghraib photos. And I had my own suspicions as soon as I saw hooded detainees on TV over and over, from the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, carrying over into the invasion of Iraq. Right away, to me, as a psychologist, aware of the Stanford prison study, those hoods were a tip-off. They were widespread. They seemed to be something that had been requisitioned and handed out to soldiers as another piece of equipment, like plastic handcuffs and so on. I was concerned that detained individuals had been herded into metal containers in Afghanistan. I was concerned that there were bounties being paid for handing over people to US custody. And I was concerned when they moved the prisoners to Guantanamo, when I saw them shackled, when I read about 200 of them going on hunger strike there. I knew something very suspicious was likely going on. Especially when those Abu Ghraib photos surfaced. And when we knew the Red Cross was being hampered in assessing the welfare of persons in US custody. And when we read about those secret renditions to black sites or being turned over to foreign governments - where, despite bushco denials, we had to suspect torture.
So I ask myself, could I too be held responsible for not doing more? Should I have been suspicious that psychologists were designing torture, reverse engineering what we know of how people tick and how to compel obedience to an authority - in the service of punishing humans in a laboratory? Should I have figured that out and sought out those psychologists who "knew" torture was going on and that the APA had looked the other way or outright endorsed it? Honestly, although I had put together everything in paragraph 2 above, I never suspected psychologists were involved. Indeed, I didn't know there was an active group of psychologists fighting the involvement of their peers. I was quietly doing my private practice, working from home, and I had turned in a different direction following the 2004 elections - to try and understand the religious right, in order to fight what seemed to me a perversion of religion tied in with government. So, in that sense I took my eye off the psychology ball. And it never came up in our quarterly ethics committee meetings either. So am I, together with that committee, somehow culpable too?
I cannot condone torture under any circumstances. No matter what scenario you try to give me. It is illegal. It is immoral. It is reprehensible to the extreme. I am sorely troubled that psychologists took a leading role in designing a torture process. I am horrified that lawyers twisted and bent words and sentences and came up with memos to subvert the Constitution and international law. And I find it hard to believe there was not a conspiracy to sanction and carry out torture within the highest levels of the bush criminal enterprise - disguised as government.
I admit I could have done more. I admit my focus was elsewhere. But I do not think I should be hauled in and interrogated for dereliction of duty. I can account, if necessary, for my actions and my focus between 2004 and 2006 (my time as a near-mole within the religious right). It was the DoJ scandal that brought my attention back to politics, and through paying close attention to that scandal, and the emerging torture memos, I could see clearly the role that had been played by lawyers in subverting the Rule of Law. So it was in the Spring of 2007 that I began to also write at the Café, in addition to my comments at The Muck, where I'd been posting for some time. That was when the full horror of the criminal enterprise that was bushco, and its subversion of the law in the service of those crimes, had come home to me.
So the question is: Did Dem leaders actively and willfully conspire to inflict torture on humans and commit treason against the Constitution? I don't know for sure. But I suspect the conspiracy is a closely held private "corporation" - if you consider that the word comes from "corpus" which means body. Dem leaders might have done more. And they, like me, might have taken their eye off the ball, might have been biding their time in hopes of retaking power. We will ultimately know more, I believe. All of us might have done more.
But did they actively and willfully conspire? I doubt it.
When we read leaks of "evidence" along with suggestions that the Dem leaders are as corrupt as the bush criminal conspiracy to subvert our laws, to reward cronies, to spy on us, to lie us into war, to bankrupt the poor in order to enrich the rich, I just don't see the same magnitude of abuse. I don't see evidence they conspired with the Principals of bushco. Maybe I 'm missing something, but treason I'm not seeing in Dem leaders who might have done more. And that, to me, is the heart of the question.
I maintain we need these crimes investigated. There must be an independent investigation, with authority to issue subpoenas, empower grand juries, indict, prosecute, and so on. Dem leaders should welcome that. They should endorse it. They should make themselves available to investigators and give evidence. If any have been willfully derelict or actively condoned torture or treason, they must be brought to a public accounting and pay whatever penalties must be paid. This is our system of law. This is right and just.
But let us not lose sight of the conspiracy from which sprang all that we have witnessed over 8 years - a closely held, small group - which made use of willing lawyers and willing psychologists, which played (quite likely spied upon) Dem leaders and the American public. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Torture is the issue, which is ripping apart our standing in the world and our political system. It is the issue, which has opened Pandora's box. Too late to turn back from dealing with it as a national disgrace. We must steel ourselves and face it square on. But we must also carefully distinguish the intentional, conspiratorial and subversive acts against our Constitution and the Rule of Law from the ignorance, cowardice, or passivity of those who should have known more, asked more, and done more. I count myself among them.
