Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Are All Torturers in America
As citizens' outrage over the torture memos heats up, and the US Congress is barraged with calls to appoint a special prosecutor, Americans may be about to commit an egregious miscarriage of justice. Republicans have now accused Democrats in Congress of having "blood on your hands too" in relation to the escalating calls to investigate. I would go further: not only do Congressional Democrats have blood on their hands - but so do we, the American people. And CIA agents may be about to be sacrificed to assuage their - and our - actual and associative guilt.
The suddenly urgent calls by our Congressional Democratic leaders, and even by many of the American people, to prosecute CIA operatives, military men and women and contractors who were certainly involved with, colluded in or turned a blind eye to torture are not only the height of hypocrisy, they are a form of unconscionable scapegoating. The scapegoating is political on the part of Congressional leaders, and psychological on the part of many Americans who are now "shocked" at what was done in their name.
Hello America, were you asleep for the past seven years? The fact that the Bush administration used torture has been the furthest thing from a secret. When the political winds were with the last administration, which framed qualms about torture as being soft on "the war on terror", just about every Congressional Democrat fell right into line to accept it, if not cheer it on. Even Hillary Clinton supported torture - right up through her presidential run. Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the torture in closed-door meetings. When activist groups and citizens called for a special prosecutor, all we heard from Congressional Democrats was how they did not wish to spend the political capital.
President Bush hid the torture in plain sight by championing it. Vice-President Cheney gave such explicit interviews about his role in directing the policy of torture that in legal terms, were there a prosecution, they would amount to a confession. Did the Congress that is now so piously calling for the investigation of rank-and-file agents and military personnel express their horror and outrage then? With a very few exceptions, they did not.
Since 2003 it has been fully documented by rights organisations, and accessible to anyone listening, that direct US policy for prisoners included electrodes on genitals, suffocation, hanging prisoners from bars by the wrists, beatings, concealed murders, sexual assault threats, sexual humiliation and forced nudity, which is considered a sex crime in warfare, international and domestic law. Many voices, from Jane Mayer's to Michael Ratner's to Jameel Jaffer's to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, made similar documented charges. Did our leaders call for investigations? They barely even called for a moment's consideration; tolerating torture - "tough tactics", "enhanced interrogations" in those demonic euphemisms - polled well; supporting it made them look tough in close elections; it was overwhelmingly OK with them.
And may we please look in the mirror, for the sake of our own moral health? How many Americans spoke up when it was chic to thrill to the sadistic soundbite of "take the gloves off"? How many watched 24 without a murmur when the mass consensus was that it was OK - no, patriotic - to waterboard a bit? How many of us (as in civilised societies everywhere when a wind of barbarism is set free) actually thrilled to the sadistic (and sometimes sexually sadistic) soundbites that came out of the Bush communications office: the "special sauce", the "belly slap", the phrase "we have our methods"?
So now the political and cultural winds have shifted. The members of Congress in their courage are now starting to call for investigations. Whom should they investigate? Well, in an ideal world, themselves: by knowing about and colluding with a declared and documented series of crimes, they are legally accessories to those crimes. So there is an element of cover-your-back in Congress finding its high dudgeon at last and pointing the accusing finger at subordinates in the CIA who obeyed orders that Congressional leaders helped to sustain as a mockery of domestic and international law, and as daily, appalling practice.
So we should call for retired General James Cullen's solution. A former military prosecutor, he has been at the forefront of calling for accountability - but the right kind. He urges us to indemnify those lower down the chain of command to get their testimonies, so they implicate the ringleaders; and then the only people who should be prosecuted are, as at Nuremberg, those who directed otherwise honorable men and women to commit crimes - the lawyers, and those who are on record as having given the orders: Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush himself. Lay the guilt where it belongs: on Congress; most particularly, and legally, on the leadership that directed this policy; and, emotionally and morally, on our complicit American selves.
- Posted in
173 Comments so far
Show AllAt least MY conscience is clear. I raised my voice in protest when then advisor Gonzo first pronounced the Geneva Conventions were "quaint".
