Bush: "We do not torture"
...but we should have the option. At least, that seems to be the message the White House is sending out. Vice President Cheney wants Congress to exempt the CIA from the proposed torture ban, added as an amendment to a bill currently before Congress. Great. As is often the case with our current president, his words and actions immediately reminded me of a great passage of literature, which I will share with all of you now:
[Anne:]"Oh, no. I wouldn't want to marry anybody who was wicked, but I think I'd like it if he could be wicked and wouldn't...."
"You'll have more sense some day, I hope," said Marilla.
-Anne of the Island
And here is the real-life parallel:
"Cheney's camp says the United States does not torture captives, but believes the president needs nearly unfettered power to deal with terrorists to protect Americans." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9952038/
"Cheney told his audience the United States doesn’t engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9929724/
[Anne:]"Oh, no. I wouldn't want to marry anybody who was wicked, but I think I'd like it if he could be wicked and wouldn't...."
"You'll have more sense some day, I hope," said Marilla.
-Anne of the Island
And here is the real-life parallel:
"Cheney's camp says the United States does not torture captives, but believes the president needs nearly unfettered power to deal with terrorists to protect Americans." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9952038/
"Cheney told his audience the United States doesn’t engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9929724/
President Bush apparently wants the U.S. to be able to torture victims, but claims that we won't actually do it. Maybe. Is this supposed to be morally praiseworthy?
He'll have more sense some day, I hope.
In the meantime, I hope that approximately zero members of Congress are persuaded by this "the president needs unlimited power" bit. I never have been fond of the imperial presidency. It's been around for too long, and the Framers would be horrified. As would the first greatest George W. What self-respecting citizen of a democracy (or republic) thinks that giving ANY one person unlimited power for ANY reason is a good idea? Answer: one. The one who will get the power. This is true pretty much regardless of who this individual is. [Hang on to your hats, kids. I'm going to quote Lord Acton now.] "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I'll have more to say later (predictably), but for now I'll stop and wait to hear from the rest of you. What do you think about torture, the Administration, the war on terror, and this amendment?
posted by Joni at 11:28 AM
10 Comments:
Torture bad.
War good.
Amendment....lacking in sensibility.
I think that they should try to kill the moon out of orbit. And they should use a chain of titanium becuase it's really strong.
I am in complete agreement about killing the moon out of orbit (hard core), but as for your earlier comments, could you unpack that a little for me? ;)
I'll frame it like Abby :-)
Torture bad
War bad
Amendment . . . why the heck do they need an amendment to abide by the Geneva Convention anyway?
I don't see why this amendment is creating so much strife within the administration. GW has run on a the compassionate conservative plank all the way through. I fail to see how compassion is exercised by torturing prisoners (or even saying you want to option to). It would seem to be a no brainer to say, "sure, I'll abibe by an international treaty," especially when human dignity is at stake. I'm really starting to doubt the administration's commitment to the diginity of human life, despite the rhetoric about abortion, euthanasia etc. It's not about values anymore, it's politics. We well have lost (or maybe already have) this war on terror, when we start using the very tactics we despise.
I hope that is semi-coherent.
Oh, and I love the quote Joni. :-)
"Cheney's camp says the United States does not torture captives, but believes the president needs nearly unfettered power to deal with terrorists to protect Americans."
Hmmm . . . sounds like fascist-style nationalism, racism, and militarism to me. Scary.
Okay, so this comment is really long and rambling and I'm sorry about that. It's just that when Webster and I get together it's pretty exciting. Just like old times.
I think I need to respectfully disagree regarding Heather's reference to fascist-isms. (Although I'm certainly in total agreement with the "scary" part.) ;)
First of all, when I experienced some discomfort with the terms, I did the only thing there is to do in these situations: I asked Webster. He was extremely helpful, so I'm going to unpack some of that here...only I'm going to be lazy and copy and paste stuff from www.merriamwebster.com instead of typing it out myself. FYI.
So here goes nothing:
fascism: 1 : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
According to definition 1, we're talking about exalting nation or race above the individual. Which type of individual is unclear, because I think a theoretical case could be made that exalting a nation or race above an individual that is "other" could be different that exalting a nation or race above individuals who are considered members of the group in question. [Not that either of these is "better" than the other...they're just different.] But theory aside, does Cheney's statement genuinely advocate either of these things? Perhaps, if we agree that fascism involves exalting the nation over individuals who are "other" (in this case, terrorists). However, it is less clear that Cheney is interested in exalting the nation over individual Americans, at least as he expresses himself in this particular statement.
