Letters to the Editor
rollotomasi
Published Letters: 187
-
Civility Anyone?
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, the administration has no credibility left with me through their six years of non-stop manipulations and mendacity, so I would seriously question the origin of the torture depictions.
But let’s assume for a minute that they had “Property of Al Qaeda” stamped on them or some similar clue directly linking them to Al Qaeda. The Fool had it right in his comment equating this to, “Dog bites man.” Finding such a manual in the possession of Al Qaeda operatives would be about as unexpected as going into an auto repair shop and finding issues of Motor Trend magazine lying around. This is not for a minute to make light of what Al Qaeda or a similar group has done or is capable of, but there have been many thugs down through history who have tortured, on scales larger and smaller than Al Qaeda, that we did nothing about, or if we did, we dealt with it in concert with other nations and did not feel the need to exact personal eye-for-an-eye vendettas.
On the other hand, when you have the most powerful nation in the world, no small portion of that power annealing through respect it had engendered by holding itself out as a nation that does not condone inhumane treatment and generally conducting itself accordingly, decide to put all that goodwill on the line and resort to torture as policy - systemic torture, as ondelette and L.W.M. so well put it - and coerce nations throughout the world to assist in the endeavor, that’s news on a grand scale. Keep in mind that no dead or disfigured individuals resulting from torture, or photographs of individuals being tortured, were found lying around at the supposed Al Qaeda safe house, which is a big difference from Guantanamo, Abu Gharib and testimonies of those who were extraordinarily rendered.
The Republicans are making a point that will only resonate with that (large) portion of their base who are either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge worldviews other than their own determination that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are the enemy and one should live their life in fear and hatred of them above all else. (What other mindset could come up with a comment such as, “I could happily reflect on you staying in a secret prison having your flesh burned and your eyes poked out,” for simply having stated an opinion that conflicts with this worldview?) The fact 70% or so of the world thinks we’re a bad apple simply doesn’t register with them. No better expression of this self-absorbed worldview at high levels could have been made than Tony Blair’s incredulity at the Muslim world’s negative reaction, “After everything we did for them,” from Glenn’s fine piece the other day.
One commenter noted, correctly to a degree, that the sides of these debates tend to demonize the other, and that there are many somewhere in the middle who are overall reasonable people and are at long last coming to see the lawlessness. However, it is this very demonization of those who oppose torture as being soft on national security that largely enabled this travesty to occur in the first place, and, even today with a recent history of supportive judicial decisions, keep our legislature from decisively reversing this policy. Reasonable people should be angry that our government condones torture.
Another commenter noted that torture should be used in certain situations, particularly with potentially high-value captives such as Bin Laden, to which ondelette correctly responded with the “slippery slope” argument, and to which I would add the “so-and-so does it, too” argument that Glenn discusses. I can’t count the number of times I have seen Republican transgressions justified or mitigated merely by noting some Democratic precedent, regardless of whether it is truthfully described, relevant, or of comparable scope, degree or moral deficiency. It is easy to see how one torture could lead to many others using this logic, especially when you throw in Al Qaeda precedent in addition to your own; in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just the scenario that took place after 9/11.
Many right-wingers, and others who pick up such memes mainly intended to redirect discussions the right is losing, like to lecture the dirty hippie bloggers on the need for civility of discourse. I would argue that the need for civility of policy is much greater.
-
From "Bush's Amazing Achievement" by Jonathan Freedland
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251:
The accumulated result has been a plunge in global esteem for the United States. A survey in Junuary 2007 for the BBC World Service found that only 29 percent of those polled in eighteen countries believed the US was playing a "mainly positive role in the world," a fall of eleven points in two years. As (Zbigniew) Brzezinski writes:
Because of Bush’s self-righteously unilateral conduct of U.S. foreign policy after 9/11, the evocative symbol of America in the eyes of much of the world ceased to be the Statute of Liberty and instead became the Guantanamo prison camp.
It’s hard to read Ross and Brzezinski without coming to share their nostalgia for the steady, realistic, and grounded statecraft of George H. W. Bush in contrast with the faith-based pursuit of neoconservative fantasy that has passed for international affairs under his son.
That Brzezinski better get him some nuance, too.