I have consistently been opposed to Bush/Cheney war crimes from the beginning, from the trumped up hysteria leading up to the Iraq war to torture.
Only now, several years late, and tens of billions of dollars short, is America finding its collective outrage and shame.
Uncle Ho - many of us share your history of dissent. I clearly remember sitting with my 11 year-old son in 2003 and watching the anti-war protests in C-SPAN. I pointed out to him the differences in what the 'protestors' were saying compared to the lies of the Bush Admin. It wasn't that difficult. Sadly for much of America and the world - many couldn't find time to search for the truth.
Unfortunately, we need critical mass of about 15,000,000 to march on DC to let them know we are serious and put the fear of Gawd into their feeble minds. We can't even get one tenth of that number to get up off their butts....a very sad testimony...
Any system of government requires some form of leadership...be it the corporations dictating to the leaders or the leaders dictating to the means of production. In the end, they all seem to succumb to greed and power. Genetically, we have simply not progressed far enough to create a society that benefits everyone.
My friend, who said I gave up? Check some of my other posts. Hey, I'm the old guy telling everyone to hang in there. Genetics are genetics. Personally, all I may try to do is improve upon my own make-up.
No problem...I'll take all the encouragement I can get. I live in the southern part of the bible belt, so you may believe I get no support here....or at least very rarely.
Old Red Tide will not wash, too many deluges of blood on that old dogmatic red flag! Stop goose-stepping, try thinking...
Naomi now needs to write a sequel to this article admonishing the US electorate to condemn Snobama and the seven insiders for their ongoing looting of the US Treasury to juice the corrupt financial industry (insurance companies included), with special emphasis on Obama's refusal to consider single-payer medical insurance.
Although Bush Regime torture was a heinous crime, global human suffering and environmental damage resulting from Obama's economic policies exceed the damage done by Bush Regime torture.
I do not know about the rest of America but 99.9% of the people on CD want Bush et.al.
What Americans outside of Congress want the small fry?
The only road to any satisfaction regarding this issue may be a national referendum. Let the people decide who to indict and prosecute. But, remember if we decide to prosecute the person who actually performed the torture, we must also indict and punish ourselves for indifference and lack of action....SOMEHOW!......
How about wording the referendum along these lines:
(this would, of course, be done with a printed paper ballot)
Other than prosecuting all the officials within the United States government responsible for condoning, formulating and initiating a policy of torture, should the persons responsible for acually performing the torture be prosecuted?
Yes_______.....No________
For anyone to even think that the USA has ever lived up to its creed would either be foolish, stupid, or part of the "great game".
The USA has always been exactly what it is now.
A fraud that history will treat as a horrible example.
It was a good idea though, perhaps humanity was just not ready for it.
Most human beings are simply "talking Chimpanzees"--------some have less to say that others, some have more to hear than others, some are simply dangerous to themselves, some are extremely dangerous to the others.
Most are parasites who simply feed off the others, while the others allow them to feed.
Good Luck Humanity, if the USA was the best you could come up with after over ten thousand years of "civilization"----and the Americans have been saying that all along----then humanity has little hope ahead for the future, and will never be able to make amends for the past.
I think you make the most VALID point.
Those that are only getting it now are the same people who have always been in denial about Americas past. They are the same ones who do not believe the US did anything wrong when dropping Nuclear bombs on Japan, or who had never heard of the Moros Rebellion and the ruthless measures used by Americans against Filipinos.
There ARE those on these boards and elsewhere who were calling torture what it was when it was happening 6 years ago.
They tend to be the ones that have least bought into the "white Hat" myth.
They are the ones that get banned every few months, too.
Odd, ain't it?
The support for torture includes many on this website when they supported candidates (Obama and Hillary)who promised to increase the military, not immediately withdraw from the middle east, and support Israel, which means torture, terrorism and injustice.
Is supporting someone who is doing 'less' torture something that should be supportable?
