CommonPrejudice

Better Them Than Us

Last week I addressed the issue of American exceptionalism, especially in regards to torture. I was responding to an argument by Glenn Grenwald (one of the better bloggers out there btw) that somehow it was worse when a nation begins to torture its own citizen. I found his position that each country has rights it bestows to its own citizens which it does not to foreigners thoroughly unconvincing, as of course human rights override citizens' rights. His other point - that by enacting this type of legislation the government receives a form of tyrannical power - I  found to be more convincing. However because so many only react hostilely when the outrage in question starts to be felt at home and that those who condemn the fact that the government is doing it to its own people rarely spell it out in terms of power dynamics I rejected this argument as well.

Taking this one step further and relating to the silly proposition of Bush and his legion of cattle that we are fighting 'them' over there so we don't fight 'them' here (anyone with some sense can clearly see it is not an either/or situation) I want to point to another danger of exceptionalism.

There are over a half a million dead - over a half a god damn million dead - in Iraq because they are 'fighting them over there.' And people like Senator "Man on Dog" Santorum are still trying to sell Americans on the idea (with childlike references to the "Eye of Mordor) that it is safer in America because of the fighting going on in Iraq.

I would like to ask Santorum if he believes the Iraqis are OK with the 'fighting them over there' strategy (Or for that matter, those in London, Madrid, Bali, Bombay, etc). Even if it were the case that Al Qeada couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time the U.S. has no goddamn right to inflict this kind of violence on another nation.

600 000 dead.

Progressives should never accept this attitude of American exceptionalism - that somehow gross violations of human rights and the very basic concept of justice are worse when they happen to their own citizenry precisely because it leads to this nonchalant attitude about mass killings of another people in a far away land by your elected leaders.

600 000 dead.

Exceptionalism

I would like to address the issue of American exceptionalism; actually more accurately the exceptionalism that is assumed by any citizen of a country in question. The reason American exceptionalism is forefront in this day and age is for two reasons; one being of course the enormous power their government has wielded the last century or two during in the carrying out of its foreign policy. The second reason is that for the first time much of the most ruthless acts the American government supported or undertook themselves in other nations (especially in Latin America) in the pursuit of  whatever geopolitical aim it had at the time, has found its way to the United States proper by virtue of the conduct of the Bush crime family. This includes unlawful confinement, spying on its citizens and torture. The other day Glen Glenwald posted on the distressing story of Jose Padilla's imprisonment and torture. Included in the post was the following:

The administration declared Padilla an "enemy combatant," put him in a military prison, and refused to charge him with any crime or even allow him access to a lawyer or anyone else. He stayed in a black hole, kept by his own government, for the next three-a-half-years with no charges of any kind ever asserted against him and with the administration insisting on the right to detain him (and any other American citizen) indefinitely -- all based solely on the secret, unchallengeable say-so of the President that he was an "enemy combatant."....

It is as profound a betrayal of the most core American political principles as one can fathom...

I emailed him the following question:

You make it sound like doing this to "an American citizen" is somehow worse (much worse by your tone) than doing it to anyone else. Do you believe that?

... I contend that it is only worse for you now because now it is happening in your backyard, whereas before it was only done in your name to people of other countries.

He responded (if somehow this is a breach of blogger ethics by posting his email response on my blog I apologize in advance, though as this is his position on the issue I don't feel it should be a problem)

Yes, I think it is worse for a government to torture its own citizens than others.  Every country gives rights to its citizens that it denies non-citizens - if I enter Canada, I can be deported summarily, but you cannot be.

And more importantly, when a government is able to abduct and imprison and torture its own citizens without any process, it bestows on it a tyrannical power that does not come from doing it to others.

Every single country in the world - now and in history - recognizes legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.  If you object to that principle, your complaint isn't with the Bush administration or the U.S., but with the very concept of the nation-state.