___________________________________
Update:
In response to comments below, let me be clear. I am not absolving Congressional Representatives of their duty to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. In addition to torture, they knew many other abuses had occurred and they never sought to impeach. I realize there were problems in that impeaching the president would not have been sufficient, given the huge role the vice-president played here. Time will tell, hopefully, what consideration was given to that possibility and why it was ruled out. Oversight could have been much better as well. But we know for a fact that often Congress was lied to or information they sought was refused. So there's plenty of blame to go around and I'm not minimizing that.
At the same time it seems to me that those who conspired, and their willing collaborators, are now trying to sow doubts in the electorate - doubts about whether an investigation will drag Dems into the same level of responsibility for torture and the subversion of our Constitutional Rule of Law. We need to remain vigilant and not be "played" or dissuaded out of insisting that these crimes be investigated and prosecuted, where warranted. And I, personally, see all the difference in the world between conspiracy and treason on the one hand and cowardice or lack of due diligence on the other hand.
Did they all know about the torture? Yes. Even those who were not briefed specifically. They must live with their failure to stand up to tyranny at whatever personal price. And so must we. Some of them may pay a public price for that failure. We private citizens will pay and are paying a private price.
Now, I'm sympathetic to the fact that we all knew about torture as soon as we saw those Abu Ghraib photos. And I had my own suspicions as soon as I saw hooded detainees on TV over and over, from the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, carrying over into the invasion of Iraq. Right away, to me, as a psychologist, aware of the Stanford prison study, those hoods were a tip-off. They were widespread. They seemed to be something that had been requisitioned and handed out to soldiers as another piece of equipment, like plastic handcuffs and so on. I was concerned that detained individuals had been herded into metal containers in Afghanistan. I was concerned that there were bounties being paid for handing over people to US custody. And I was concerned when they moved the prisoners to Guantanamo, when I saw them shackled, when I read about 200 of them going on hunger strike there. I knew something very suspicious was likely going on. Especially when those Abu Ghraib photos surfaced. And when we knew the Red Cross was being hampered in assessing the welfare of persons in US custody. And when we read about those secret renditions to black sites or being turned over to foreign governments - where, despite bushco denials, we had to suspect torture.
So I ask myself, could I too be held responsible for not doing more? Should I have been suspicious that psychologists were designing torture, reverse engineering what we know of how people tick and how to compel obedience to an authority - in the service of punishing humans in a laboratory? Should I have figured that out and sought out those psychologists who "knew" torture was going on and that the APA had looked the other way or outright endorsed it? Honestly, although I had put together everything in paragraph 2 above, I never suspected psychologists were involved. Indeed, I didn't know there was an active group of psychologists fighting the involvement of their peers. I was quietly doing my private practice, working from home, and I had turned in a different direction following the 2004 elections - to try and understand the religious right, in order to fight what seemed to me a perversion of religion tied in with government. So, in that sense I took my eye off the psychology ball. And it never came up in our quarterly ethics committee meetings either. So am I, together with that committee, somehow culpable too?
I cannot condone torture under any circumstances. No matter what scenario you try to give me. It is illegal. It is immoral. It is reprehensible to the extreme. I am sorely troubled that psychologists took a leading role in designing a torture process. I am horrified that lawyers twisted and bent words and sentences and came up with memos to subvert the Constitution and international law. And I find it hard to believe there was not a conspiracy to sanction and carry out torture within the highest levels of the bush criminal enterprise - disguised as government.
I admit I could have done more. I admit my focus was elsewhere. But I do not think I should be hauled in and interrogated for dereliction of duty. I can account, if necessary, for my actions and my focus between 2004 and 2006 (my time as a near-mole within the religious right). It was the DoJ scandal that brought my attention back to politics, and through paying close attention to that scandal, and the emerging torture memos, I could see clearly the role that had been played by lawyers in subverting the Rule of Law. So it was in the Spring of 2007 that I began to also write at the Café, in addition to my comments at The Muck, where I'd been posting for some time. That was when the full horror of the criminal enterprise that was bushco, and its subversion of the law in the service of those crimes, had come home to me.
So the question is: Did Dem leaders actively and willfully conspire to inflict torture on humans and commit treason against the Constitution? I don't know for sure. But I suspect the conspiracy is a closely held private "corporation" - if you consider that the word comes from "corpus" which means body. Dem leaders might have done more. And they, like me, might have taken their eye off the ball, might have been biding their time in hopes of retaking power. We will ultimately know more, I believe. All of us might have done more.
But did they actively and willfully conspire? I doubt it.
