As I wrote previously:

We still wallow in our self-centerism and selfishness, while hypocritically congratulating ourselves at being "good guys" who walk on the bestest of moral high grounds.

Well, let us take a hard, painful look at what we truly are:

The increasing erosion of our constitutions, civil rights and democracies as they are being gradually subjugated by Authoritarian Security Surveillance States. The bloating no-fly lists and terrorist watch-lists. The continuing inhumane and barbaric renditions, "enhanced interrogations" and indefinite detentions - of children, teenagers and adults alike. The continuing standing of Military Commissions, which are nothing more than politically-driven, rigged, kangaroo courts. The seemingly unending wars of choice and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - both based on lies to justify a vengeance operation for 9/11 and the securing of foreign oil resources. The ever mounting toll of civilian deaths, displaced refugees and soldier casualties.

This is the overall state of things today with regards to our so-called "Western civilization" - especially with regards to the U.S.A., the U.K. and Canada.

Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

In other words:

We justify breaking laws, war crimes and atrocities because, goshdarnit, we're the good guys and therefore we only do what is necessary - and consequently we can do no wrong.

Nor can our friends do any wrong, because, you know, if we're the good guys, then so are our friends.

But all those who are not our friends, well ... they should be denounced and prosecuted for the same things that we are doing - but since we're the good guys, we can be excused because we are doing those things in good faith. So, there.

(...)

Then again, I should not be surprised that we claim to hold onto noble principles, and congratulate ourselves for this, yet nevertheless dismiss said principles whenever we feel threatened.

After all, are we not still in the habit of proudly claiming our adherence to high ideals while we summarily ignore them for the sake of convenience, of expediency?

(...)

Overall, such rank hypocrisy on our part, such repugnant self-delusions about our grandeur, our goodness, our moral high ground, borders on the pathological.

We have a long way to learn the simple truth that holding on to noble principles is worth nothing unless we steadfastly hold them closer to our hearts and minds whenever we are tempted to ignore them - regardless of the reasons, the justifications or the opportunities, to dismiss them.

Claiming the moral high ground means that you stay on said moral high ground - through thick and thin, through rain or shine, through beautiful or stormy weather.

In short: any justification to not prosecute war crimes is as fundamentally wrong morally as it is arrogantly callous and uncivilized - at the very least.

Besides - if you don't prosecute war crimes committed by some people, what standing do you have in prosecuting such crimes committed by others? And that is not taking into account that the direct consequence of such double standards provides anyone (specious) justifications/excuses aplenty to reject such proceedings.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ... twice over.

You know, folks - there is a word which describes such behavior accurately: incompetence.

(Cross-posted from APOV)

In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S. constitution, civil rights and human rights (i.e. military commissions, indiscriminate domestic spying, security sweep pre-emptive arrests, renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, etc.), including outsourcing of security and war efforts (Blackwater, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs. To whit:

(...) when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?

"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.

"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani.

"It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around" - Cernig is spot on with this reminder.

However, I would amend this truism to include security agencies alongside the military.

For indeed, remember this, as but one example? (emphasis added)

Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad (as apart of a national security or terrorism case) before (Foreign Affairs) consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.

Which made me conclude the following (emphasis added):

In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.

Without any outside oversight whatsoever.

Plain and simple.

(...) This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.

After 9/11, we have witnessed a gradual encroachment of security measures which have been eroding our rights of freedom and privacy - all the while either applauding such measures, or remaining indifferent to them, because They. Make. Us. Feel. Safe.

Same thing with regards to human rights overall - whereby too many folks out there actually approve of the use of torture.

What we are now witnessing is the gradual deferment of responsibilities of our governments towards security agencies and the military - with the same mind set of needing to feel secure, which in turn has elevated security and military entities as preeminent Saviors in which We Trust implicitly.

Even for law and order enforcement (meaning: martial law by any other way).

All aided, abetted and amplified by the all-too-eager, gung ho, subservient, approving, supportive, enthusiastic, complicit, propagandist, media.

Indeed, a sickening worship of all things authoritarian and/or military was gleefully on display at the RNC last September (for instance, whether it was about McCain, his wife or Palin, it was inevitably emphasised that either they have served, have as son currently serving and/or had a parent/grandparent who served during WWI, WWII or some othe conflict - the message being that they are from a "strong" bloodline of military service).

