I learned today of a book - Unpeople: Victims of British Policy, by Mark Curtis (amazon link in my signature). One reader's review begins as follows:

As a British citizen living under the long shadow of the New Labour political project, it is difficult not to be overwhelmed with cynicism when pondering the motivations and goals of a set of politicians so deeply in thrall to Big Business. Increasingly, too, the poverty of ideals among the mainstream UK political parties, in essence rival factions of the same party representing the narrow interests of the ruling state-corporate elite (as in the US), makes many fearful for the future of representative democracy in the UK.

Yet, even for those disillusioned with this depressing state of affairs, modern historian Mark Curtis' disturbing new book, Unpeople, is still likely to come as a huge shock. Unstintingly and unswervingly, in case study after case study, Curtis unravels the extraordinary levels of deception lurking beneath the squeaky-clean veneer of UK foreign policy's much-vaunted concern for human rights. At the heart of the author's portrayal of Britain as an outlaw state - one that certainly gives the US a good run for its money - lie the 'unpeople'. These are the expendable citizens of faraway countries who have suffered and died under the miseries imposed by the equally ruthless foreign policies of both Labour and Tory governments. Indeed, according to Curtis' conservative calculations, Britain may well be complicit in the deaths of in excess of 10 million `unpeople' since World War Two.

If so, why should I speak good of any of these people? How does any of their passing diminish me? How does their bell toll for me?

As a non-Christian - a Hindu to be precise - I never really understood "faith". In Hindu thought, there is no Will of God to be obeyed and executed by the believer. Mahatma Gandhi's comment in a letter is more appropriate to the Hindu universe:

"Relative dharma does not proceed on a straight path like a railway track. It has, on the contrary, to make its way through a dense forest where there is not even a sense of direction. Hence in this case, even one step is sufficient. Many circumstances have to be considered before the second step is taken and, if the first step is towards the north, the second may have to be taken towards the east. In this manner, although the path may appear crooked, since it is the only one which is correct, it can also be regarded as the straight one."

(This is not to say that there are no moral absolutes.)

RMP's post on Tony Snow's moral certainty arising from his faith gave me a little more glimmer of understanding.

I never understood original sin either; but perhaps it is the necessary corrective to the Tony Snow-type religious faith. Faith that comes without humility; that sees itself as perfect, that does not question itself, is the route to hell.

Jane Mayer book event - look it up on thewashingtonnote.com or click on my signature.

Looking around the web and newspapers, it seems to me that the publication of Jane Mayer's book is the beginning of a new front on the war against torture.

But we've had revelations aplenty, including how principal members of the National Security Council directed specific interrogations.

Why wasn't the battle joined earlier? Is it that Jane Mayer is considered to be "serious", and so cannot be easily brushed aside? Or is it that her book adds tremendously to what we already know? Or is it that the book is a catalyst or seed-crystal? A front to unite on?

Whatever the reasons, I'm glad for it. But certainly we want to understand the phenomenon? e.g., for the benefit of the Accountability Now PAC?

I chose that phrasing because so far the trajectory on torture has followed that of all those other wars.

Starting backwards:

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/pickard.htm

Thomas J. Pickard

[FBI] Acting Director

June 25, 2001 - September 4, 2001

Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”