When we read leaks of "evidence" along with suggestions that the Dem leaders are as corrupt as the bush criminal conspiracy to subvert our laws, to reward cronies, to spy on us, to lie us into war, to bankrupt the poor in order to enrich the rich, I just don't see the same magnitude of abuse. I don't see evidence they conspired with the Principals of bushco. Maybe I 'm missing something, but treason I'm not seeing in Dem leaders who might have done more. And that, to me, is the heart of the question.
I maintain we need these crimes investigated. There must be an independent investigation, with authority to issue subpoenas, empower grand juries, indict, prosecute, and so on. Dem leaders should welcome that. They should endorse it. They should make themselves available to investigators and give evidence. If any have been willfully derelict or actively condoned torture or treason, they must be brought to a public accounting and pay whatever penalties must be paid. This is our system of law. This is right and just.
But let us not lose sight of the conspiracy from which sprang all that we have witnessed over 8 years - a closely held, small group - which made use of willing lawyers and willing psychologists, which played (quite likely spied upon) Dem leaders and the American public. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Torture is the issue, which is ripping apart our standing in the world and our political system. It is the issue, which has opened Pandora's box. Too late to turn back from dealing with it as a national disgrace. We must steel ourselves and face it square on. But we must also carefully distinguish the intentional, conspiratorial and subversive acts against our Constitution and the Rule of Law from the ignorance, cowardice, or passivity of those who should have known more, asked more, and done more. I count myself among them.
___________________________________
Update:
In response to comments below, let me be clear. I am not absolving Congressional Representatives of their duty to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. In addition to torture, they knew many other abuses had occurred and they never sought to impeach. I realize there were problems in that impeaching the president would not have been sufficient, given the huge role the vice-president played here. Time will tell, hopefully, what consideration was given to that possibility and why it was ruled out. Oversight could have been much better as well. But we know for a fact that often Congress was lied to or information they sought was refused. So there's plenty of blame to go around and I'm not minimizing that.
At the same time it seems to me that those who conspired, and their willing collaborators, are now trying to sow doubts in the electorate - doubts about whether an investigation will drag Dems into the same level of responsibility for torture and the subversion of our Constitutional Rule of Law. We need to remain vigilant and not be "played" or dissuaded out of insisting that these crimes be investigated and prosecuted, where warranted. And I, personally, see all the difference in the world between conspiracy and treason on the one hand and cowardice or lack of due diligence on the other hand.
Did they all know about the torture? Yes. Even those who were not briefed specifically. They must live with their failure to stand up to tyranny at whatever personal price. And so must we. Some of them may pay a public price for that failure. We private citizens will pay and are paying a private price.
Advertisement
I don't see evidence they conspired with the Principals of bushco. Maybe I 'm missing something, but treason I'm not seeing in Dem leaders who might have done more. And that, to me, is the heart of the question.
Keith O just underlined my argument on this last night. There were national security sessions held with representatives from both parties. THEY WERE REPORTED AS THEY OCCURRED. Back in 2002, 2003...
This is no new news--except for this silly CIA memo about 'what was discussed". So you are Sen Rockefeller and you are spoon fed crapola.
AND IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING WITH ANYONE.
Conspiracy with dems. Really makes me mad.
And that damn repub LaMar saying well if you investigate Bush, i will see we investigate Clinton.
Been there, done that. Besides, no minority party guy is going to investigate anything.
Good, Good, Good.
TheraP never lets go. HA!!!!
May 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're must have posted at roughly the same time. Seems like we're on the same wave length - even to the memory of Rockefeller. great minds so they say.
May 9, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've just been over to emptywheel and they're discussing the same thing! It's obviously a perspective whose time has come! And thank god for that. I'll be over and read your post pretty soon. :)
May 9, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love your comment, dd! You're right. I never let go!
May 9, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think at a certain level all of us bear responsibility for the continuation of torture once it was public knowledge that was happening - and it was public knowledge after the Taguba report, and Sy Herch's expose.
Were there Democrats who knew what was going on (with this and with the "wiretapping")? Most likely there were. It is required that certain pertinent leaders of both parties are informed to a certain point. That information is presented 9as far as I know) under strict security clearance, and there are heavy penalties for divulging security clearance information and material. For that matter, my guess is that Republican leaders who were "briefed" also faced the same restrictions and had the same information, and would have been equally bound to silence. I seem to remember that Rockefeller wrote a sealed complaint about some top secret briefing.
Did those Democratic Congressional leaders sit in on "Principal's meetings?" They definitely did not.
Did anyone outside the Bush administration have public access to the memos being brought forward now? I doubt it.
I fully agree that we need investigations. Note the plural. We need Congressional investigations and legal investigations. The PUBLIC needs to know and that will not happen with a special prosecutor - though we need a special prosecutor.
May 9, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thank you Rowan.