The DNC likewise delved into this theme, albeit to a much lesser extent - nevertheless, that a past parent of Obama served and Biden's son being deployed to Iraq were emphasised as well.

That is creeping and already well entrenched militarism for you - case in point:

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").

This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war.

Punditman likewise expressed herein his concerns last year over the same phenomenon apparently slowly sinking into Canada's own consciousness:

Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.

Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.

(...) Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?

Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.

Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?

(...) One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?

It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.

And that is without considering Harper's own drive to militarize Canada further. Peacekeeping? We Canadians apparently don't do that anymore:

(...) Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.

And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.

Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:

That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.

Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.

Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.

Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?

(...) The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively.

Indeed - for only through military might may one country be taken seriously.

Once again - it all goes back to the fact that Americans and Canadians are sill gripped by the all-encompassing fear of terrorism - which is used whenever convenient to further push more authoritarian security measures, increased militarization/military interventionism, or simply to win elections.

History has clearly shown that fear-driven radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, or any democracy, along with the slow erosion of the rule of constitutional law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crises, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of said republics/democracies - the fall of the Roman republic constituting an obvious, ancient example.

In other words:

Fear + Need for security + Erosion of the rule of Law + Religious fundamentalism + Militarism + Intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + Calls for a strong and powerful leader = A democracy facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.

And this little reminder of the 10 steps towards fascism:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2. Create a gulag;
3. Develop a thug caste;
4. Set up an internal surveillance system;
5. Harass citizens' groups;
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7. Target key individuals;
8. Control the press;
9. Dissent equals treason;
and 10. Suspend the rule of law.

All the necessary tools are already on hand.

As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It remains to be established whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to defer their entrusted powers and responsibilities to security agencies and the military.

We better wake up before it is too little, too late ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

The following exchange cristallizes the sheer insanity which is now prevailing over what passes as reason these days (h/t):

American News Project notes that in yesterday’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked Doug Feith if a 20-hour interrogation involving “hooding” and “removal of clothing” was “humane.” Feith hedged, curiously claiming that “removal of clothes is different from naked”:

NADLER: : Let me ask you. How could you force someone to be naked -

FEITH: It doesn’t say naked. It doesn’t say naked.

NADLER: Removal of clothing. Removal of clothing doesn’t mean naked?

FEITH: Removal of clothing is different from naked.

This, coming from that same Douglas Feith who has claimed to have championed a policy of respect for the Geneva conventions during his tenure in the White House (ri-ight).

Let's have another example (h/t):

The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a “valuable” purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

“I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture,” Ashcroft said, responding to questions from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

He added, “the Department of Justice has on a consistent basis over the last half-dozen years or so, over and over again in its evaluations, come to the conclusion that under the law in existence during my time as attorney general, waterboarding did not constitute torture.”

Waters asked Ashcroft whether such techniques would be regarded as “totally unacceptable and even criminal” if they were used on American soldiers. “Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces,” Ashcroft said …

Let's have more (h/t):

During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former Attorney General John Ashcroft falsely claimed that waterboarding has “consistently” been defined as “not torture” and refused to agree that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques — including waterboarding — on captured U.S. soldiers is “unacceptable” or “criminal.”

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Do you think that if these techniques were used on American soldiers that they would be totally unacceptable and even criminal? (…)

ASHCROFT: My job, as Attorney General, was to try and elicit from the experts and the best people in the Department definitions that comported with the statues enacted by the Congress and the Constitution of the United States. And those statutes have consistently been interpreted so as to say, by the definitions that, waterboarding, as described in the CIA’s request, is not torture.

Which in turn must be followed by this (h/t):

Today, during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention facilities. According to Issa, “we treated our hospital patients worse” than we treat al Qaeda detainees. Former attorney general John Ashcroft chimed in, joking that doctors “were poking needles into me”:

ISSA: It is sort of amazing that as a member of the permanent Select Intelligence Committee, I’ve never heard any allegation of any detainee being denied food or water for a week. It’s clear that we treated our hospital patients at times worse than al Qaeda.