I chose not to support any candidate that supports torture (or fails to hold those accountable who do so, injustice), the corporate military complex. Yes, my vote may not be going for someone who is winnable, but neither is it going to someone who is allowing torture, injustice, and continued support for the current system of supporting the corporate elite at the expense of the common good.
Thank you for your vote against torture NotOneMore.
Yes, thank you Naomi and CD's for this article. It is exactly what I have felt and been saying for years. As I just posted in another thread, if there is not a host, a virus doesn't find expression!!! In this case, the virus is not microscopic. There were plenty of people shouting foul loud and clear for years. Silence is complicity.
I'm not sure you got the point of Ms. Wolf's article. In saying that we are all torturers, she implies not only that is silence complicity, but that even protest is complicity. Put that on a bumper sticker: "Protest is complicity!"
According to Ms. Wolf and similar apologists, even those who "shouted foul loud and clear for years" are guilty. The technique of insisting that everyone is guilty is a typical rhetorical trick used by apologists for criminal behavior.
John,
Hi. I am not sure you get, actually, the point of my post, which was to say that I agree with Ms. Wolf's assessment that everyone who allowed the torture to continue - by doing or saying nothing - is complicit. I did not see, even after re-reading her article after reading your comment, where she "implies" or states, either directly or indirectly, that "protest is complicity".
She speaks of the many people (including the citizenry) and institutions (so to speak) that were informed and did nothing to stop it, but nowhere does she say that those who spoke up or protested were complicit.
You stated; "The technique of insisting that everyone is guilty is a typical rhetorical trick used by apologists for criminal behavior."
It would seem that this is, in fact, a "rhetorical trick" used by you, to twist the facts and re-direct the truth, in this particular situation, and is done so by your own use of the very words "typical rhetorical trick" without explanation, by your use of the label "apologists", which you use twice, and by your very own implication that, in fact, the "apologists" are the ones committing the "criminal behavior" via the association of the two when following your thread of logic - as in; the only logical reason an "apologist" (or anyone) would use a "trick" to assign blanket guilt to everyone (which would therefore include the "apologist"s themselves) would be to dilute and re-assign their own guilt onto others, lest they themselves be solely responsible. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense.
If I am misunderstanding what you are saying, please feel free to enlighten me.
Spuds
Spuds:
You wrote: "I did not see, even after re-reading her article after reading your comment, where she 'implies' or states, either directly or indirectly, that 'protest is complicity'." and "nowhere does she say that those who spoke up or protested were complicit." The very title of her article, "We are all torturers in America", directly implicates everyone in the U.S.
You also referred to my "own use of the very words 'typical rhetorical trick' without explanation." It's true that I did not explain my motivation for using that phrase. I try to keep my postings succinct, but since you asked for clarification, I'll try to clarify what I meant. Ms. Wolf's argument reminded me of similar arguments that I've heard or read of in the past, and in each case, it seemed clear to me that the person using the "we're all guilty or complicit" argument was doing so for selfish reasons. One example is a stock broker (as I recall) quoted in a newspaper article about 9/11 who said "the first thing we all thought when we saw the planes hit the buildings was 'how can I profit from this?'" That, to me, was a horrifyingly selfish sentiment, and his attempt to extrapolate his selfishness to others seemed to be a psychological defense mechanism invoked to assuage his own guilt. Another example is the excuse commonly offered by politicians and business leaders after a calamity that "no one could have foreseen this." That excuse was used after 9/11, Katrina, the subprime mortage debacle, and in many other cases. And in each case, there were many people who had foreseen and warned about the problem. Once again, it's clear to me that those using this excuse, which is a variant of the "we're all guilty" excuse, were doing so for to avoid blame. So, I called this kind of excuse typical because I've seen it used so often, and I called it a rhetorical trick because I believe that those who make such excuses are usually being disingenuous.