May 9, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this emptywheel post and thread, which seems to be addressing some of the same issues I woke up pondering and felt compelled to address myself:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/08/memo-to-wapo-torture-is-not-just-waterboarding/
May 9, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I came back to review this blog and reread comments.
You got that right Rowan. We saw this one in the same light!! Ha.
Always makes me feel good. I hate to feel when I review something, that somehow no one really understands my take. HA
May 9, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done TheraP.
I agree. As I have said before we must all take some responsbility for Bush & Co from the elections to the things they have done in office. We can ask ourselves if we did all that we could... mostly to hold ourselves accountable, to learn from our mistakes, to learn to be better people, citizens. Most of us are still bearing the weight of all of the consequences Bush & Co have brought to bear in our lives.
And the accountability needs to happen all the way up the chain for whatever part was played. Let the consequences fit the involvement or neglect. Our representatives should be coming clean and taking responsibility and they should be out there fighting for accountability.
We have to be the best example of a democracy that we can possibly be and do our absolute best to live up to the promise of our ideals. We must lead by example or get out of the way and let people and nations that will do it right and do it better show us what we need to learn.
I am grateful for your honest reckoning with yourself and I do believe that we all affect each other so that every person who is willing to take full accounting of themselves and do 'their' best will make it easier for another person to do the same. Even one of our leaders could read this post and be inspired. Thanks Therapy
To restore integrity, for everyone involved, there must be accountability
If we do not learn from our mistakes we are doomed/blessed to repeat them... I would hate for things to have to get worse before they get better.
May 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully, beautifully said. I am humbly grateful for your comment.
May 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know Thera, I'm confused about what you really want.
If you want to follow the rule of law, then abetting a crime is illegal.
Being concerned if CIA was doing enough is certainly not helping Democrats pretend they were not part of some kind of conspiracy.
But the most ironic thing is that Nancy Pelosi, who has a particularly selective memory, claimed several times in the last few weeks that she WAS aware that CIA obtained necessary legal review of torture.
Yes, she could have done more, too. At least she could have covered her ass like Harman did.
But everything that has been released so far shows very clearly and several key Democrats where repeatedly briefed on the details of torture, and they abetted this "crime" every time.
So what is it that you want?
You can't honestly want legal action because it will take down key figures of your party. And your post is a pretty clear and smart attempt at damage control.
Perhaps it's more of the PR campaign that has no basis in reality or nothing to do with the "rule of law".
May 9, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your questions are getting at an important point, one that I think Obama, having been a law professor, has probably considered.
"Rule of law" absolutists lead to things like sentences for everyone caught using marijuana or impeachment trials for presidents caught lying about sex in civil suit matters. Our system is built to temper that with selective prosecution, we expect prosecutors to use "common sense" and to think of the common good in what they select to prosecute. That gives a lot of power to prosecutors, (something I admit have always been more than uneasy with.)
In this case, selective prosecution could be painted as political prosecution so extremely easily. Hence, the "let's go forward, not backward" attitude from Obama. He sees the whole picture of what would ensue.
Thera, I see you in this post trying to act as a defense lawyer for the Dems invovled. While I'm mostly with you, it's in a common sense kind of way. The problem is I think a defense lawyer for the Repubs involved would tear your arguments apart in a New York minute, and that's really the real problem. If you're going to go the rule of law absolutist routine, you can't get into nitpicking levels of involvement/responsibility, you have to take the chips where they fall. If you're going to go into selective prosecution, well then, you are also going to get into cries of political prosecution and all the distracting buzz that ensues with that. (We didn't have a blogosphere during Monicagate, I can't even imagine the level of distraction if we had.)
May 9, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your helpful comments, AA. As far as I'm concerned, and I thought I made that clear in the post, let's have a full investigation and let the chips fall where they may. There may be one kind of trial for conspiracy and others for individuals whose culpability is of a lessor nature. I don't doubt that many kinds of indictments could be brought. But what I do doubt is that Dem leaders are involved in the central, willful conspiracy which undergirds this whole sorry business we have to deal with.
I'm no lawyer, as you know. And I doubt there would be the same defense for different indictments at different trials. I'm simply trying to understand this for myself. And thanks to you, I think I've clarified this a bit in this comment.
As far as standing up to lawyers in a court or any other kind of interrogation, I hope I never have to go there!
May 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it is likely that Democrats conspired with the Bush people on the torture program. However, silence is consent and that is where I think the cuplability (if any) of Democrats may lie.
Again, this underscores the need for a complete, top to bottom investigation of the entire genesis, development and implementation of the torture program. A professional, nonpartisan prosecutor can easily sort out the cuplability of the various players involved and seek punishment where necessary.
