These arguments for suppressing torture photos and other evidence of government abuses are grounded in the worst aspects of the Bush/Cheney mindset.Greenwald isn't sculpted in the same dull partisan mold as the Digbies and Kosses of the world, but nonetheless persists in dropping the dually fallacious description, "the Bush/Cheney mindset." Roughly translated, this means an expansive, secretive government with power centralized in the executive branch. Since the precedent long predates George Bush and Dick Cheney, and since it has found clear continuation in the administration that follows, it seems curious to give them pride of name here.
-Glenn Greenwald
Obama's continuation of the policies of his predecessors confirms what I and other said about them all along: that George Bush and Dick Cheney were not distinguished by unique bloodthirstiness, unique power-hunger, or unique Constitutional theories. They were certainly not distinguished by unique cunning, secrecy, or any Machiavellian instinct for maximizing the power of the prince. If anything made them unique among modern executives, it was obtuseness, a staggering lack of alacrity and acumen, and stumbling obviousness. They were stunningly unable to keep a secret, which made their bruited commitment to secrecy self-delusion and the press' commitment to describing the secretive nature of their administration mere self-flattery.
The ongoing attempts to suppress these supposedly damning photographs of torture at abu Ghraib and, perhaps, elsewhere around the globe are a sideshow in any event. The loudest proponents for their release engage in the same error as those who hope to quash them, namely in presuming that they will shock anyone into actions not yet taken, although in the case of Greenwald et al. it is the belief that they will shock the domestic polity into some act of principled opposition, while the administration conversely claims that they will shock the friends and neighbors of our torture victims to greater acts of violence. Neither seems particularly likely, as the friends and neighbors are already aware of what goes on in American prison camps, and the American public will under no circumstances extrapolate from photographic evidence, no matter how voluminous, that sexual torture is the policy of the American government and military.
45 comments:
to the american public "sexual torture" is a meaningless phrase. one man's sexual torture is another man's fraternity house antics.
as for the friends and neighbors, what, you don't buy this argument from authority?
It's just too unsettling for most people to accept - after the parades, the self-congratulatory schlock, the hagiography, etc. - that their government is not, and has not been, a benevolent actor; and that the series of actions that preclude said government from being deemed a benevolent actor are widely agreed upon by the entirety of the ruling political classes.
With respect to the law, most people believe it is, if not moral or ethical, at least an attempt to locate some normative compromise or solution to intractable commons problems. Certainly Greenwald believes this, and I certainly wish it were so - that is what the law should be in my mind. And yet, speaking as a lawyer and someone who has a fair amount of experience with the inner workings of our federal government, to those in charge the law is either a means or an obstacle to their ends. It is sold to the American people as some beacon of righteousness, when in fact it is used by the political classes in the same manner as they use the media, or as you would a hammer.
Hmm, "sexual torture" still strikes me as a bit euphemistic. Maybe better to say that the United States government runs rape camps, or that President Obama endorses a policy of assfucking Muslim men.
Well, to borrow a line from the dude in Layer Cake, raping girls is for faggots.
In Greenwald's case, he believes government transparency is a value in and of itself that should be fought over, whether or not disclosure will compell the public to action, I do not believe that assumption is his. I understand your larger point though, that many mistakenly seem to believe that if people only knew, they would no longer be complacent about the crimes hurtling by. Its a touchingly optimistic take on human kind, but not much evidence to support that it is true.
if people only knew...it'd nice to test the theory of the complacency of the american public, which i largely accept, by, you know, allowing them to know....
in any case, iraqis being assfucked in torture hellholes and complacent american dumbasses aren't the only people on this planet with an interest in knowing what the fuck the US gummint is up to. maybe everybody should get their head out of america's ass for starters.
if people only knew...it'd nice to test the theory of the complacency of the american public, which i largely accept, by, you know, allowing them to know....
um, you don't think the "american public" knows? how is it possible that you know but the "american public" does not? are you an uniquely connected insider who does not get their information from the same sources as everyone else?
good fucking grief, kid.
other than that, i have nothing else to add. one of the few times i think IOZ got it right.
are you an uniquely connected insider who does not get their information from the same sources as everyone else?
Most people don't use the internet for their news. Good fucking grief, kid.
Somewhat unrelated -- so I know you're not into, you know, givin' a shit and stuff, but since you are at least philosophically an anarchist, would you be interested in this? http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2009/06/09/to-pittsburgh-for-creation-and-destruction/
It would at least be interesting to hear your take on this type of thing.