Finally, you concluded that I believe that "the only logical reason an 'apologist' (or anyone) would use a 'trick' to assign blanket guilt to everyone (which would therefore include the 'apologists' themselves) would be to dilute and re-assign their own guilt onto others, lest they themselves be solely responsible." I do think that's one reason people use such excuses, but I don't think it's the only one, and on the issue of torture, I don't consider Naomi Wolf to be guilty in any way, so I wouldn't have attributed such a motivation to her. It's possible that she sincerely believes her argument, but as I wrote in another posting, it's also possible that Ms. Wolf may have been promised something in return for supporting Obama's approach to this issue, or she may simply be sensing which way the wind is blowing and choosing the side that she thinks will land her in good stead with the Obama administration and its supporters.
John,
I appreciate your considerate response. Thank you.
I guess, for me at least, the use of "we are all" in the title doesn't mean, nor was it supposed to mean, that we are all torturers in absolute or literal terms. I'd guess it was a slight exaggeration, intended to push the pendulum far in the direction of everyone being responsible, to greater and lesser degrees obviously, but not literally 100 percent. I accept slight exaggerations such as that, especially considering that by far the majority of Americans didn't say or do anything. Exaggeration is an accepted "rhetorical" tool and has it's place. I think to disallow for what to me was the obvious - that it was a slight exaggeration - and thereby redefine her meaning is a little strict.
Technically, you are correct, but I just don't take it that literally and I believe exaggeration is an acceptable tool in some circumstances, this being one of them. Everything is not so cut and dry. But I get your point. Thanks.
Spuds
Naomi Wolf is so right! Even today, I am ashamed to admit that several of my friends are perfectly comfortable with torture committed in their name. Yes, most of them are "christians", but so goes the world.
Like Uncle Ho and many more, those of us who objected from the start can at least sleep with a clear conscience.
How the morally contemptible in congress react will be discovered sooner or later.
Ya git what ya vote for! They represent the people and if they conduct themselves criminally and we continue to allow it, then we are criminals as well. Most of congress and the Bush/Cheney cabal are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and a large part of the population are guilty for not having done anything while the crimes were being committed because most everyone new that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The rest is a horrible story of murder and torture! Now the game is to continue to murder and torture and steal the wealth from the people so that they will be completely disempowered and won't have time or energy, because they will be too busy trying to survive, to press for accountability and justice for all these heinous crimes! The US and Israel are terrorist states!
I didn't get what I voted for. I got what I actively opposed.
Well said. But according to Naomi Wolf, you're as guilty as the rest, so stop trying to scapegoat those "honorable men and women" who tortured prisoners. She seems to be a Wolf in sheep's clothing.
Yep, and that complicity now sits with at least 95 percent more or less of the voting public.
Didn't Naomi vote for Obama? Is torture stopped now that Obama is president? I don't think so. It got shuffled around and the name changed and repackaged for his administration. That is why he and his will not prosecute that would incriminate the actions they are currently involved in.
In the United States we seldom hold our politicians accountable for their evil. But, let them do something stupid, like breaking into a campaign office or get a blow-job from an intern, then...you know the story. Overthrow democratically elected governments, murder people never convicted of a crime, that's OK, this is the USA and has been for a long time. Nothing will change.
Please do not become resigned....keep fighting the SOBs.
The only way I know to fight only gets me in trouble. I used to write lots of letters to my congressman and senators, then, I'm illegally busted by the feds for drugs - it was styptic powder used to stop bleeding after shaving, then, even before 9-11, traveling internationally was a hassle at every US airport and troubles renewing my passport. That is my history, though I've neither been indicted nor convicted of any crime and I volunteered for the military so long ago that I am technically considered a Vietnam-era veteran with an honorable discharge. I no longer believe in my existing government, though I respect our Bill of Rights as a great piece of literature. I do not trust my government, because of my experiences.