First, as I responded to him, this has precious little to do with citizen's rights as clearly torture and the unlawful confinement endured by Padilla is a violation of what are internationally recognized as human rights. I simply don't see what this has to do with the 'concept of the nation-state' as human rights supersede citizen's rights in a just world. I don't find that debatable frankly. However, it is the second point he makes that I want to address here. I tried to solicit a couple of opinions over at a post on Hullabaloo. Here are two replies that address the question directly:

morally, i completely agree - we ought to subscribe to the universality of human rights and go cold turkey on our "american exceptionalism/supremacy" addiction.

... but, i don't think that's what Glenn's point is (and i hope he will provide more of his thinking on this). from my perspective, a state is more dangerous when it tortures it's own citizens... not just to it's citizens, but also to the world. it's more than a sign that's there is an absence of constraint on state power.... it's a sign that the state considers it's own citizens the enemy.

- selise

and:

I agree with Selise (and, by extension, Glenn) while there is no moral justification for the torture of non-citizens, not to mention no benefit in procuring useful information, the torture of Americans steps over a somewhat brighter line...

Dave

But I also want to note this comment on the same thread before I make my case:

What kind of a person could get up every day for three years and eight months and accept it as his "job" to do this to a fellow American? And how many of them who did are still walking around?...

-melior

The issue here is that by torturing its own citizens a nation is "bestow[ing] on it a tyrannical power that does not come from doing it to others"  and that "a state is more dangerous when it tortures it's own citizens... not just to it's citizens, but also to the world. it's more than a sign that's there is an absence of constraint on state power."

First of all, it is almost always put in terms of it being especially bad because it is done to an American. Consider melior's comment. Is it easier to do for the torturer to do his job to an El Salvadorian or Guatemalan for instance? The horror that is exhibited by the Americans clearly relates to the idea that , 'goddamn, it's happening to us.' There is no appreciation of the more complex argument of Greenwald's that the problem is now the government has obtained more tyrannical power. It is simply horrid because it is an American citizen that is receiving the torture.

Nevertheless, is the case that it "bestows on it a tyrannical power that does not come from doing it to others?" Perhaps in the short term, but is this necessarily a bad thing if you accept, as selise does, "we ought to subscribe to the universality of human rights and go cold turkey on our "american exceptionalism/supremacy" addiction?" Let me use an economic analogy for a moment.

If anyone saw Lou Dobbs on the John Stewart show last night they may have been surprised. In promoting his new book on the war on the middle class in the United States he talked about how the middle class was shrinking, that unrestricted globalization was destroying the productive capacity of the country, its wages and the very nature of its economy, leading to stagnant wage growth amoung the workers and vast riches for the corporations who have taken control over government (yes Lou Dobbs!). Well, this is simply a pattern that has been going on for some time in most of the developing world, especially where the IMF has had the most influence, Latin America. In fact, for me it is quite amusing that someone like Dobbs is all of the sudden up in arms over an economic phenomenon that has been ongoing for several years and has created a tremendous underclass throughout much of the western hemisphere while producing incredible riches for a few. Is Argentina supposed to feel sympathy for the US's plight? These countries want more tariff reduction and more opening of the American market to compensate for what the IMF has been insisting that they do for decades.

So maybe now that the perils of absolute unrestricted free trade without concern for sustained economic development and the attainment of a reasonably egalitarian society (not by any means am I arguing for a version of a utopian socialism) is made obvious to likes of a right winger like Dobbs, can serious discussion, debate and negotiation begin on more just economic models.

Returning to the subject of torture, we must remember that is the United States that trained at the School of Americas the majority of the ruthless dictators that dominated South and Central America in the 1970's and 80's. They also kept many bloodthristy regimes afloat economically and militarily by the aid they supplied while thousands of Padillas rotted away in torture chambers and decayed cells, unknown and insignificant to the vast majority of Americans.