ASCHROFT: What’s more, they were poking needles into me all the time time.

Now comes the logical outcome (h/t):

Appearing on Shepard Smith’s Fox News show yesterday, O’Reilly explained that he “held (the released footage of Rev. Jesse Jackson criticizing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) before an interview) back” because “it was not relevant to the general subject — one civil rights leader disparaging another, over policy.” Towards the end of the interview, Smith asked O’Reilly, “do we know who leaked it?” “No,” replied O’Reilly, adding that he would find out because he had “the waterboard over here”:

O’REILLY: So, we held it back, and then, some weasel got the whole thing, leaked it out to the internet, and here we are.

SMITH: Do we know who leaked it and what’s happened to that person?

O’REILLY: No, but I have the waterboard over here, and we have a couple of people that, you know, we’ll dunk. We’ll find out.

When Smith said, “we don’t allow torture here,” O’Reilly replied, “well, you talk to some of my guests.”

All of the above reminds me again of this:

(...) whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".

Indeed - Gitmo is really more like a boy scout camp than it is a prison camp. Why, it is practically Disney Land!

Not. At. All.

Nevertheless, there you have it. From first denying any torture, we've come to redefining torture as not torture, to trivializing it and, now, to make it a subject of asinine jokes.

Never mind the dirty little secrets that torture by the military is not really new, and that torture of detainees of the Global War on Terror(TM) began well before Bush and Co. decided to undertake the necessary legalese gymnastics in order to justify it "legally" after-the-fact,

And never mind that torture techniques currently being used (yes - torture is still going on) came from China, and that privatizing torture can be good business.

No, never mind all that because the new truthiness of the day is: torture is A-OK.

No wonder, then, that there are politicians who still think that torture techniques, such as those used in Gitmo or those revealed in Abu Ghraib, are nothing more than hazing pranks from some Fraternity.

No wonder, then, that U.S. politicians are doing their best to close down hearings on torture.

No wonder, then, that radio loudmouths can proudly say - and without any backlash whatsoever - that they would hang any lawyer doing their job in defending Gitmo detainees.

No wonder, then, that the President can claim with a straight face that critics of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and renditions are slandering America.

And it is no wonder, then, that Bush allies/emulators (like my Prime Douchebag of Canada) actually support implicitly the use of torture, by either mendacious denial or by using the same types of euphemisms, obfuscations and sleight-of-hand double-talking in doing so.

Once again, as I previously wrote:

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

All the while, we keep on ignoring the following simple, self-evident verity:

I also think of those dozens (hundreds?) who have been tortured over the years, thanks to the Bush administration's policy which has ever been supported - if not encouraged and staunchly defended - by pundits, lawyers, justices, politicians, warhawks, chickenhawks and all assorted fear- and hate-driven neocon enablers, supporters and apologists - including all those ostriches who would rather bury their heads in the sand rather than face the awful, ugly truth:

The U.S.A. has become a rogue state which practices indefinite detention and torture.

And who cares if some of those "evil Muslims" die in the process, right? After all, indefinite detentions, secret tribunals and enhanced interrogation techniques torture are valuable means and tools for the defense of freedom, liberty and democracy ...

(...) I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

Every single one of these fear- and hate-driven incompetents have pushed us from the moral high ground of justice, freedom and human rights into the bottomless precipice of barbarous and savage injustice.

And this other one:

That. Is. Justice. For. You.

All in the sacro-sanct name of Security.

Doesn't it make you feel so proud and patriotic?

God bless America and God bless Canada, f***ing indeed.

But the ugly truth is that all of us are guilty for our silence and absence of outrage. All of us have been irremediably stained for such a sociopathic lack of basic human decency, empathy, compassion and contrition.

In the meantime, the apparent majority of our fellow citizens either approve, remain complicit with their silence, just don't want to know, or simply don't care - as they are being conveniently distracted on a daily basis by the whims and vagaries of vapid and insipid (if not asinine) traditional media outlet accomplices (yet one more example here).

Thus I ask again:

(...) what does it say about a society where those who are the most pro-war and pro-torture can only change their minds after undergoing waterboarding?