...no need to be conflicted about trust for the government. Although probably the majority of those employed by the government are decent people, overall, past a certain level, this is not your government, nor my government. There was a coup d'etat in 2000 which put an end to that, though it actually began much before. This is not our government, including the current manifestation. You know that, but unfortunately, too many refuse to look. I was fortunate enough to obtain a conscientious objector classification during Viet Nam, but until early 2003, I still would not have believed in the total depravity which I see now. Being clued into the truth about 9-11 brought everything into a sharp, painful focus. After years of head-scratching about why the quality of government and political leadership seemed to become ever more degraded and absurd, things started to make sense. I used to blame it mostly on "conservatives" or Republicans until I realized that the corporate/military shadow government was an equal-opportunity employer and "the banality of evil" took on a new significance. With her past connections with the Clinton administration, I think Naomi Wolf is still in the clutches of that left/right, Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative paradigm.
Dizi: I'll grant you the b.j. but that "breaking into a campaign office," if you mean Watergate, was in furtherance of a scheme to rig the election.
Rainborowe
A minor crime compared to some of Nixon's other antics.
While there is little doubt that Cheney is the real war criminal, as long as the sights are set on him, windbags like Rush Limbaugh will say it is just a partisan issue.
Therefore, we should go after the Democrats who knew about or authorized the torture first. The first action should be an organized push to hold Nancy Pelosi accountable for her actions. After all, she is technically no less guilty than Cheney. That way it is clear that it is not a partisan issue. Of course Cheney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, Bush, and the rest of the immoral gang will eventually have to be tried and convicted. Probably Kunicich will be the lone member of Congress left in power when it is all done.
From what I've heard, "technically" Pelosi and the other Dems/Repubs that made up the Gang of 4 were only advised about the program. That's very different from authorizing it, or even approving of it.
many of us have been loud and vocal about the bush crime syndicate, for many years. long before junior was even a governor.
silence as well as denial are complicit. lofty americans are not the only ones to blame.
if the international community fails to come forth, perhaps even leading the way, then it too is guilty. what a thing of beauty it would be to see our politicians, all of the them, held accountable on the international stage.
i'm with bystander, prosecute "off the table" Pelosi!
Right. But first let's each start by calling our OWN representative. Politely ask if they support a torture commission. Then, if they've been in office during the Bush years, ask if they intend to investigate their own implications as accessories to a CRIME!
Go Naomi Wolf!
She is right...sadly though, I've noticed on CD a LOT of moral high ground-
"A. I voted for Nader, the US sucks because of the morons who didn't."
"If you voted for Obama you voted for Evil, you are a murderer." See A, repeat.
Then personal attacks, ENDLESS ugly personal attacks. Maybe conflicted guilt explains it-my own personal attacker is LittleRedRick who works for the 200th biggest corporation in the US. We all may be torturers, some more than others though little red rick.
Like Jesus said, "You without sin, throw the first stone." So many without sin on CD. You can tell them by how ugly and personal their attacks FROM THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ARE. And by how they bear ZERO responsibility for anything.
We ALL live inside the skin of the beast, and when it drinks and feeds on the flesh of others which it does, so do we. It's just hard to admit. For some impossible. So they blame others. We are all torturers.
Shall we sink the ship?
"sadly though, I've noticed on CD a LOT of moral high ground"
What's so sad about the moral high ground? Isn't that what we're supposed to aspire to?
John Mitchell, Sir, moral high ground is admirable real estate.
But when the perception of it is used to facilitate throwing stones downhill, when the stones are thrown wrapped in hate, and or when the most vituperative stone throwers work for PG&E or the MIC, the moral high ground in fact becomes this-A place for cloaking oneself in false and undeserved robes.
In recent months Red Rick has personally attacked scores of DIFFERENT people, although myself by far the most. RR insults people with views unpopular on CD and drives most away. I have sure noticed that all the "progressives" on CD have said nothing. I know how different that would be if they were attacked. Shallow in my pov. I've told him and others not to insult others, but it is just s.o.p on CD.
Maybe some real deep thinker here on CD could extrapolate that "thinking" to the torture issue. I will help you all. "It is okay to insult and attack people I don't agree with. For others to attack what I don't like, therefore I choose to say nothing." Now keep going and you end up in Abu Ghraib.
azjoe:
I, for one, tend to ignore the threads that descend into bickering and personal attacks, and I don't always read every response. So you shouldn't conclude that a lack of complaints about another poster's personal attacks indicates support for or indifference to those attacks.