It seems to me that al least one purpose for the hubris surrounding the photographs is to tacitly say we no longer torture while the news media gobbles up Obama’s claim that we no longer torture people are being tortured. It is similar to Obama and Hillary Clinton telling Israel to halt the “natural growth” of their settlements on Palestinian land which implies that the many of the existing settlements are legal which of course they are not.
A "sideshow" can still serve well as a opportunity, a pretext, or an excuse. Ask the Danish casrtoonists, or Daniel Pearl.
I can't imagine even the most jaded progs so complacent about the release of the Lurid Photos. Yes, everyone "knows" the Horrid Details already, to the point that murderous outbursts like Little Rock last week are successfully abstracted, rationalized, contextualized upon arrival by prog Muslim apologists in and out of the mainstream media, as if we're discussing a tornado or bridge collapse.
Abstracted....when it comes to groupthink accountability both for the particular murderous Muslim fanatic, and his own Randall Terrys, Dr. Dobsons, and Shelley Shannons. Abstracted....not so much if and when the photos are finally trotted out for collective oohs and aahs, along with the Wink Wink Nudge Nudge "concession" from the same culture-war do-gooders, a la Abu Ghraib, that Immediate Violent Response is not wished for, of course, but understandably likely upon publication of images so Outrageously Inflammatory to...tornadoes and kilns and such.
I must agree with Schizo here: where's the harm in releasing the torture photos, I'm honestly glad Greenwald's bringing attention to stuff like this.
i knowd everthang cuz i readz ioz-the american public.
Speaking the truth may be rewarding even when it does not fall on caring ears, or none at all. Perhaps those who we criticize are not persuasive enough, or minister to those who have made up their minds. That a person does not change says nothing to rule out that he might.
Well, I care damn it.
Yo! Jenny! Caring works!
I belong to an organization that had occasion last week to sign on to somebody or other's national open letter against torture. I did not object, since the idea itself is commendable.
The language and framing made me wince, especially a reference to the feared contradiction of "our nation's most cherished ideals" and fact that "the soul of our nation" is at stake.
I remarked that, inasmuch as a Nation can be said to have a Soul, then We lost Ours sometime in the decades before 1630, so not to worry
They were stunningly unable to keep a secret, which made their bruited commitment to secrecy self-delusion and the press' commitment to describing the secretive nature of their administration mere self-flattery.
The Bush administration was distinguished from its predecessors in a number of noteworthy respects: it's claims of executive privilege in response to FOIA requests, for example, and its issuance of signing statements, were both an order of magnitude removed from any previous administration. I don't think it's inaccurate to refer to those things in the press as unprecedented expansions of executive power and secrecy, your other points notwithstanding.
Since prior presidents both issued signing statements and made expanding claims of so-called executive privilege, it is wholly incorrect and entirely inaccurate to call them "unprecedented," which, as you must be aware, means "without precedent." The degree to which the Bush administration sought to expand these claims or succeeded in expanding these claims may be up for debate, but the precedents for expanding executive power and privilege are long established.
the trouble I have with even the thrust of this thread is that this bothers people. the innermost kernel of truth is that we're a nation like any other nation on the planet, and if it weren't us dominating the world, it would be someone else, and it will eventually become someone else, so what's the big deal? call it like you see it, sure. hate it for what it is, sure. choose not to love any of it, fine. I take none of it personally, and do my best to live with it, and let it go.
of course, I do like to talk crazy now and again, and that's easy to do because America is a bunch of nonsense. America is THE religion of our times folks. America can do no wrong, it is GOD. those are GOD's Troops doing GOD's work over there, ya know?
I try to not get caught up in that, take my hat off during the National Anthem at baseball games so I won't draw any attention to myself, and do my best to hold the people in my life firmly to the planet. getting in a tizzy over this shit is no longer in my repertoire.
Good point, Mr. All has always been as it is today, and change cannot be achieved. That's been the line so far, right? In this way, we're as consistent as our dear forum bot Inkberrow.
Might as well just accept it, huh? See, I'd be happier even with whole-hearted support of madness and murder, rather than this sense of resignation, but I'm an immature romantic.
blawg!
yinz can't even resist commenting on the Internet.
I fail to see how yall will bring together a successful resistance to the powerz in our wirld.
LOL
See, I'd be happier even with whole-hearted support of madness and murder, rather than this sense of resignation, but I'm an immature romantic.
I recommend taking up drinking. Works for me.
The degree to which the Bush administration sought to expand these claims or succeeded in expanding these claims may be up for debate, but the precedents for expanding executive power and privilege are long established.