At this point, all we know for sure is that the Bush government including the highgest elected and appointed officials in the land, conceived of, ordered, and implemented a systematic program of torture on the part of the United States. We know that those people are culpable beyond any doubt. As for the rest, that is what the investigation will reveal unambiguously. All the reports and information we have at this point have far too many holes in them for us to know beyond question who is guilty of what.
So, let's get the investigation underway so we can find out, punish the guilty and put the country back under the rule of law.
May 9, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've now excused me from culpability, oleeb. Because I was never silent on this. From the first moment I saw those hoods on the heads of prisoners. Yes, silence in the face of wrongdoing incurs some level of responsibility.
And yes, let's get on with the investigation!
Thanks for your clarity and commitment here!
May 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to some extent every citizen is culpable if the government engages in such crimes, but as a practical matter, any common citizen not privy to the actual activities bearing upon the program is not culpable at all in the same fashion. And so I think it safe to say from a legal standpoint that neither you nor anyone else as far removed from what was happening with the torture program are culpable since once discovered you have been speaking out against it. You don't really have any power to do anything beyond that. It is up to one's individual conscience to determine how culpable one is from a moral standpoint or how culpable we all are collectively.
It would be good to train the population to rise up the moment such atrocities are revealed, but that's unrealistic for many reasons in my view. I think that as a practical matter the vast majority of the population believes that whatever is going on it will be properly handled by those in authority because there are laws and rules governing such conduct. I believe that the vast majority believe we are a nation of laws and not of men. I believe the vast majority believe that the law will be enforced if it is violated. This belief is what the real criminals are counting on and why they went to such lengths to create the dummy legal edifice with all it's tortured and quite erroneous logic to make their crimes appear to have the aura of legality.
Anticipating this very kind of artifice and deceipt, our treaties and laws disallow such treacherous and corrupt schemes without exception. In the end, because of it's simplicity and comprehensive nature, there is no hiding from the law on this on the part of those who are guilty of direct participation in the torture program. They can only dodge the law like other criminals hoping to avoid the consequences of their criminal behavior and activities.
May 9, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Masterful comment, oleeb. So well said!
May 9, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first sentence is a biggie. I find myself at odds and have some strained family relationships because some simply refuse to accept the notion they have a citizens obligation to contact their elected officials and complain. I am convinced that if ordinary citizens actually participated in the political process things would be different. If the only people who bother are lobbyists with deep pockets then only their message is heard. We have an individual duty to ourselves, our children and the country.
May 11, 2009 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right!
If people participated in our system and made their voices heard clearly and forcefully we wouldn't see half the crap coming down the pike that we do so. It is only because they feel secure in the belief that a)nobody is paying attention, and b) nobody cares enough to really "do" anything about it that they sell out the public interest to the private interests. Even the Republicans would be better if they understood people were no longer willing to allow the corrupt charade that is Washington continue.
May 11, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend you for your thoughtful self-assessment.
But I think you muddle the larger point. The issue is not torture, that is only a foil. The issue is closer to treason, whether in the legal sense or in a moral/conceptual sense, as I read your remarks.
You wrote a blog which touched on the evils of deception. In the comments I suggested one consider the problem of promotion, which I consider a larger issue.
In an "us vs. them" environment, one side might seek to put down the other side or to promote itself. Neither side has a monopoly on truth or justice, and usually neither side has truth or justice at all except in small parts.
"I cannot condone torture under any circumstances."
You seem to be an absolutist. I seek reason. One may inquire as to whether 'cannot condone' means more than what it says, whether one would ever look away or consider it a lesser but necessary evil. If the answer is, "Never," then one is indeed an absolutist.
I do not justify those who claimed to make America safe. They were undoubtedly promoting their own agendas. And I do believe the chaff about Pelosi has no significant merit (there is no evidence which stands up to even superficial scrutiny as fitting the theory that she knowingly condoned illegal conduct). That chaff is also promotional.
May 9, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From one sentence you deduce an entire generalization - that I am an absolutist. What am I to deduce from such an over-generalization based on your logic? And you say you seek reason...
You love to pick things apart. That's clear from many observations. And yet no matter how many bones you pick, it doesn't change the post!
At least we can agree on treason if not reason.
Be at peace. I'm not going to argue back and forth.
May 9, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not from one sentence. I saw no need to quote the paragraph. But you choose not to engage the point offered in my comment and do your usual thing of running away from serious confrontation of the issue.
"You seem to be an absolutist. I seek reason. One may inquire as to whether 'cannot condone' means more than what it says, whether one would ever look away or consider it a lesser but necessary evil. If the answer is, "Never," then one is indeed an absolutist."
Don't argue, engage. Maybe it's a professional handicap for you, the distancing...