I think it is now safe to say that the answer to that question is the following: simply read again the very first paragraph of this essay.

That is what "it says" about our societies.

Not entirely convinced? Then glance over these few headlines:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

FBI might use profiling in terror investigations (h/t);

Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names (h/t);

Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions (h/t);

CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list;

Prosecutor turned up on US terror watch list;

Torture and the rule of law;

RCMP slammed for storing secret files on Canadians (see also here);

CSIS keeping tabs on Olympic protesters (see also here);

U.K.: What do we do now? (see also here);

Homeland Security blocks voter drive (h/t)

Council used terror law to spy on fishermen;

Congressman still faces airport screening problem.

And I could go on and on and on and on.

If we can accept something so inhuman and barbaric as torture, and if furthermore we become so accepting/used of it that we can trivialize and even joke about it, then we can accept anything.

And so we have.

And frankly, I've used up all my outrage and my contempt on these matters. I wrote letters (newpapers, elected representatives), I've written blogs, I've been discussing this over and over in the public place (in RL) ...

Still, most people seem too self-absorbed, or too fearful of them "terrorists", or actually approve, or remain simply in denial, to be outraged or even give a damn about the slow destruction of our democratic principles, as well as our values of civil rights, human rights, human dignity and human respect.

And I - at least on this day - just don't know what to do about this anymore.

We have been losing ourselves since the day after 9/11.

Looks like we have crossed the threshold of ever being able to find ourselves again.

So we keep on riding fast and hard onto that road to perdition ... well beyond redemption.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

No wonder, then, that there are politicians who still think that torture techniques, such as those used in Gitmo or those revealed in Abu Ghraib, are nothing more than hazing pranks from some Fraternity.

No wonder, then, that G.O.P. Senators are trying their best to close down hearings on torture - if it's OK, why hold hearings about it, right?

No wonder, then, that radio loudmouths can proudly say - and without any backlash whatsoever - that they would hang any lawyer doing their job in defending Gitmo detainees.

No wonder, then, that the President can claim with a straight face that critics of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and rendition are slandering America.

And I could go on and on and on.

Words fail me.

44% - almost half of Americans - approve of torture.

This is what I wrote before:

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

I could also add this, this, this and that, as further cases in point.

Incidentally, I also wrote the following:

So - what exactly happened on the day after the fateful and tragic morning of 9/11?

We lost and the terrorists won.

Right there and then.

Whatever else has happened in the seven years which followed to this day merely constitutes the gradual and methodical enactment of the terms of our surrender.

No more, no less.

And here we are, with 44% of Americans who approve torture.

Again, words fail me - so I'll offer this instead:

I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassaillable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

Every single one of these fear- and hate-driven incompetents have pushed us from the moral high ground of justice, freedom and human rights into the bottomless precipice of barbarous and savage injustice.

In other words - I have naught but utter contempt for those uncivilized, primitive non-human beings.

Looks like my contempt now extends to nearly half of America.

So I say this in parting: cheer up, America! The road to perdition you have been fast driving upon over the last seven years or so is nearing its end at last.

Your descent towards the bottom of the dark pit of barbarous and savage injustice will soon be over.

Because you will have finally reached destination.

Congratulations on your full and complete capitulation.

And vive la civilization, eh?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended tough interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects approved by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, saying they were necessary to protect America from new attacks.

In her most extensive public comments about how the administration dealt with detainee interrogations in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, Rice insisted the methods of questioning complied with both U.S. law and treaty obligations.

But she acknowledged that those rules had since changed and that the United States was a "different place" then, adding that the administration's top priority at the time had been preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points.

"The fact is that after Sept. 11, whatever was legal in the face of not just the attacks of Sept. 11, but the anthrax attacks that happened, we were in an environment in which saving America from the next attack was paramount," Rice said.

"But even in that environment, President Bush made clear that we were going to live up to our obligations at home and to our treaty obligations abroad," she told an audience (...).

Rice noted that legal restrictions on the treatment of detainees had evolved significantly between 2002 and 2003, when administration officials had allowed harsh techniques, including one that some believe to be torture, and the passage in 2005 of the Detainee Treatment Act that prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"Now, there has been a long evolution in American policy about detainees and about interrogations," she said. "We now have in place a law that was not there in 2002 and 2003."