By most metrics, Bush's use of signing statements exceeded that of all past Presidents combined. This is territory where a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. Similarly, the Bush administration issued policy memos fundamentally altering the interpretation of its disclosure obligations under FOIA and other statutes. Where a law is being interpreted more narrowly than ever before, it sets a precedent. A high-water mark is a precedent, even though it is only a difference in degree from the previous high-water mark. I'm not arguing that the Bush administration was the most "secretive" administration in history by any measure, only that in certain specific ways it claimed more drastic powers of secrecy than any previous administration (hence "unprecedented"). The same can now be said for the Obama administration: it has made certain claims of executive privilege that exceed any made by the Bush team, and so has set its own precedents for executive secrecy. Precedents get set all the time; forgive me if I used the term in a more local sense than you would have liked.
Matt, I can only reiterate that the words precedent and unprecedented do not mean what you think they mean.
Hey Cuneyt---
Does "bot" signify "consistency", but in a pejorative sense, like a martinet or something? An absence of nuance in certain subject-areas, say "torture", or "racism"?
You know, there's something we could do: who's heard of Project Mayhem? It's at least better than sitting and griping.
Nothing is better than sitting and griping that isn't anal sex, baby, and the two are by no means mutually exclusive.
Looks to me like Project Mahem has something in common with anal sex. Ever see em together in the same room?
Bwhahahahha ya got me Ioz.
Well done, Inkberrow. You have seized upon the one virtue of a broken record, or a robot, or a fanatic. Enjoy the comfort of consistency.
Hey again Cuneyt---
I don't mean to make you seem two-dimensional, or simplistic, but doesn't this "consistency" bugaboo depend upon the application, as I mentioned above? I imagine that even you find comfort and satisfaction in certain sorts of "consistency", either in complex subject areas such as "2 + 2 = 4", or in straightforward matters like racism, torture, or politics generally....
IOZ, how is Greenwald NOT like Daily Kos?
He's like Obama -- vague when pressed, evasive when cornered, but yet committed to a rhetorical suggestion of "change" based on the need for "hope." Greenwald shows nothing in the way of insight, which is sorta sad given his, you know, lawyering background as a proud First Amendment litigator... or at least that's how he trumpets his background.
Fame is what Greenwald seeks, not an improved America. Fame. And he's got it. So I congratulate him on the completion of a life-goal, the masturbatory ego-tonic of popularity bordering on Cult Leadership. Hooray Glenn! Nice work! You're POPULAR! What a coup!
I would not dare to criticize you exclusively for consistency, Inkberrow. It's useful, but the thing is that it's not necessary, let alone sufficient.
No worries, Cuneyt---I was just trying to ascertain whether your objections to me were substantive, procedural, or one masquerading as the other. If you don't care to say, that's your prerogative.
Most people don't use the internet for their news. Good fucking grief, kid.
yes, i know. this topic has not been covered in print, radio, or television...its merely the chatter of the enlightened internet pwoggies. right.
I criticize you for your repetition and your rhetorical routine. That's what I meant when I called you a bot, Inkberrow. You're not so much a participant and an ideological representative, and it tires my poor widdle head.
So that's that. What were you saying about consistency?
What was I saying about consistency? That it's a bugaboo or a badge of honor on a case-by-case basis, even for "tolerant" prog pharisees like you.
Cuneyt's "Repitition"---2 + 2 = 4?
Cuneyt's "Rhetorical Routine"---torture and racism are wrong, every time?
In sum, you feebly lard over bald substantive disdain with pretextual, ostensibly procedural objections. You're not obliged to tap-dance on my account, of course, but maybe even inept judgemental stereotyping makes you feel....inconsistent?
I think it's time you brought up the recruiter shootings, don't you? It's on the script right there.
Yes, it is. My script's called "Current Events". I suspect your script's working title is "Convenient Truths", or maybe "How To Be Good"?
If you get the sense that I'm going through the motions here, by all means let me know. I'd love to know whose program I'm pushing.
Don't fret---your own ideological programme is as solid, morally upright, and, well, consistent as ever. It's the lip service you pay to tolerance, open debate, and intellectual integrity which is fraying around the center.
What's my ideology again?
I remember when Wayne Gretzky scored 50 goals in 37 games. It was an unprecedented display of scoring power.
But players had scored 50 goals before so it wasn't unprecedented!
No, the display (ie doing it so much faster than anyone else) was unprecedented, not the scoring of the 50 goals.
.like the expansion was unprecedented - which certainly can be argued just not semantically.
Post a Comment