John Mitchell, thank you for your calm thought. CD has so much heart, soul, intellect. I appreciate your calm, and as always, your thoughtfullness.
I think you have written a very valuable comment here azjoe....though the whole attack/counter attack thing seems all smoke and mirrors.
We may all live inside the skin of the beast but the beast lives inside the universal soul body of light truth and love. That is hard to see when we look at life through the eyes of the beast and forget to believe in and reach for that greater life force that encompasses all.
Leea, your posts are always kind, seeking truth through the prism of light and love.
Women, and 1 out of 47 men, are kinder souls, more patient, not inclined to jealousy, pride or bragging, not selfish or easily angered. Not content with wrong but seeking truth. Patiently accepting, always trusting, in hope, always strong.
Plagiarist? Yes! But these petals of the Flower of Love are SO pretty!
Both Sides Now
According to Right Wing commentators like Tuker Carlson--"America's OK with torture," If he's right about this it woln't be long before it's used on us. I'm sure Congress and the Administration would be OK with that too if they thought their power was threatened.
"have I and others been warning that capitalism is murderous and criminal by nature?"
And by saying what is obviously false, most discount what you say.
If anything Communism or Socialism is what you claim capitalism is. The reason? Because both lend themselves so easily to dictatorship. Hiostory has a clear record of the reasults of all these systems.
Your first oint is correct though. You are not involved in Naomi's blanket condemnation, nor are the majority of our countrymen. Simply look at when waterboarding stopped. Think how many people believe it was ongoing.
It all goes back to the difference between Capitalism and Communism.
Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
While under Communism, it is just the other way around.
Sorry to RedTide, but this is not a cliche; it's a clever truism and it made me laugh for the first time at the end of a long day. Why do we have to label everything and act as if we all fit into one category or another? There are no pure government/economic systems but rather they all end up the same--the guys in power siphon off what they can, however they can, by doing whatever they can, from those without. It's just cloaked in different spin depending upon whose doing the pillaging.
Neither communism nor capitalism offers hope for the 70% proletariat, the common population; unless the Conservative Right-Wing Elite Capitalist EXTREMISTS are constitutionally regulated to ratios of profit that can't be changed when another administration comes into power, so that the Right-Wing won't be able to just take all the regulations off and take all the money. Workers should be paid enough to be able to buy those cars from the auto makers that are going broke. Unions should be promoted, instead of squashed down.
Currently, Right-Wing elite capitalists are using both communism and socialism for the Right-Wing of our government against the Left-Wing of our government, as they feel both communism and socialism are good for their corporate businesses, just not good for us, the 70% common population, the proletariat.
The left is actually 90% proletariat, but the upper 20% of the proletariat made themselves into a NEW CLASS and CULTURE starting with the Reagan administration that now only represent their 20% minority population, leaving 70% of the population unrepresented, which is why when the polls say we all want this or that to happen, it doesn't happen, just gets taken off the table. Representing their 20% all sounds the same in their rhetoric, sounds like they are representing you, but only the upper 20% of the proletariat is actually represented. They may represent us a bit if they thought we would actually march on them by the multi-millions, but they think we are all too stupid or too busy trying to survive or keep up with the Joneses to be bothered with marching on them. I expect when it gets bad enough, when more people have lost their jobs, maybe they will, but I fear the homeless are being falsely charged, found guilty and put in jail to avoid this type of consequence. There has been too many people laid off, who have lost their homes and everything but little word about what has happened to them, and there are actually too many to hide, unless they are jailed for whatever reason. Vagrancy is still a crime even if the government caused the vagrancy.
"Because both lend themselves so easily to dictatorship."
and most of the Americans fell for a Decidership.
RedTide, Your passion absolves you!
There is always a simple litmus test for me, "if everyone in the whole world was like so and so, what would the world be?" RT, if all shared your vision all would be good, rest well at night.
How could we have stopped it?
How could we not have?
Both are valid questions, Peace.