"So the ground is different now," she said.

Oh, really?

We have gone from due process, habeas corpus, the 4th amendment and upholding the Geneva Conventions, to extraordinary renditions, indefinite detentions, loss of habeas corpus, torture, military commissions and the shredding of the Geneva Conventions.

That is not "evolution", but rather devolution pure and simple - and having made all of these savage grotesqueries legal after the fact (or through signing statements) only cemented the reality of this rapidly downward spiraling fall to perdition and utter perversion of every single tenet of morality, civil liberties and human rights.

Regardless of whatever typical double-talk, double-thinking, legalese theorycrafting-in-an-echo-chamber Madam Rice offers and which, in essence, admits on the one hand "to Hell with the law and international conventions" while, simultaneously on the other, offering disassembling platitudes regarding the respect for laws and international conventions.

To this effect, there is one, single account on which Madam Rice spoke factually: the "ground" is indeed definitely different now than before 9/11.

Let me count the ways:

1) Extraordinary renditions: Yes, now that they have been exposed and decried, that should be the end of it and we all should move along, right? Well, how about some justice for all those who were victims of such barbarous crimes (like this guy, for instance, who got Canadian justice but not American justice)? How about some trials for the perpetrators of these same crimes, including those who devised and came up with such callous disregards for basic due process, justice and civility? Oh, right - they have all been exonerated by law after the fact and if any other country in the world should decide to do the right and just thing and put such bastards on trial, well ...

Regardless, if you think that extraordinary renditions are over and done with - then guess again ...

2) Indefinite detentions: thanks to the gutting of habeas corpus, these are legal now and, apparently, retroactively at that. Why, even children and teenagers ("child soldiers") are fair game (take this one, as but one example). And if you think only "terrorists" and "unlawful combatants" constitute the sole targets of such detentions, then guess again one more time (emphasis added):

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act — such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections— Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.

(...) While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners. Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.” In Section 950v, “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” “Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

(...) “Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’— American citizen or otherwise — who crosses some ill-defined line.”

And on a related note:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

U.S. residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war;

U.S. planning big new prison in Afghanistan.

Welcome to the land of liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... but don't you fret - apparently, being a detainee is pretty much like living in a frathouse ...

3) Torture: whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

4) Military tribunals: as pretty much anyone who deals with reality suspected, if not predicted, these tribunals are nothing more than rigged, show trials held behind closed doors. Military lawyers are pressured/harassed by their superiors to either prosecute maliciously or not defend their clients to the best of their abilities - and if they chose the high road, they will suffer the consequences. Even military judges are fair game to this effect.

And even if you are lucky enough to be finally cleared of all charges, you are either stranded as a "no land's man" or kept indefinitely as a "guest" nevertheless because, well, the Bush administration feels like it.

These tribunals are about getting results and giving way to political convenience. This is not due process and definitely not justice - this is all about the rule of whim of the moment.

Banana Republic, anyone?

And I am not even getting into the gutting of FISA and all that illegal domestic spying stuff - except to strongly suggest to those who still think that "it's all good and it can't be abused" to, well, guess yet again - I offer one small example to this effect.

So yes indeed - the "ground" is definitely different now than before 9/11: America, its constitution, its republic and its moral standing have become as ruined as the ashes, dust, rubble and metal scraps of the towers of the World Trade Center.

In this respect, I wrote the following recently:

I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

And yet, and yet ...

It. Was. Necessary.

I think we've been handed the perfect excuse to justify *anything*, thanks to Madam Rice - just let your imagination - or inner savage, rather - run wild with it.

Because that's what has been happening with regards to human decency and human rights over the last seven years or so.

Vive la civilization, eh?

In the end, all I can do is dare to hope that the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America, Sen. Barack Obama, will seize the moment and the time to unequivocally renounce again all these affronts to, and perversions of, justice and human rights - and consequently renew his pledge to right such immoral, inhumane wrongs once and for all.

To paraphrase what he has so eloquently said:

America, this is your moment. This is your time. Your time to turn the page on the policies of the past.

Now, that is something that is truly necessary ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)