Before I get much farther I'll include the definitions for nationalism and racism, because those will be helpful here.
nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
racism: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Next question: is Cheney a nationalist? I think the answer has to be yes. He certainly thinks that promoting the interests of Americans is more important than the interests of other nations (that’s usually how you get elected to public office—self-interest and all that jazz), and he also believes that the interests of Americans are more important than supranational groups like terrorist organizations. But does this mean he is a fascist-nationalist?
If we look farther into definition 1 of fascism, I think the answer will be in the negative. We’re talking about a political philosophy that “stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” I’m not sure that’s a fair representation of what Cheney wants. He calls for nearly unfettered presidential power not generally, but in the specific circumstance of protecting Americans from terrorists. This may not be comforting, but I think it does insulate him from charges of fascism. That along with the fact that, as a Republican, he REALLY doesn’t like economic and social regimentation. I think I’ll let the last point lie….
Now, is Cheney a racist? I think not, under either definition. Such a label definitely cannot be derived from his statement, because “American” is not, nor (to my knowledge) has it ever been a racial designation. It is certainly a national designation, but we’ve already covered that. In addition, “terrorist” is not a racial label. I know that the terrorists we generally hear about on TV adhere to Islam, and I know that many folks of Arab descent adhere to Islam. However, not all Muslims are Arabs. Not even close. And not all alleged terrorists that have been apprehended thus far have been of a single race. So I think “racist” by itself is going too far, and “fascist-racist” just doesn’t apply.
And finally: militarism. Umm…I totally agree with Heather on this point. Cheney is a complete and utter militarist. Oh yeah, in keeping with tradition, here it is:
militarism: 1 a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals
2 : a policy of aggressive military preparedness
I really think this fits Cheney to a T, although I guess I’d still keep fascism out of it…. So maybe we could just say that he’s a nationalist-militarist, which I don’t think is particularly complimentary or particularly derogatory, but it does appear to be true. In any case, I still think we should ditch the imperial presidency at the earliest opportunity. Thoughts?
Okay -- perhaps I should stop posting now. I'm feeling like a bit of a blogspot moron.
WHAT??? Heather, you'll be a blogspot moron when I start eating mint.
Please pardon my obsession with my dictionary...your comment made me think through things in a new way, so I wanted to share what I learned. I hope you'll give me grace in not confusing my "thinking aloud" with having certainty about the meaning of lanuage! [Remember Derrida! ;)]
Joni,
You have mentioned the "imperial presidency" twice now: once in your original post, and once in your most recent comment. For those of us less versed in the history of the presidency, would you elaborate on what the "imperial presidency" is, and how it is different from what the authors of the constitution intended? It sounds like the "imperial presidency" means that the presidency now has more power than was ever intended, and maybe it is that simple. Are we talking about the difference between a proactive, powerful ruler and chief executive/presiding officer? I am sure that you can give us a much more concrete definition. (Keep in mind that your answer to this question may come up in Senate confirmation hearings if you are ever nominated to a federal judge position. :)
Right. Sorry, I'm dumb like that. The imperial presidency is usually thought to start about the time of FDR, and Nixon is held up as the prime example of an imperial president. It has to do with the growth of executive power, at least part of which is evidenced by the massive increase in folks who work in the West Wing. These people end up doing a lot of work for the president, and thus have a lot of influence, and none of them have to be okayed by Congress. Other (probably more significant) indicators are executive (rather than Congressional) agreements with foreign governments and the president adopting the practice of informing Congress about what's going on with the military instead of consulting (because Congressional declarations of war used to be important). One way of putting it might be that the balance of power has been upset and the executive branch landed on top.
Anyway, Reagan was also pretty fond of stretching the executive powers, as was Clinton (I've read some things that say he was as bad on that point as Nixon), and some say George W. Bush has stretched them farther than anybody. I can't really speak to that, but he does seem to rank right up there. I hope that's somewhat responsive without being too ridiculously long. I'm really going to try to be better about that. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home