May 9, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not from one sentence. I saw no need to quote the paragraph. But you choose not to engage the point offered in my comment and do your usual thing of running away from serious confrontation of the issue.
--Here, truthfully it appears that TheraP does not want to engage your point which from examing it was that you feel that ‘treason is s greater issue than torture’, that you feel the ‘problems of self-promotion are greater that than ‘evils of deception’ and that you are perhaps reasoning for yourself whether there are circumstances under which you would condone torture or treason. However, to state that someone is ‘running away from serious confrontation’ of what you feel is ‘the issue’, that is really an attack on a person for not choosing to engage your ideas. I see TheraP demonstrating her willingness to confront issues through her writing in this very blog. My guess is that if she understood and found it useful to engage in the ideas you wish to discuss, she would do so. However you have both attempted to label her and attack her in order to engage her in dialogue and based on what I know about TheraP, she is too savvy to respond to that.
"You seem to be an absolutist. I seek reason. One may inquire as to whether 'cannot condone' means more than what it says, whether one would ever look away or consider it a lesser but necessary evil. If the answer is, "Never," then one is indeed an absolutist."
Don't argue, engage. Maybe it's a professional handicap for you, the distancing...
--Demanding, insulting… this is your response to someone not choosing to engage you in dialogue?
--My suggestion is that you find someone who wants to explore the issues you want to explore… I think the aspect of treason in all of this could be discussed. It is a subject I know very little about. I think asking the question of whether there are circumstances under which we might condone torture or treason is something that could be discussed but with so much energy being directed at trying to shut down the outrage about the torture that has taken place, the attempts to ‘dismiss it’ as ‘inconsequential’ there are probably many who are just not interested in exploring that conversation right now. Best wishes.
May 9, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds, I really am trying to understand your intent here…
I commend you for your thoughtful self-assessment.
-A considerate beginning
But I think you muddle the larger point. The issue is not torture, that is only a foil. The issue is closer to treason, whether in the legal sense or in a moral/conceptual sense, as I read your remarks.
-You feel that the issue of treason is larger than the issue of torture. Fine.
You wrote a blog which touched on the evils of deception. In the comments I suggested one consider the problem of promotion, which I consider a larger issue.
-You consider the ‘problem of promotion’ larger than the ‘evils of deception. Fine.
In an "us vs. them" environment, one side might seek to put down the other side or to promote itself. Neither side has a monopoly on truth or justice, and usually neither side has truth or justice at all except in small parts.
-Here you appear to clarify that you feel that it is the problem of ‘self-promotion’ that is larger than the ‘evils of deception’.
-Fine
"I cannot condone torture under any circumstances."...you quoted from TheraP
You seem to be an absolutist.
-Now, here you perhaps become a demonstration of your own point. You make an 'absolutist' statement about TheraP citing this ‘one’ sentence. Now, perhaps TheraP is an absolutist with regards to the subject of torture from this blog alone we don’t know her exact definition of torture and some people are actually and 'absolutely' vegetarians, against the death penalty, etc. for moral and practical reasons. I respect the right of individuals be have some beliefs that they are whole-heartedly and ‘absolutely’ clear about and they may have arrived at these ideals after much questioning and reasoning.
I seek reason. One may inquire as to whether 'cannot condone' means more than what it says, whether one would ever look away or consider it a lesser but necessary evil. If the answer is, "Never," then one is indeed an absolutist.
-I am not sure what usefulness there is for you in defining TheraP’s expression as ‘absolutist’. But I decipher from your words that you are questioning, exploring, reasoning this out with yourself. Are you wanting to explore whether there are any circumstances under which torture would be something that you would condone, for example. I find that a perfectly respectable thing to do regarding anything. If you have read the numerous blogs by TheraP on the subject of torture, you would observe considerable questioning, reasoning, dialoguing, etc. However once again your final conclusion that because TheraP states ‘I cannot condone torture under any circumstances’ she is an ALL things an absolutist, which is in and of itself a generalization and example of perhaps being an example of ‘asbolutist’ thinking.
I do not justify those who claimed to make America safe. They were undoubtedly promoting their own agendas. And I do believe the chaff about Pelosi has no significant merit (there is no evidence which stands up to even superficial scrutiny as fitting the theory that she knowingly condoned illegal conduct). That chaff is also promotional.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
May 9, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what that exercise is supposed to mean, Synchronicity. You seem to have developed an unhealthy attachment to my comments.
Did I do something to offend you?
May 9, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds,
I found your communication toward me slightly insulting yesterday and I also found your approach with TheraP after not being engaged in the way you wished here, insulting to a friend.