Now it has hit home and perhaps a few will make the connection - as Lou Dobbs did in terms of the economic model of neo-liberalism - that there are roots to this type of behaviour and thus while in the short run the Bush government may attain more power, soon and forever we will be able to repeat throughout the world the often heard cry in Argentina when they talk about the brutal dictatorship of the 1970's:

Never again.

Poco Mas de Huevos

Vamos companeros
Hay que poner poco mas de huevos
Estamos en la calle nuevamente
La dignidad del pueblo
No se vende
Se defiende.

The absolute lack of imagination and mind-numbing resignation by those who find the torture legislation an abomination truly amazes me. You have to support the lesser of two evils, the Democrats, they claim, because it is the only option in a two-party system.

But when, goddamn it, is the line in the sand crossed? Lying your country into war isn't enough? Spying on you isn't enough? Failing to respond as a city is destroyed doesn't cut it? Helping take the nation and the world to the brink of an environmental catastrophe either? Threatening to use nuclear weapons? ...no? and now codifying and legalizing torture and the disappearance of people? My god.

The Democrats are a party that can not even muster a unanimous stance against the governing party on a bill that legalizes torture for christ sakes. And those who have spoken out have taken forever to do it, talk about "difficult" decisions, what harm it will to do to their troops and the lack of effectiveness of the "technique."

There is only one issue here;  basic human decency.

So much over the years has been accomplished from outside the political system. Would now not be a good time to emulate Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement with civil disobedience and mass marches and protests? In the internet you've got the greatest mobilizing tool humankind has even known. And you just sit there and say that voting for the Democrats is your only option while you angrily write your blog posts, and your emails and your comments.

If there is something so important on TV, just TiVo it.

Don't Be So Mean

Just like true bullies, Faux News and the Bush crime family supporters run crying the moment someone pushes back. It is really rather astounding the reaction of the right to Bill Clinton's demolition of Bush spokesper...Faux journalist Chris Wallace.

"Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward – wagging his finger in my face – and then poking the notes I was holding – I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me," Wallace reportedly said....

Wallace told the website Clinton "said I had a smirk. Actually – it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."

No, we all saw it. It was a smirk, the smirk of someone who can only smirk when they are not prepared with facts or to be challenged in their assumptions.

And you'll notice one thing. The ranting right never give a scintilla of evidence contradicting what Clinton actually said. (You can check this post if you want some verification of what Clinton said while observing the lying Condi Rice in action). It's all about Clinton's anger and/or ego. A couple of the countless examples:

Bill Krystol, of the Weekly Standard, has a theory, that Bill Clinton’s “temper tantrum” in his interview with Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, was deliberate.

----------

Bubba boils over
Pundits’ tongues are wagging over a hot-tempered Bill Clinton interview during which a Fox News host asked Bubba to defend his record on Osama bin Laden. (Jessica Fargen-Boston Herald)

----------

Bill's bullying

    Lucianne Goldberg wonders why no one has mentioned the "trailer-trash socks," which revealed some skin from former President Bill Clinton in his bombastic weekend interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace.
    Talk-radio hosts noticed other things, though, and have suggested that Mr. Wallace file "assault and battery" charges against Mr. Clinton, who repeatedly poked at Mr. Wallace and his notes. -Jennifer Harper, Washington TImes

----------

...the most self-absorbed and narcissistic politicians ever to walk the face of this planet are Hillary and Billary Clinton  - Noel Sheppard

----------
(the ad from Fox, via Think Progress)

Oh please, Mr. President, don't be so mean.

But Clinton was right on virtually every aspect. As well, Clinton states that he was not informed that he would be questioned on his terrorist record. (I read the Fox original promo before the interview saying that President Clinton would be on to talk about his Global Initiative - nothing about his record as president - but I can't  find the link) Wallace says the interview was to be about the Global Initiative "and anything else that came up." It was, despite what Wallace claims now, clearly a trap that he thought he would cleverly  spring on Clinton. However, he was not ready for someone who would actually punch back, complete with factual backing. You see, journalists who are knowledgable and prepared don't work for Fox.

