Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Battle For A Country's Soul
A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
-- Papers of Dr. James McHenry, describing the scene as they left the Federal Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia
Seven years after al-Qaeda’s attacks on America, as the Bush administration slips into history, it is clear that what began on September 11, 2001, as a battle for America’s security became, and continues to be, a battle for the country’s soul.
In looking back, one of the most remarkable features of this struggle is that almost from the start, and at almost every turn along the way, the Bush administration was warned that whatever the short-term benefits of its extralegal approach to fighting terrorism, it would have tragically destructive long-term consequences both for the rule of law and America’s interests in the world. These warnings came not just from political opponents, but also from experienced allies, including the British Intelligence Service, the experts in the traditionally conservative military and the FBI, and, perhaps most surprisingly, from a series of loyal Republican lawyers inside the administration itself. The number of patriotic critics inside the administration and out who threw themselves into trying to head off what they saw as a terrible departure from America’s ideals, often at an enormous price to their own careers, is both humbling and reassuring.
Instead of heeding this well-intentioned dissent, however, the Bush administration invoked the fear flowing from the attacks on September 11 to institute a policy of deliberate cruelty that would have been unthinkable on September 10. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and a small handful of trusted advisers sought and obtained dubious legal opinions enabling them to circumvent American laws and traditions. In the name of protecting national security, the executive branch sanctioned coerced confessions, extrajudicial detention, and other violations of individuals’ liberties that had been prohibited since the country’s founding. They turned the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel into a political instrument, which they used to expand their own executive power at the expense of long-standing checks and balances.
When warned that these policies were unlawful and counterproductive, they ignored the experts and made decisions outside of ordinary bureaucratic channels, and often outside of the public’s view. Rather than risking the possibility of congressional opposition, they classified vital interpretations of law as top secret. No one knows to this day how many more secret opinions the Bush Justice Department has produced. Far from tempering these policies over time, they marginalized and penalized those who challenged their idées fixes. Because the subject matter was shrouded in claims of national security, however, much of the internal dissent remained hidden.
Throughout this period, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have continued to insist that they never authorized or condoned “torture,” which they acknowledge is criminal under US law. But their semantic parsing of the term began to seem increasingly disingenuous as details from the secret detention and interrogation program surfaced, piece by piece. By the last year of the Bush presidency, many of the administration’s own top authorities, including Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as well as John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer involved in the capture of the high-ranking al-Qaeda member Abu Zubayda, acknowledged that as far as they were concerned, waterboarding was torture.
Such extreme measures were perhaps understandable in the panic-filled days and weeks immediately after September 11, falling into place among other historic infringements of civil liberties during times of dire national security crisis. Yet seven years later, the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies remained largely unchanged. There had been some alterations and improvements. But the legal framework survives despite nearly universal bipartisan acceptance outside of the Bush administration that Guantánamo should be shut down, that the military commission process was hopelessly flawed, and that the human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were not the work of a few “rotten apples” on the bottom, but rather the result of irresponsible leadership at the top. In fact torture, which was reviled as a depraved vestige of primitive cultures before September 11, seemed in danger of becoming normalized.
Through four congressional election cycles and two presidential campaigns, there has been surprisingly little intelligent debate about the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism. Top administration officials continue to insist that their program is legal and effective; while critics complain, they rarely provide their own proposals for a better system. Since the Democratic Party gained control of Congress in 2006, there have been stirrings toward investigation and reform. But in July 2007, a bill to close Guantánamo was defeated when the Senate voted overwhelmingly (94–3) against transferring the detainees to prisons in the United States. Clearly, the fear of appearing “soft” on terrorism still haunts elected officials.
The presidential election of 2008 may prove a turning point. In a hopeful sign of change, both parties’ presidential nominees have taken strong, principled stands against torture, promising to close loopholes that secretly sanction it, and to bring the country’s detention and interrogation policies back in line with its core constitutional values. Yet neither candidate had put forward a coherent alternative by June 2008. The Bush administration’s “New Paradigm” remains intact, allowing the administration to claim all of the powers that flow from war, while allowing detainees almost none of the rights that either the military or criminal justice system confers.
Senator John McCain’s opposition to torture surely runs as deep as that of any politician in America. He captured the essence of the issue eloquently in a simple declaration in 2005 that “it’s not about them; it’s about us.” Yet in a nod to the conservative base of his party, even McCain has feinted to the right, siding with the Bush White House in early 2008 against proposed legislation that would limit CIA officers to the humane interrogation techniques allowed by the military.
An obvious reason for the political caution is fear. By the measure that matters most, the Bush administration can point to its record in fighting terrorism as a success. There have been no terrorist attacks in America since September 11, 2001. No rival wants to be accused of breaking this streak.
Yet it is hard to know if the Bush administration’s success represents the vanquishing of new credible threats, or rather the absence of any. As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself acknowledged in 2003, “Today we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.” During the Bush years, it’s been almost impossible to tell. In the absence of government transparency and independent analysis, the public has been asked to simply take the President’s word on faith that inhumane treatment has been necessary to stop attacks and save lives.
Increasingly, however, those with access to the inner workings of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism program have begun to question those claims. In March 2008, after President Bush announced his intention to veto legislation requiring the CIA to abide by the same interrogation rules as the military, Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, challenged the administration’s entire rationale. Rockefeller’s criticism over the years was muted, at best, and so his bold rebuke was particularly noteworthy. “As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,” a statement he released said,
I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack. And I have heard nothing that makes me think the information obtained from these techniques could not have been obtained through traditional interrogation methods used by military and law enforcement interrogators. On the other hand, I do know that coercive interrogations can lead detainees to provide false information in order to make the interrogation stop.
In other words, according to one of the few US officials with full access to the details, the drastic “ticking time bomb” threat used to justify what many Americans would otherwise consider indefensible tactics had never actually occurred, other than on the TV sets of those watching Fox-TV’s terrorism fantasy show 24.