So, I took the time to read through both of your comments here fully so that I was really listening because I think you may 'know' something and you have something to contribute but I think for me your 'style' or choice of words may prevent me and perhaps others from fully engaging you. I was hoping that by reflecting back my attempt at 'hearing' you and pointing out what I found ironic and objectionable that perhaps we could get on a better footing going forward.
May 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm sorry that you took insult and then apparently carried that as a grudge of sorts to this thread. I apologize for any pain you got when you took insult, but suggest that this is not the place to deal with that.
It's easy to project irony into words not read carefully.
You might think it rude of me to note TheraP's conduct openly. Of course some might think calling the Emperor on his clothes rude, even if it's the simple truth, and the Emperor had been rude first. "First do no harm" is a curious principle...
May 10, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really good TheraP and I thank you. Dickdays blog today mentioned this about torture:
Though I'm not a public official I am feeling some weight of responsibility for what my officials did, that's a good thing right? If from this point on I don't stick my head back in the sand and keep the issue from slinking back into the shadows, then I can say, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." No more fooling around.
You said
.To this I must add, Me too !
May 9, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Don! I think we can all search our souls a bit and try to become better citizens. It's ok to feel certain responsibility (some call it collective guilt) - but don't get too down about it. Just recognize how easy it is to lose our focus. We have so much learning to do, don't we? And at a place like TPM, we're all learning and trying to have fun at the same time, along with helping our country.
I extend my hand across the miles. :)
May 9, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good question, Thera, but as you imply the larger issue is uncovering the truth and prosecuting any crimes fairly. The whole thing is an obvious bluff by those responsible: if you come after our people, we’ll get yours too. And it has been working for some years I think. But those calling for prosecution of the Bush administration can’t appear to be excusing Democrats who were even peripherally involved.
When the reports came out a couple of years ago that congressional leaders had been briefed in detail in 2002, reports they had denied, it was said that, in particular, Pelosi had “cheered’ the program on and even asked if the methods were tough enough. Of course, they didn’t call these interrogations torture. But they could have called them “stress tests” for all I care, torture is torture. Anyone who is head of a US Congress Select Committee on Intelligence knows (or better damn well find out fast) what is and isn’t torture.
Understand, that Pelosi, Rockefeller and Harman, along with Republican leaders, were heads of intelligence and military oversight committees. The Intelligence Committees were established after the intelligence abuses of the 1950s-‘70s. They are tasked with reigning in programs that overstep their bounds. The fact that Bush was claiming dictatorial powers to do whatever he thought best was even more reason for congress to reign him in. It was their duty and obligation to put the brakes on any program that was illegal. If a cop ignores a crime, the cop is guilty of a crime or neglect of duty at least.
Under our law, international law, treaties, and the constitution torture is illegal. Under the CAT, anyone with authority is required to investigate or trigger investigations into acts of torture. It is up to a court to decide if some cases are mitigated. You can call me an absolutist for actually taking the law at face value and believing that Nancy Pelosi is subject to the same law as any poor slob, but that is what this country is supposed to stand for.
There have been reports of torture and abuses since 2002. Many have been trying to stop the abuses and have these matters decided in courts for years. Damned if I will feel in anyway guilty or responsible for what was done illegally, secretively and over the objections of those railing against the abuses (the ones they did know about), regardless of whether it was done in our names or not.
May 9, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the Dems were cowed by bushco and did not do their oversight, though some tried and were lied to or rebuffed as we know. And I agree they might have done more or tried to do more. Still, in my view whatever culpability they have is surely not as great as those who deliberately perpetrated the crimes. I doubt you could call them accomplices, though some like Lieberman might be. But certainly they wielded power they refused to use. And thus bear responsibility.
I want it all investigated. Every bit of it. Had I been in Congress, at the very least I'd want my name cleared.
They must step up to the plate and call for an investigation and include themselves in that - and let the chips fall.
May 10, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the Dems were cowed by bushco and did not do their oversight, though some tried and were lied to or rebuffed as we know"
- Who was cowed? Who was lied to? What were the lies?
May 10, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You point to why we need an investigation. Erased emails? Documents withheld? Naturally if liars conceal their lies, and this is also about a huge cover-up, then it's hard to prove they're lies, isn't it?
If Dems are included the liars, then let's find out!
May 10, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - but think that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. And I think we do - but some of our leaders forget that in order to stay in power for as long as they can.
May 10, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. And for that very reason, I think they need to disconnect from their role, consider the fate of the nation as most important, and call for investigations, even if it should mean of themselves. Indeed, they should have done that from the start. They should have stood up for the Rule of Law, irregardless of whether they might lose their jobs.
May 10, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if this can properly be called a conspiracy.
It seems to me this falls more under the category of blatant disregard for our laws, treaties and international agreements. Not only did the Bush WH violate the law but both Democratic and Republican congresses refused to undertake the legally binding actions required of them.