And obviously Clinton was right when he said that Fuax News does not confront Republicans with the same questions.

What did Fox expect; that Clinton would roll over like a neutered Alan Colmes? So if anyone wants to dispute the factual nature of the discussion or how Faux News continuously misleads its viewers, treating them - in the immortal words of Bob Somerby - like rubes while hosting shows for psychos who favour the destruction of American cities (O 'Reilly) or invite  raving lunatics who call for the blowing up of newspaper offices and the U.N. to speak (Coulter) I'd be glad to oblige.

Or you can simply do a search at Media Matters or Think Progress for any of the names of the so-called journalists and commentators at Fox - O'Reilly, Hume, Wallace, Hannity, Stossel - and you will find a mountain of evidence demonstrating their misleading, dense, dishonest ways. By the way, it's not a smear if it is the truth.

So a right wing who supports torture, has called for first strike nuclear attacks, labels anyone who disagrees a traitor, a supporter of terrorism or Islamofacism (whatever the hell that means) or far far worse now (all of which, of course, without a basis in fact) have their panties all up in a knot when someone is aggressive with them.  Boo - f***ing - hoo. Cry me a river.

Just Shut Up

The other day I was walking by some businesspeople downtown - they appeared to be the usual lot, you know accountants, lawyers, bank managers etc and I heard a couple of them remark on the current political situation and the Iraqi civil war.

I immediately thought, where do these "Wall Street" conservatives get off talking about politics. They have no right. I mean really, they should know their place, shut up and do business.

This is because Wall Street conservatives are  "largely, out of touch with reality and on the extreme fringe of politics. They seldom have anything of substance to say on an issue and seem interested in donning the mantel of "interested participant" more for the sake of looking intelligent than anything else."

On the odd chance that a wingnut is visiting this site the above was satire. What I actually heard this morning was some huckleberry on a local sports radio station note that while he feels Bush is a complete disaster (who sane wouldn't) he repeated that oft-stated nonsense of wishing Hollywood liberals would shut up.

I am so tired of this garbage. (btw googling "hollywood liberals" and "shut up" returns 11, 800 hits.) If you don't like what someone has to say, attack what they say. Don't give me this crap that some people are not entitled to speak out. In a celebrity obsessed culture like the United States one could certainly argue that for Hollywood personalities not to speak up could be deemed as shirking their societal obligations as rich and powerful citizens not beholden to the political status quo .

Perhaps Americans expect their famous people to be good little celebrities like Michael Jordan, make millions pimping for Nike while Nike exploited child labour throughout Asia. Now there is someone you can admire (I mean, could he light it up or what?).

This was from a report from 1999 (long after Jordan began making his millions promoting Nike)

Nike went into Pakistan, having full knowledge of the favorable conditions prevailing in terms of child labor and has taken no precautions whatsoever to prevent the use of child labor in the production of its soccer balls. Instead Nike has made a profit from its Pakistani contractors who inturn has used bonded child labor in the production process. Critically analyzing the situation, "Why Nike always land up in places having cheap or bonded labors or in places where it can easily get away with illegal labor practices?" Examples incude: Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Nike simply bases its operations on finding the lowest-cost labor to make its products.Twelve-year-old girls work in Indonesian sweatshops 70 hours a week making Nike shoes in unhealthy plants.

And as the report rightly concludes:

The basic truth about Nike is that its only real strength is its good name. Nike rules because of all the good things people associate with the company: sharp ads, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, little Penny, and Michael Jordan again. If "beaten workers" and "child labor" get added to that list, then Nike's greatest asset will be lost.

So I guess in the United States it is more admirable to be like Mike and make your millions quietly than to express concern where your country and where the world is headed. Yes I realize all of this is unfair.  In today's world I really should be focusing on Tiger Woods, shouldn't I?

(And what a surprise. It turns out that Sarandon, Robbins, Penn and the like were right about Iraq. Today the UPI is officially calling it a civil war - like there was any doubt)