Rockefeller asserted that the Bush administration’s approach was not only unnecessary, it was also undermining the security that it claimed to safeguard. “The CIA’s program damages our national security by weakening our legal and moral authority, and by providing al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups a recruiting and motivational tool,” he said. “By continuing this interrogation program, the President is sacrificing our strategic advantage for questionable tactical gain.”
Doubt has begun to emerge from within the administration itself, too. In 2006, a scientific advisory group to the US intelligence agencies produced an exhaustive report on interrogation called “Educing Information,” which concluded that there was no scientific proof whatsoever that harsh techniques worked. In fact, several of the experts involved in the study described the infliction of physical and psychological cruelty as outmoded, amateurish, and unreliable.
In confidential interviews, several of those with inside information about the NSA’s controversial Terrorist Surveillance Program have expressed similar disenchantment. As one of these former officials says of the ultrasecret program so furiously defended by David Addington, chief of staff and former counsel to Vice President Cheney, “It’s produced nothing.”
While the Bush administration can point proudly to its record of no terrorist attacks on America since 2001, its progress in bringing the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks to justice is less impressive. The administration certainly could claim a number of top al-Qaeda scalps. Yet as of June 2008, both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri remained at large. The government’s own statistics, meanwhile, showed that both the number of terrorist attacks around the world and the estimation of the threat posed by al-Qaeda were growing. According to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, issued in April 2006, “A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although still a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both numbers and geographical dispersion.” The report noted carefully, “If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.”
The war in Iraq, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and the deteriorating security situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan have all reportedly contributed to the radicalization of the Muslim world. But according to one former official who traveled extensively through the Middle East, no subject was described by Muslims he spoke with as more deeply disturbing than America’s abuse of the detainees. Eric Haseltine, the former top adviser on science and technology to the Director of National Intelligence, worries that prisoner abuse has profoundly hurt what he defines as the most important battle in the war on terror—the struggle to win the support of the next generation of Arab youth. “I came away from my many visits to the Middle East convinced there is a widespread belief that if America abuses prisoners then there can be no true freedom for anyone,” he said. “It seemed to me that our greatest sin in the eyes of Muslims was not invading the Middle East, or even our support of Israel: our greatest sin was robbing Muslims of hope.”
By many estimates, by the end of the Bush years, America’s reputation as a lead defender of democracy and human rights was in tatters. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, in June 2006 public opinion in two countries in the world supported the US war on terror—India and Russia. Meanwhile, corrupt and repressive states, including Egypt, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, have all justified their own brutality by citing America’s example. Egyptian President-for-Life Hosni Mubarak declared that the US treatment of detainees proved that “we were right from the beginning in using all means, including military tribunals, to combat terrorism.” Even the most dependable of US allies, including Germany, Denmark, and the European Union, by 2008 had all accused the US of violating internationally accepted standards for humane treatment and due process. Canada went so far as to place America on its official list of rogue countries that use torture.
The Bush administration’s controversial antiterrorism program had other unwelcome consequences as well. Seven years after the attacks of September 11, not a single terror suspect held outside of the US criminal court system had been tried. Of the 759 detainees acknowledged to have been held in Guantánamo, approximately 270 remained there, only a handful of whom had been charged. Among these, not a single “enemy combatant” had yet had the opportunity to cross-examine the government or see the evidence on which he was being held.
The military commission process was clearly plagued by problems to the point of dysfunction. One stalwart official after another has stepped forward with astounding accusations of impropriety. In a sworn statement in the spring of 2008, for example, the former top prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions disclosed that the Pentagon had pressured him to time “sexy” prosecutions for political advantage, and to use evidence against the detainees that he considered tainted by torture. After resigning in protest, the prosecutor, Air Force Colonel Morris Davis, also disclosed that when he suggested to William Haynes, the general counsel at the Pentagon, that a few acquittals might enhance Guantánamo’s reputation for fair treatment, as had been true of the war crimes trials of the Nazis in Nuremburg, Haynes was horrified. “We can’t have acquittals! We’ve got to have convictions!” Davis quoted the top Pentagon lawyer as saying. “If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off?”
As the FBI and other early critics had warned, the administration’s use of coercion to force confessions has created legal havoc. Impassioned disputes over the admissibility of evidence obtained through torture have crippled the administration’s efforts to prosecute many detainees. In May 2008, the Pentagon announced that it was dismissing charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the Saudi suspected of having been the “twentieth hijacker,” apparently because the inhumane treatment to which he had been subjected during his long interrogation in Guantánamo, all of which had been authorized by Rumsfeld, had destroyed the credibility of his confession, hopelessly tainting the case.
In one particularly poignant case in 2004, suspicions of torture caused a Marine Corps prosecutor to reluctantly drop charges against Mohamedou Ould Slahi, an alleged al-Qaeda leader in Guantánamo who was accused of helping the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attacks.
The prosecutor, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Couch, had been enlisted specifically because he had wanted to help bring justice for a friend who had been the co-pilot of United Flight 175, the second plane that al-Qaeda crashed into the World Trade Center. After he pieced together the record of torture techniques to which Slahi had been subjected, however, Couch, who is a devout Christian, could no longer continue the case in good conscience. “Here was somebody I thought was connected to 9/11,” Couch told The Wall Street Journal, “but in our zeal to get information, we had compromised our ability to prosecute him.”
In February 2008, the Bush administration announced its intention to bring capital murder charges against six detainees it said were linked to the September 11 attacks, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the taint of torture loomed over these prosecutions, too. Notably missing from the list of the accused was Abu Zubaydah, one of the detainees whose waterboarding sessions had been videotaped by the CIA. The CIA’s destruction of the videotapes, which was under criminal investigation by an outside counsel by May 2008, clearly jeopardized any future prosecution of these two figures, whom the administration had previously described as key al-Qaeda leaders.
Despite Bush’s vows to hold the perpetrators accountable after the publication of photos from Abu Ghraib, as of the spring of 2008 no senior Bush administration official had been prosecuted or removed from office in connection with the abuse of prisoners. By April 2006, the nongovernmental organization Human Rights Watch estimated that more than 600 US military and civilian personnel were involved in abusing more than 460 detainees. President Bush sporadically mentioned a wish to close Guantánamo, but since September 2006, six new detainees have been sent there, including two from unspecified CIA black sites. At the same time, the US prison at Bagram air base outside of Kabul was being expanded to hold some thousand prisoners, according to Human Rights Watch. If Bush or Cheney regretted the uncounted deaths, disappearances, and torment of prisoners in their administration’s custody, or the false intelligence and contaminated prosecutions that these tactics produced, they didn’t express it.
After some dozen internal investigations, mostly by the military, a number of low-ranking enlisted soldiers and officers were convicted or disciplined for prisoner abuse. But by design, the investigations were focused downward in the chain of command, not up to those who set the policy. As Major General Antonio Taguba told The New Yorker, his investigation of Abu Ghraib was limited to the military police below, not those above him. “I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority,” he said. “I was limited to a box.”
The CIA, meanwhile, quietly investigated seven or more allegedly mistaken renditions of innocent victims, and sent several homicide cases resulting from prisoner abuse to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, but not a single officer was charged. Instead, President Bush gave George Tenet, who presided over the creation of the CIA’s interrogation and detention program, the Medal of Freedom. One of the most flagrant instances of unjust treatment was the case of Khalid el-Masri, a German citizen who was falsely identified as a member of al-Qaeda with a similar name. Flown to Afghanistan, he was, he later said, tortured by the CIA. The female officer who pushed to keep Khaled el-Masri imprisoned in Afghanistan after his mistaken rendition was promoted to a top post handling sensitive matters in the Middle East. El-Masri, meanwhile, was denied the opportunity to bring a civil suit against the US government for his false imprisonment because the Bush administration succeeded in arguing that simply addressing the subject of rendition in a US court would violate national security. Back in Germany, he was reportedly beset by emotional problems.
By the last year of the Bush presidency, growing numbers of former administration insiders had abandoned the government with the conviction that in waging the war against terrorism, America had lost its way. Many had fought valiantly to right what they saw as a dangerously wrong turn. With Bush, Cheney, and Addington still firmly in power, it was hard to declare their efforts a success. Still, with change in the air, there was a sense that history might be on their side. Jack Goldsmith, the assistant attorney general who objected to the Justice Department memo allowing torture, moved to Boston to teach law at Harvard, where he was ironically greeted with protests because of his association with the Bush administration’s policies. Matthew Waxman who, as deputy assistant secretary of defense fought unsuccessfully to uphold the Geneva Conventions, moved to New York, where he, too, began to teach law, in his case at Columbia.
Alberto Mora, as general counsel of the US Navy, had campaigned within the Pentagon to end the coercive methods used at Guantánamo. He left the administration as a pariah in the eyes of some Pentagon colleagues but was given the John F. Kennedy Foundation’s Profiles in Courage Award in 2006 for speaking out. Most of the FBI agents who opposed “enhanced” interrogation techniques retired and joined private security firms, taking vast amounts of wisdom about Islamic terrorism with them.
In Charlottesville, Virginia, Phillip Zelikow, the director of the 9/11 Commission, who returned to teaching history at the University of Virginia, tried to take stock. In time, he predicted, the Bush administration’s descent into torture would be seen as akin to Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It happened, he believed, in much the same way, for many of the same reasons. As he put it, “Fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
110 Comments so far
Show AllCompliant Republicans, gutless and useless Democrats and corporate media which has been receiving its pay from owners who have a vested interest in war profits have served up my America to the Bush dogs of war. Anyone who still thinks that America is still blessed by God is completely insne or a fool.
Didn't hear anything about the supreme war crime that encompases all the rest? On a side note Obama mentioned in his press conference with the president of France a few days ago that SarKozy(mispelled?) came the USA in 2006 after being or before he was elected and visited just two American Senators....Obama and McCain. Gee, who really picks the candidates and winners?
Tom, I was comparing the actions of the governments. Don't think I mentioned the soldiers other than to say that all sides in war commit acts of barbarism that would make your stomach turn. In some cases the barbarism goes beyond what most people could tolerate (death camps), but all sides in WWII participated in terroristic acts, execution of pow's, sinking ships without regard to survivors. War is sometimes necessary, but the Great Man W.S. Churchill said of WWII that it should be known as the 'unnessary war'. It was certainly not necessary for bush to launch a war in Iraq, just as it wasn't necessary for Hitler to launch a war in Poland.
Churchill was asked once about the difference between submarines and u-boats, he said that U-boats were crewed by murderous thugs who sank our ships, submarines were crewed by our valiant sailors who sank theirs. At the end of the last war it was argued that the u-boat captains should be put on trial for their actions, the reason they weren't is that the USN did to the Japanese what the u-boats were unable to do to GB. For what it's worth, the GI's of WWII showed as much mercy to the Japanese soldiers as the Germans showed to the Russians (and vice versa of course).
I'll echo the thoughts of others, the most important lesson to be learned from the WWII is that _ANY_ nation, any group of people, at any time, can sink to the horror that was demonstrated by the Germans, the Empire of Japan, or the brutality of the allies. Yes, we were almost as brutal as the enemy.
Almost, at least we didn't execute all the Germans even though there were some who advocated that we ensure that the Germans never rose to the capability of launching another war. (that idea ended due to the threat of communism)
While Bush did not heed the advice of his political opponents, fellow Republicans, academia and foreign governments, he did listen to the corporate sector. In fact the corporate sector wrote the playbook and Bush continues to follow it to a tee much to the delight of Big Oil, defence contractors and every other benefactor from the illegal wars and occupations. 9-11 was nothing more than an excuse (and a poor one at that!) to emaciate a government that still clung on to that illusory phrase "for the people, by the people". A social safety net that included everything from our military and police down to our Medicare, social security and the needs of the poor, was replaced with an efficient mechanism in which government solely exists to tax the general public so as to provide corporate welfare on such a grand scale that history has no parallels.
The sophisticated, but crude propaganda that supports this national theft has permeated the MSM, our schools, our entertainment and even our daily bread to the extent that the general populace still believes that we're living in a functional democracy.
Both mainstream parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors at the expense of the needs of the electorate. Yet the author seems to miss the point when she says…
"Through four congressional election cycles and two presidential campaigns, there has been surprisingly little intelligent debate about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism."
The absence of debate is not surprising, but rather expected if you're in control. A dumbed-down population is in no mood to challenge the status quo, proof that corporate propaganda is quite effective at either hoodwinking the citizenry or silencing any criticism.
The only thing that is mildly surprising these days is that critical articles like this appears at all, but then again Ms. Mayer's readership pales in comparison to Fox News's audience, posing no serious threat to Mr. Bush or his puppet masters.
All this talk of torture is missing the point unless we examine the root of this problem. The culprit is an ideology of unfettered capitalism that trumps the needs of the many for the profits of a few. Only someone who wholly embraces this ideology has any chance of moving up the corporate ladder. On the other hand, any critics of this 'school of thought are marginalized or ignored. The result is a perpetual state of political ignorance by both the general public and the few who pull the strings. This author would have been more on point if she attacked the conditions required for such despicable acts rather than the acts themselves
George W Bush clearly intended to lie to the American People to defy NATO and wage this illegal war to be paid for exclusively by the American Taxpayers. Now trying to "Kick the Can down the Road" to escape the mess he has created. He is the Rogue son of George HW Bush who I voted for perhaps by being young and not understanding politics but after my education from University of Maine I know what I am and have more understanding. Obama 2008
It appears to me that our adoption of "coercive interrogation" stems from our SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP with Israel, where torture has been documented by Amnesty International for decades. See also: Alan Dershowitz on the "ticking bomb scenario" , wherein a Harvard Law Professor demonstrates legal cleverness by arguing from absurdity. He absolutely refreshes the definition of "shyster".
BLOWBACK
Jane Mayer is correct in recognizing that America's war on terrorism is actually increasing terrorism. People whose country is occupied illegally for self-serving purposes and whose family members or friends have been killed tend to support insurgents and hate their conqerors.
At the very core of this tragic "War on Terrorism" is that it is an amorphous, ambiguous, and empty concept because terrorism is not a country or a coherent group of people connected by geography. Terrorism is a method of warfare and frequently a response by people who feel outgunned to further their political cause. Possibly U.S. leaders should examine why there are terrorists.
http://www.stateofdarkness.com
Miftin, wife was born and raised in MT olivet. She and I have never been to any big wig university. We have been together since after high school. He family and my famikly are third generation farmers. NO, contrary to the beleif of some we are not related - so don't bother to ask. Anyway, my wife has made it a point to reveal all the boys she has dated and she never mentioned dating any arrogant out of state horse tooth jack asses by the name of miftin.
I would like to compliment the architects of the commentary discussion here - more and more I am finding that this dialogue is the most important part of articles posted and I think both the criticisms and the agreements with the article itself are on the whole well founded.
It does strike me that there is an attempt to rewrite history couched within the article, which also makes some very good points we would agree with, notwithstanding they are points we have already come to a consensus on. So I think that underlying revision is worthy of the most attention. I was particularly struck by the attempt to equate what Bush is doing with rendition and torture and illegal captivity to Roosevelt's internment camps. I agree with the early post that there is no legitimate comparison. The comparison I would make is to the Soviet Union's gulag archipelago (see Solzhenitsyn.) I suppose that the Soviet Union escaped retribution by being itself dissolved - is that going to be our fate? Is that the way a country restores its soul? Germany went through a period in which it was cut in half, and one might say that this mutilation also had something to do with the restoration of soul. Perhaps the Germans can tell us; it might be too early yet for the Russians to do so.
Just interposing a separate line of thought here, stimulated both by the article and the ensuing dialogue. Thank you all.
Such extreme measures were perhaps understandable in the panic-filled days and weeks immediately after September 11.
This isn't the first time we have had a terrorist attack. And it probably will not be the last. It is all a part of our modern world. American's might as well learn to accept it as part of being Israel's friend and benefactor. Admittedly the death toll wasn't as high from WTC #1 and Oklahoma City. These were terrorist attacks also. But, it is the first time at least 60 or 70% of the country lost their collective conscious and lost touch with reality due to an attack. We had a corrupt President who took full advantage of the fear to gain more power for himself. Who used that fear against his critics and any sane notion of going after bin laden the normal way. They were talked into invading Afghanistan that bankrupted the Soviet Union and will probably bankrupt us too. After that came Iraq a country who had nothing at all to do with 9/11. But, the point is most of the country were worked into a frenzy by unscrupulous people (Bush and Co) bent to gaining more power (which is why I don't hold that against politician's who voted for the war. A lot of people were sucked into the whirlpool). And all in the name of some phony 'war on terror' that anyone with a brain knew couldn't succeed from the beginning. Because terrorism is not a country it's an ideology. We will never succeed in fighting it until we figure out what it is and start fighting it. But, Bush hasn't for 7 long years now. He has just agitated and created more extremist's with his cocky rhetoric and ignorance. I think the whole country has lost it's soul. What we used to know as right is no longer right in Neocon's eyes. The problems won't be solved until American's reject their thinking and get back on track.
" By the measure that matters most, the Bush administration can point to its record in fighting terrorism as a success. There have been no terrorist attacks in America since September 11, 2001. "
wow, that's 7 years...
The first World Trade Center bombing occured in 1993...then there was an EIGHT year lull intil the next one ocurred in 2001...should we not give the credit for that to Bill Clinton, who SUCESSFULLY aprehended and procecuted the 1st WTC bomber in the exisitng US Criminal Justice system....
compared to THAT, Bush Jr. is a total failure....WHERE IS OSAMMA bin LADEN???
All Bush has done is torture and murder 100's of thousands of people who had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sept 11 /01, and make the USA a torture state that is reviled across the planet.
I guarrantee, the next terrorist attack that occurs in the USA will be seen by the world as JUSTICE.
native son-
yes, you are correct.. the US does not have a soul. or perhaps rather.. it has a soul that is damaged or wounded, and like an addict ( addiction a symptom rather than a cause- read: breaking open the head) it is lashing out in some unidentified need or pain.
What wound in the US collective needs healing? What is the deep collective need to punish and condemn? Does it come from the western religious paradigm that is deeply embedded in the psyche/ collective? is it the ancient wound of the convicts ( rejects) and second sons ( un-inherited that founded and built the US?
On the individual level, each person would benefit on asking- why does this make me angry? why do I want this person to pay/ suffer, etc.. retribution is not a solution.. just a reaction.. to .. something far more insidious and insubstantial that lies deep in the heart of the civilized soul.
much of it comes from the heirchical nature of western brain development. the indigenous perception is lateral, based on the brain not developing to read. Reading in fact changed the way, and areas of the brain processes information, from whole brain, to sequential and heirarchical. this is why marketing is so insidious.. it understands how to play on the whole brain.. which we do not generally use; therefore it has the advantage over us. As do politicians- who, face it.. are marketing to us. Wasn't it jackson browne who sang: they sell us everything from youth to religion, the same time they sell us our wars...?
we won't win a battle for a country's soul, by fighting.
paraphrase here of an enlightening story/ parable(?):
they play the game of " grab the neck".. where each one tries to grab the neck ( choke) the other person. But in fact they miss and grab their own neck and are only hurting themselves. perpetually trying to " get even".. The uncle says, only by forgiving can they end the game. jack replies,..." but that's not getting even."
" no, but it is getting free." ( -4rth tower of inverness; ZBS)
so- how can we apply this to ourselves and our country?
native son, i'd love to talk more, probably off-thread though. email/ im?
IMPEACH DUBYA AND DICKIE.
"Canada went so far as to place America on its official list of rogue countries that use torture."
Than how come Bush Jr, Cheeny, Rice etc have been allowed into Canada without being arrested????
I call upon my home country to uphold its tradition of justice, and stop bring Bush's bitch.
Regarding Marc's assertion that somehow the US isn't as bad in any way in comparison to Nazi Germany: this could be true except look at what the US did after the war with Project Paperclip when Nazi scientists and officers were brought over to the US to help in fighting the new "Cold War" against the USSR. Not all the war criminals were tried at Nuremburg, because some ended up working for the US, such as Reinhard Galen and Wherner Von Braun. Galen became the head of Interpol eventually.
It is also asserted that Hitler may have studied how Americans commited genocide against Native Peoples in getting a strategy together for the Final Solution.
You can come up with your own opinions about these assertions or facts, but all in all I would say that America today, with the Bush Administration and its destruction of the Bill of Rights, its "unitary executive" dictatorial un-constitutional rule, its use of the military to hold and render so-called terorist suspects and waging a war and occupation on a sovereign nation without just cause, is making history that in the long run will have students of history in the future (and presently) making comparisons of this country to some of the worst totalitarian states that have come and gone.
No, GwNorth it did not happen in Germany overnight, and it hasn't happened here overnight either.
Since the early eighties with the advent of the Gipper our human rights, our rights as citizens, have been slowly but steadily eroding. The fact that Clinton was a democrat did not stop him from helping the neocon movement along.
Now that we are starved for money at home, infrastructure falling apart, schools and the arts neglected, police turned into something that looks suspiciously like storm troopers, torture and murder defended as if it were a presidential prerogative, I'd say we were almost there.
In fact four more years should easily do it.
"…the Bush administration invoked the fear flowing from the attacks on September 11 to institute a policy of deliberate cruelty that would have been unthinkable on September 10."
UNTHINKABLE? Do Americans have mass memmory loss, are living in self-denial, or are all of you just incredibly stupid??
What the hell do you people think was going on in Central America from the 1800's right up to the 80's? a Freaking Tea Party?
Raping, torturing and murdering Catholic Nuns didn't seem all that "unthinkable " to Regan and Co.
Hell, you even have "The School of the Americas" to teach rape and torture to some of your favourite Foreign and domestic Right Wing lunatics.......stop kidding yourselves...the USA stopped being that "Beacon of Hope to the World" a LONG fucking time ago.
canuckchuck- ohyee
it has been a very long time since the US has been the " good guys".. have we ever really been the good guys? in .. it is probably time to closely re-examine our history. Have we ever truly been " the good guys"... ? What has motivated us/ US? who has ever really been calling the shots, and to what end?
What is the story behind the history?
This is the most depressing site I have ever stumbled onto. The fella that told me to give it a try must have been pulling my leg. Does everyone here go to therapy sessions mid week? Is there no positive news and opinions here? Phil Ghram might be right - not about the nation at large - but about this site... your guys are a bunch of whinnnnners. My God, have some faith in yourselves and work hard to make progressive?? changes. It never surprises me, whenever I talk to right of center folks (there are a ,ot of them here in KY) they always seem so happy and content. Not everything is going there way but on average they are OK even during the Clinton years. You guys need to get some backbone and ambition - stop all the crap about this that and the other thing are bad about the USA and advance the cause. Besides, you can tell me all the historical minusha ya want - who is to say your facts are right and mine or anyone elses are wrong. Just because you tell me your side of the story does not make it right. Maybe the historians on this site are trying to advance their own agenda?
Good question TeriD. I would love to know. Unfortunately it's not our government any more and George Inc. has decided it is not in his best interest for us to know.
project paperclip - now I have heard everything. Maybe we whould start looking at those folks as human beings. They strayed from the straight and narrow but were brought back into the flock. I forgive them as I hope you all can forgive me for my transgressions and failures in life - Lord knows there have been plenty! There have been plenty of German and Japanese leaders who in their youth did unspeakable things - yet they have, for the most part, become members of the human family once again. Why? We forgive them and ask that they forgive us. Omaha Beach is a mass grave filled with the blood and bone of young German men and young American men.
GwNorth July 27th, 2008 11:57 pm
Yoy seem to be confused about our incursions into Cambodia & Laos and who was doing the killing there. Vietnam was a place we shouldn't have been but it wasn't like Iraq. The Philipines? No argument there. We did some things that were not good. As to killing as many Phillipinos as the Japanese. Sorry. Didn't happen.
Iraq? No question. We attacked them with no provocation. But to even compare that with the Nazi's methods. is so historically inaccurate, what can I say.
"The lesson to be learned from Germany is that ANY nation can collapse towards such a state. No nation is immune to it."
No question about it. Though I hope that any other country that reached the depths of the Nazi's would still not be as bad.
I'd be glad to counter (if I can) any point by point argument that America is like Nazi Germany or that our methods, our soldiers and Marines are anything like them. Sweeping generalizations tend to obfuscate issues.
Make no mistake, we have plenty in our history to hang our heads about. But much more to be proud of. As to America being different than many other countries, of course we are. There isn't another country composed like ours. We are the most multi-racial coountry in the world. Both our strength and weakness.
Saying America isn't different and better than some countries would be like suggesting that all cultures have equal value's in all areas.
curmudgeon99 July 28th, 2008 12:02 am
I well understand the time frame but suggestions of comparing even the CIA an organization I long ago lost any respect to with the SS is too much.
It seems as if every time anything is mentioned about wars or fighting about 3 seconds later we have cries of Nazi's, murdering soldiers and Marines. There seems to be an almost pathalogical inability to seperate those who serve and those that are responsible for their presence where ever they are.
"Have you talked to VietNam era GIs who have some pretty horrific tales to tell? These are offset by others who prevented even more cases like My Lai."
Many times. I am one, two tours. Yes there were many other instances like Mai Lai that were prevented, there were also some others involving lesser numbers that happened from 60 to 72. I know of 2 for sure. No doubt.
My Dad who served on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Bougainville and a few other places confirms what you heard from your fathers friends. But he also said the same thing any combat vet from Viet Nam would say too. You haven't seen anythinhg till you have seen whaty the Japanese did. What Charles and the NVA did, especially to their own people. It was beyond description.
No disagreement on our imperfection, or about instances in our history. But even then (early1900's) the Boxer Rebellion gives you a perfect example of a difference even then. In my opinion at least.
NIETSCHZE/IDNEARTHE SEA: Good posts.
Interesting discussion, all the way.
TERI D: As to the wound you reference, don't you think apart from the focus on the logical sectors of the brain (to the diminishment of FEELINGS like empathy) the US history (a la Howard Zinn's reckoning) has a lot to do with this shadow the nation carries? There is also the economic factor, that war quite sadly makes a lot of $ for those inclined to profit from the countless lives brought to premature waste. It's best to recognize that events are the product of a sum of causes, so we get out of the habit of thinking there is ONE singular precipitating factor.
skippyagogo41 July 28th, 2008 1:00 am
"Tom, I was comparing the actions of the governments. Don't think I mentioned the soldiers other than to say that all sides in war commit acts of barbarism that would make your stomach turn."
Didn't think you did. In fact I think theres truth in everything you said. I would disagree that our Marines were anywhere close to the Nazi's treatment of the Russians. Though make no mistake about it, according to my father there were certainly times when they gave less quarter. Depended on the Japanese mostly.
Iwo Jima was by far the worst he said.
I am frankly puzzled by the hatred of America by some Americans. Maybe they haven't been anywhere else or seen very much of the world. I don't know. But if anyone thinks that we have or are now close to being like the Nazi's, I'd say they should study a bit more history.
Its sort of like speaking about wire tapping and comparing that with the Gestapo's unfettered authority. Sometimes I have a hard time making myself clear.
Pax
..................................................
"I guarrantee, the next terrorist attack that occurs in the USA will be seen by the world as JUSTICE."
Then the world is a sick place, not us.
ok, so what the fuck are we going to do about it?
elect a Bush clone? let the impeachment movement die for lack of public support? yes probably we will just write our little opinions here and think what honorable little boys and girls we are.
i am ashamed.
Thomas More..."Then the world is a sick place, not us."
We are the world.
Nothing exists.
Thomas More:
hatred of America by Americans?? I fear you misjudge shame and dissent with hatred. It is the LOVE of America that bring out the truth.
Study history?
What the Nazi's did in 1930, not 1940, is what is comparable to the Bush Administration. Thankfully we do have a Republic with some solid safeguards, one of which is vocal dissent.
Study History?
ok, lets ask the Shawnee, the Souix, the Arapahoe, the Navajo, et al about genocide. All the while extolling the virtue of Manifest Destiny.
That is History too.
To see only the good in America allows the evil to flourish in the dark.
>>No argument there. We did some things that were not good. As to killing as many Phillipinos as the Japanese. Sorry. Didn't happen
Are you so sure. Deaths in both incidents are estimates, but it estimated by multiple sources (You can do searches if you wish) that up to 1 million Filipinos died in the Philipine American war which is as many that are estimated to have been killed during the Japanese occupation.
Keep in mind as well the tactic the Americans used to defeat the "freedom fighters". They copied what the British had done in South Africa during the Boer war.
They burned down Villgaes and then rounded up men women and children and incarcerated them in Concentration camps.
There are also well docummented cases of your Governmnet experimenting on its citizens such as radioactive isotopes sprinkled on the breakfast cereal of Children.
This is comparable directly to the worst of the atrocities committed by the Germans.
I entered into a debate on another board where a suggested that if Pakistan proves ot be a threat to US troops the US Government should launch a massive Nuclear strike against that country and destroy it and everyone in it.
He rationalized this with the suggestion that it an appropiate response to a threat on US forces.
The point is there are people inside your Government and amongst your people who would act every bit as savagely as the Nazis if given the opportunity.
There is no American "exceptionalism". The Americans are not a people apart from the rest of the World, they are a part of the rest of the world.
Unless there are people who will point this out and are willing to point it out over all the "How dare you suggest such..." commentary, then it more likely that day will come.
Your country is on the brink of a serious economic collapse. One leader with "Charisma" suggesting that the fault lies with Arabs, or Mexicans or "Afghanis" or "Russians" , along with a further erosion of the sytsem of Governence that puts checks and balances on the Presidency....and yes you will have your own brownshirts running around kicking heads in.
Such as a blackwater.
pk
It is up to us as citizens of this great nation to make sure our politicians return us to a course of justice and human rights.
I don't agree that we always "get the government we deserve", but it is up to each and every one of us to change it!
Abraham Lincoln said it best: "The People are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow those who would pervert the Constitution."
If your "representatives" in Congress fail to listen to your demands for change and justice, throw their butts out and replace them with someone who WILL listen.
It is way past time to "clean House"... and the Senate!
blackfeather7
Nothing Exists.
George Wanker Bush and Fat Death Cheney definitely exist. The graveyards in Iraq and the USA are the proof. What no longer exists is the constitution, the rule of law, the common good, humility, etc. etc. etc. Eight years of stupidity, arrogance, blazing greed, swaggering truculence and pure, downright evil have completed the punkification of the USA. On to John McCain for the next thrilling chapter.
GwNorth July 28th, 2008 12:18 pm
The Isotopes story is akin to the reports of the syphilis infection of blacks I would suspect. But I don't have enough knowledge of this to dioscuss it intelligently.
There are various estimates yes. As to the number, its irrelevant, one was too many.
"The point is there are people inside your Government and amongst your people who would act every bit as savagely as the Nazis if given the opportunity."
No disagreement. Especially among our present group.
The fault with us at the moment is us. We don't need much help.
"There is no American "exceptionalism". The Americans are not a people apart from the rest of the World, they are a part of the rest of the world."
I would agree with this, but at the same time say to you that our country and culture is different than most. That ought to confuse things,
For myself, anyone is welcome anytime to suggest anything. I am at liberty of course if I disagree to tell them they are lost on a red planet. I learn lots from people I don't agree with once in a blue moon.
"Such as a blackwater"
This is a real worry. And much more dangerous than many think. At least thats my opinion. Marines coming back from Iraq are less than thrilled about these thugs. Not all are of course, but most are just that.
jrmart July 28th, 2008 11:56 am
I hope we are going to do something about this stuff. Start proposing some realistic goals. My hope anyway.
jrmart July 28th, 2008 12:05 pm
I'm very glad to hear it! Nothing wrong with shame and dissent. I could dissent all over the place with some of the stuff thats been going on and we have certainly allowed some things to be done that we should beashamed of. But some here have posted much more than that at times.
Sorry even Bush and Dick Vader aren't close to the Nazi's. Though given time I fully believe Dickie would make a very good imitation of Himmler.
Good points on our mistreatment of the tribes. But thats something that can't be rectified now. The same as slavery. It was a shameful period in the worlds history and our real shame is we didn't follow the British when they outlawed slavery. But once again, theres nothing to be done now. We've done all we can do to atone for it. Theres really nothing left to do.
Pax
Well, to paraphrase Albert Einstein, people who joyfully march in lockstep to militarism have already earned my contempt; they have been given a large brain by mistake when only a brain stem would suffice.
"He's a Muslim," exclaimed Bobby, a heavy set white man on a big Harley hog, "he's a god damn Muslim and he's going to get shot, you watch. He won't get my vote."
One would think Bobby was a racist but he gets along with the black folks in the community very well and voted for the only black candidate for sheriff in the county. He's a Christian, he says, but doesn't go to church, "they're too judgmental."
I've thought about the possibility of Obama being assassinated too but it seemed just too creepy for me to verbalize. It does make some sort of very dark sense, if you think about it. After 9/11 and the war criminality around all that anything is possible. We do live in a ruthless fascist state today, after all.
The Democrats are euphoric about their candidate, the first black man to win their nomination certainly is cause for some wide celebration. The euphoria is no surprise, of course, they were euphoric about John Kerry, an elite mumblebum. No matter what Obama says or does, or has said or has done, his Democrat disciples will make all the necessary excuses for him to keep him as high as possible on their pedestal. Listening to all this I can't help but feel I'm not alone in feeling like this kind of talk, and the media treatment of the Obama Campaign, is setting America up for another great fall.
Obama is being lauded as a hero, a champion, "the peace candidate," even a messiah ...and we know what happens to them. The same thing that happened to RFK, KING, RFK, Jesus, etc. etc.. Whether or not Obama is what his supporters imagine him to be, it is certainly not beyond the darkest corners of elite power to murder him in order to plunge the nation into yet another state of shock under which the elite's National Security State can implement the final solution to the problem of American democracy that has irked them for 200 years, finally crushing it. Is this why GW Bush is so cocky?
The Obama Campaign is not based on truth, its based on image sufficient for the drama to unfold. Is the organization behind Obama sufficient to carry on a movement without him? Perhaps it could be but it won't, because it isn't. Americans have been programmed to run to daddy government when something bad happens and do not see through the dark mask of those behind this evil murdering torturing empire. Despite those of us screaming there is an iceberg ahead the arrogant captains of middle management will stay the course, round up the dissenters, lock them up in Halliburton's camps all the while echoing the empty slogan, America Unite. Unite hell, wake up and fasten your seat belt, its going to be a rough ride.
Another source worth reading and mentions Jane Mayer:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195533/entry/2187178
RichM July 28th, 2008 12:37 pm
"Resolved: Women are Superior to Men,"
I'm going to tell my wife you said that!
First two paragraphs....fair comment. Thats one reason I put "point by point" in there. Clearly stated and generally what is happening.
"When you're criticizing the US role in different wars, it doesn't mean you're criticizing the soldiers who participated in those wars, or their families."
More than fair. But some here take great glee in the deaths of our serving troops, at least thats what they say. Some call them murderers which is comical. If we are speaking about various wars, I've got a lot to say about some of them myself.
I guess when people suggest that if someone is patriotic they must be a neocon, etc, that would be a specific hatred of America. But its not hard to tell who does.
I would certainly disagree about an Empire tbhat we don't have, but could have. Always will.
I would also disagree about some of your conclusions on WWl and ll, but as you say....far to complicated for this venue.
"Vietnam alone was the 2nd worst crime against humanity of the 20th century"
Maybe not.
"exceeded only by the Nazis."
Certainly not.
Hitler would have been wrong. We were dumb. We rebuilt Europe. We rebuilt Japan. We never looted the countries we conqured. If not for us Europe would be speaking Russian now. No propaganda, fact. Stalin wouldn't have hesitated.
I guess you could do revisionist history as Obama did in Berlin anbout the Berliners resisting the Russians and winning out. Ha!
But your main point is correct. We should all make sure we are speaking about the same thing and not go so far afield.
miftin July 28th, 2008 1:25 pm
How would you define militarism?
..................................................
This is a fairly good example of what you were talking about Rich.
how am I supposed to swallow a work where, again, even before the very first comma, 9-11 is attributed to the mythical 'al-Qaeda', and the Bush\Cheney follow-up viewed as a bizarre reaction in the face of overwhelming opposition and sense, rather than both acts being seen as a premeditated one-two punch by Bush\Cheney to get control of America's military, judicial, legislative and every other branch...I can't...does anyone think anymore?
Militarism is the opposite of art. It is institutional violence unquestioned. Art gives rise to individual life while militarism gives rise to collective death.
miftin July 28th, 2008 6:36 pm
So you are not speaking of the military per se, or military service but of a militaristic society? For example the Spartans or North Korea.
>>The Isotopes story is akin to the reports of the syphilis infection of blacks I would suspect. But I don't have enough knowledge of this to dioscuss it intelligently
Actually no it is quite true just as the CIA mindcontrol experiments on mental patients is quite true.
Not only did they feed children radioactive isotopes but they injected people directly with Plutonium.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/5/plutonium_files_how_the_u_s
The us also had a program of eugenics in the 1920's and 1930's on which the nazis based many of their own eugencis programs. The US system was the model for the Nazis.
The United States was the first country in the world to practice forcible strerilization in order to improve the gene pool. It was not thousands...or tens of thousands..there were hundreds of thousands sterilized.
The doctors behind this move in the United States spoke openly of creating a master race, clean of all undesirable genes.
The supreme court ruled it was LEGAL for the Governmnet to do this.
Nutty scientists live everywhere.
pk
It was an Albert Einstein quote paraphrased, and he was talking about marching in lockstep to martial music and killing under the cloak of war as nothing short of murder. As a life-long socialist, Einstein also mentioned that he'd rather be torn apart by wild animals than take part in so base an action as war. So you can take this as you may. After all, unless your government uses an all mercenary private military of foreign nationals, you pretty much need a militarized populace. Or at the very least, a populace that accords respect to military ideals, that is, destruction of life and property through organized violence.
This thread is a good example of "Why We're Losing the Ability to Think".
i still think miftin is a horse toothed jack ass and a money faced stinky foul mouthed booey
and he does not wipe properly, look at his fingers they look like mustard but don't smell like mustard
and miftin, thank god einstein left germany before they shoved him in an oven. another example of pacifists hiding behind.... you know the rest mustard fingers
wash those fingers and your buttocks tonight miftin. maybe then you will get laid and relax a little bit... floss too young man.
Thomas More - So then what is your view of human nature? I think our problem here is with the idea of American exceptionalism - that somehow our frontier soldiers exterminating indigenous people has a more acceptable moral flavor than Nazis exterminating Gypsies and Jews. Is it the American constitution, American multiculturism, our food, our water, that makes American atrocities not comparable to the atrocities of others? Is there a right and a wrong way to hack people to pieces? Are we really a better species of human being on this continent? Has our system of government penetrated our DNA and made us and our children immune to the nastiness that infects foreigners? How does this work exactly? On the face of it, you would think that human nature is pretty much the same everywhere. The reason we are so worried about the legitimizing of torture and the drift of our society into ignorance and paranoia is that young Americans are no different from young Germans and young Japanese. When we should be scared is when we think there are no dark imps inside us urging us to kick out the stops and become monsters. What exactly is the distinction between us and the NVA that explains why we behave better, and what is the point of believing that we are protected from becoming devils by some magic pill that make "us" better than "them?" I think that if we were repelling a foreign invasion, as were the NVA, we would be fairly ruthless as well.
marc - I take back the part about you being a smart guy. Please drift downstream.
Attempting to continue the comparison between the Nazis and Allied powers in Europe--
There's a relatively obscure 2005 book called "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe" by Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.
At the close of WWII, CIA and MI6 recruited and trained thousands of former SS officers and troops while augmenting their ranks with European fascists to establish a sophisticated network of underground terrorist cells throughout Europe, Scandinavia and Turkey. This Operation Gladio was supposedly established as a hedge against a possible USSR invasion of Western Europe, but in reality this was a terrorist operation in which operatives planted and detonated bombs in heavily-populated civilian areas as false-flag operations blamed on leftists for the purpose of consolidating greater and greater power in the hands of far-right governments and the police.
dear site moderator:
i am sincerely curious to know what it was about my second comment to have it still awaiting approval after 24 hours. i might assume it would be a matter of it's content and/or links. i have no criticism with the site's policies, mind you, nor plan on contesting them, but the curiosity of it is strong. if it's worth anything to inform me and if you can spare the moment, please do feel free to email me. i am on the site's maillist. thank you.
john farwell
okc, ok