May 10, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason I use conspiracy is: How otherwise could you get should a blatant disregard without others in power turning on you? How get such an integrated system of turning over the Rule of Law unless it was coordinated? Had it haphazard it would not have worked. It included controlling the press and the purse and using war as an excuse to seize powers secretly. Hard to convince me this was just an accidental bunch of folks breaking the law here and there without forethought and coordination. Maybe you've got another word for that. Mine is conspiracy.
I doubt the Dems in Congress were part of the conspiracy. But once they had power, in 2006, they did not use it. They tried to do oversight, but as you recall bushco folks lied with impunity. And without the documents, which they refused to divulge, and the emails they erased, it was hard to prove they were lying, wasn't it? For all those reasons... this was some conspiracy. Some of it was crime. And some was cover-up. But they conspired together to do that.
May 10, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many people for a conspiracy.
They're all members of an elite group who don't want to rock the boat. They are collectively comfortable with the status quo. To accuse another of their class would be casting a stone upon all. You can see the same thing at work with the financial collapse. There have been abuses aplenty where all the warning signs were there and not a soul in the WH or congress did a thing. Why? The inappropriately cozy relationship between Wall Street and congress and Wall Street and the WH come to mind. It isn't a conspiracy more than an elite group of persons scratching each others backs simply because it suits them. And it's still going on with Obama and his handling of the financial collapse. There have been major mistakes in the management of the nations finances that demand people be fired for their incompetence. It hasn't happened for the very reason I cite.
The entire Washington establishment is morally and ethically corrupt. No matter how devastating the result they create they refuse to uphold the law because of the political and peer consequences. Not to mention that culpability for the result is widespread and touches all of them. And in the end there is too much money at stake for persons who stand to lose who have an illicit association with the persons who are bound to uphold the law. In large measure this stems from the flawed notion that corporations are citizens. That is very much at the heart of all of this.
Our laws are illogically and routinely sidestepped for the sake of assuring the survival of this elite class of persons who collectively hold themselves above the law. Just ask yourself how many laws has congress improperly exempted themselves from or which have they created that proposes they are of a class of super citizens? Equality under law has been totally turned on its head.
No, this is no conspiracy. This is merely a simple and obvious corruption of power.
May 11, 2009 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another example of the same hting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/10/obama-and-industry-groups_n_201366.html
This will be reliant upon voluntary actions of involved participants. Not gonna happen.
The reasons healthcare is going this direction are the very ones I have already stated. Costs could be contained but only through a legally mandated system of compliance that has actual penalties for non-compliance.
US administrative healthcare costs are in the 20% - 25% range. A mandated, well thought out system of recording could easily reduce that to a single digit number. The problem that arises is inside the industry the current scheme is actually a profit center rather than a servicing organization.
This is just more corruption.
May 11, 2009 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Just a few comments:
May 10, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So well stated, Purple State. I have now updated the post to take into account the nuances, which I was assuming but did not make clear enough.
Your comment is superb! Thank you.
May 10, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, I find it so ironic that today we even entertain the notion of viewing such acts as treasonous when during their occurrence there was in this country such seething anger following 911 that the majority, I have no doubt, openly viewed any outrage against abusing our alleged enemies as treasonous. It is important that we revisit those emerging clues that increasingly brought us to the realization that our nation had crossed the line, and this post reminds us of the trickling tell-tale signs. I hope, however, that the discussion of torture eventually revisits the collective mindset of a nation in which, after 911, 80 percent of the electorate strongly supported Bush and his rhetoric, did not at the time and still do not utter a word over the shameful photos of John Walker Lindh or other detainees who, regardless of their acts, had clearly been treated in a manner grossly inconsistent with our standards, and that all this occurred openly, with overwhelming anger-justified public and journalistic approval.
We need to understand that these acts were committed while our kids watched Jack Bauer with glee, while our bumper stickers brandished blood hungry messages, while fear trumped all of our historical values, and raw revenge was unabashedly pushed by even liberals conversing in an urban café. We all heard these conversations, encountered the hatred, and witnessed the xenophobia. I had French friends in this country at the time who went through a living hell prior to and after the invasion of Iraq. I would even venture to say that merely judging by the odds based on the polling figures at the time, many in this forum of ours now participating in this discussion after a tide of change in this country were back then during that period swept by the mentality of anger and brutality. It was just too pervasive in our discourse for us not to factor it now into the discussion of the acts consequently committed in our name.
So I welcome this discussion, but my hope is that we discuss the atrocities by our government in the context of the collective sludge in our culture and in the hearts of most peopole in this country at the time.
May 10, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
A stirring comment! Worthy of a blog of its own!
Thank you for your courageous words!
May 10, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink