Inquisitors

Since the epigram below the title of this site comes from John Donne, let me direct your attention to a post from Harper's Scott Horton: "John Donne and the Outlawing of Torture."

Like most poets, Donne needed a day job. He got elected to Parliament, but that didn't pay anything either, so he eventually became an ordained Anglican minister, serving as the dean of St. Paul's. It was there, on Easter Sunday in 1625, that Donne preached an uncompromising sermon on the subject of torture.

The text for Donne's sermon was of course an Easter-ish passage on the subject of resurrection, John 5:28-29, a lectionary reading that didn't obviously suggest the topic unless it was a subject you really wanted to preach about. And John Donne really wanted to preach about it. As Horton notes:

Then as now, the Easter service drew the biggest crowd of the year. The Easter sermon was the minister’s minute in the spotlight -- the moment when he would reach his greatest audience and make his reputation. And we know from John Donne’s correspondence, he was concerned about another audience: the king, his entourage and the courts. When Donne rose to deliver this sermon, torture was a heated “political” issue in England. Under the Stuart monarchs, the use of torture was viewed as a royal prerogative (how little things change). It was administered by judges, particularly by the national security court of 17th-century England, the so-called Court of Star Chamber. ...

Over a series of centuries, the genius of the English law had been steadily to restrict and limit the use of torture, until at this point, under King James, it was controlled by the king’s judges and limited in practice through a series of special writs. Which is to say, legally it was far more constrained than it is today under an Executive Order issued by King James’s understudy in allegedly Divine Right governance, George W. Bush.

Donne delivered a direct blow against this system, the use to which it was put, and the suffering it caused. He makes no equivocations. And in the end he delivers his blows against even the king’s judges who administer the system. ...

Donne points to the ultimate irony of the use of torture, not to punish the guilty, but as a tool to extract information -- when it is well established that doesn’t serve that end. He notes the immorality of this practice.

Horton summarizes the gist of Donne's argument. You can also read the entire sermon in the online digital archives of Brigham Young University. It was only three years later, Horton notes, that the lawyers and judges of England declared "upon their sacred honour, and the honour of England" that torture was not to be permitted by the common law. That, Horton writes, "marked the end of legalized torture in the English-speaking world ... until the arrival of George W. Bush."

It's hard not to consider the parallels between the Bush administration and the Inquisitors Donne rails against in his sermon. Here is Donne:

In which tortures, the Inquisition hath found one way, to escape the generall clamour of the world against them, which is to torture to that heighth, that few survive, or come abroad after, to publish, how they have been tortured.

The interrogation methods employed at the CIA's Dark Sites, at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and all the other secretive detention centers of the Bush administration are classified, which is one way of attempting to "escape the generall clamour of the world against them." But the Bush administration has also taken a page directly from the Inquisition and has tortured many "to that heighth, that few survive ... to publish, how they have been tortured."

I found Horton's post on Donne via this post by Chris Floyd, discussing Warren Richey's Christian Science Monitor report, "U.S. Gov't. broke Padilla through intense isolation, say experts." Padilla is Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen originally trumpeted as a "dirty bomber," but now just vaguely accused of applying for a job with al-Qaida. Padilla is broken. After three years and seven months of isolation from all human contact and sensory input, Padilla's mind doesn't work right any more. Padilla's mind did not survive -- he is no longer capable of "publishing" what has been done to him.

Richey's reporting echoes much of what Jane Mayer discussed in The New Yorker. Richey also notes that, "Many of the harsh interrogation techniques now used in the war on terror bear a striking resemblance to tactics of the former Soviet KGB."

The KGB model again. In Padilla's case, the United States government is trying to use the KGB model in court.

Richey also talks to a Capt. Bryce Lefever, who seems eager to defend the KGB model, using language that echoes the Inquisition. Lefever likes to think of himself as a tough guy:

"There's something to be said for sending the message that the gloves are coming off," says Capt. Bryce Lefever, a Navy psychologist and former SERE school instructor. "You don't take a knife to a gunfight."

Captain Lefever says it is unfair to compare US antiterror interrogations with Soviet interrogation techniques. "Their abuse was a systematic practice to conceal the truth," he says. "If Padilla was abused, then it was for a righteous purpose -- to reveal the truth."

Lefever opposes the use of torture because in most instances it is ineffective. But sometimes, harsh and brutal tactics can produce results, he adds. The key is that interrogators must be careful in their questions not to telegraph an agenda to the subject, because if the technique is coercive enough, the subject will say anything to make it stop.

Capt. Lefever, like President Bush, doesn't approve of torture, but only of "harsh and brutal tactics ... coercive enough [that] the subject will say anything." And he thinks such tactics can and should be used for "a righteous purpose." These are not the statements of an honorable man, or a good man, or a smart man.

(Salon's Mark Benjamin introduced us to Lefever last year in "Psychological warfare," an examination of the American Psychological Association's decision to permit psychologists to participate in such tactics. I'm hoping that this "Capt. Bryce Lefever" is not the same person as this guy -- "Cdr. Bryce LeFever, PhD, MSC, USN, department head of the substance abuse rehabilitation program at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Va.," who is now working with combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress. And I'm really hoping that the moral monster Richey interviewed is not the "Dr. Bryce Lefever" of Lefever & Associates of Norfolk, Va., who promises to "teach clients to maximize their potential in both their professional and personal endeavors.")

* * * * * * * * *

In the previous post, "Dark places," I mentioned the political and strategic significance of the way that America's embrace of torture and lawless detention was shaping the perception of America in the world. I worried that this perception might make the U.S. incapable of winning the so-called "war on terror," and that it could even lead to America losing the Cold War retroactively.

After reading the comments on that post from some of our international friends, I've come to think my perspective there was a bit too parochial. This isn't something to worry about down the road, it has already happened. America is widely perceived not merely as a bully, but as a bully on the wrong side -- as a nation that cannot be trusted, only feared. I would be interested in hearing more from international readers about how you think this perception could be changed. (In using the word perception there -- please note I did not write "misperception" -- I don't want to suggest that my concern is merely one of keeping up appearances. My concern, rather, is matters of substance that are accurately perceived for what they are.)

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

America is widely perceived not merely as a bully, but as a bully on the wrong side -- as a nation that cannot be trusted, only feared. I would be interested in hearing more from international readers about how you think this perception could be changed.

Close down Guantanamo Bay and the prison at Bagram Airbase and Abu Ghraib and the black sites, free the prisoners with appropriate compensation, and prosecute everyone involved, right up to the highest levels: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and on down. Sign up to the International Criminal Court. Uphold the rule of law. That kind of thing.

[Bugmaster]

Yeah, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, I think that the absolute best we can hope for in the next 10-20 years is to stop the escalation of torture and the Divine Right executive privilege -- not reverse it. If the Democrats take power and stay in power, this is the most that they'll be able to accomplish. If they fail to do this, and Republicans remain in control, then we can see nothing but further escalation in the years ahead.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't expect anything like what I outlined. The US is an international bully: that predates Bush. (You know about the US pilot who was acquitted of the manslaughter of 20 people because either he or his navigator had removed and destroyed the videotape that recorded his flight? The absence of the tape meant the jury in an Italian court had to acquit: for removing the tape, the Marine Corps sentenced him to six months for obstruction of justice? That happened in 1998. Many Italians said the killing of Nicola Calipari and subsequent non-investigation by the US military reminded them of how the US military had shielded its pilot from manslaughter charges 7 years earlier.)

But, Fred asked how the US could stop being perceived as an international bully. It isn't enough, after the things the US has done, merely to stop doing them: what's needed is a reversal, a conscious admission of wrong-doing and prosecution of criminals.

[John]

How to fix the problem?

Start by *not doing them any more*.

Then *make it clear to everyone that this is not acceptable*

Then *prosecute the people responsible*.

Then *open the few legit prisons remaining so that there is no question of the USA's crimes being repeated in secret*.

While you're at it, you might as well just dump all 29% of the Crazification Factor in Kansas and wall it up at the border - it's your only hope to maybe, someday, get sane people running your country and maybe, someday, possibly be treated as more than a rogue nation run by criminals and the incompetent.

But, hey, I'm a Canadian.

[Winter Patriot]

Good post. Very good post. Thank you very much.

[Rozzen]

Sadly I don't think all those things (especially the prosecution of the people responsible to the highest levels part) can be realistically expected to happen... If it does it would do untold wonders for the US's reputation abroad, but failing that an overall change in foreign policy for the better (as a completely uninformed person I will not define this, but let's just say I hope the next administration knows what it's doing), and very publicly stopping the torture and the abuses Everyone Knows About (i.e : closing Guantanamo basically... or pretending to through some clever PR) might be enough.

But then I have a rather cynical view of world affairs that consists of believing governments will do the most heinous things, and those that seem nice are just a) hiding it well, or b) not powerful enough to count.

[Erick Oppeen]

There's a very interesting passage in the DC graphic novel Lex Luthor: Man of Steel where Lex Luthor is explaining why he opposes Superman. Basically, it boils down to the fact that no one can stop Superman from doing what he wants. "What if he decides that he knows better than we do, and that he should be the one who decides? All we have to keep him from that...is his word." (Or words to that general effect; I don't have the GN in front of me.) This could almost be the rest of the world, vis-a-vis the United States.

Right now, I'd say that the US is in one of its crazy spells; we had them from about 1917 to 1920 or so, and through World War II. During WWI, we were going around renaming sauerkraut "liberty cabbage" and dachshunds "liberty dogs." During WWII, we were lapping up propaganda that normally we'd consider 'way overblown---see a lot of the old Warner Brothers cartoons from that period if you doubt me.

If we could catch and punish Osama bin Laden himself, I think we'd calm down considerably, and be back to normal.

[GeoX]

If we could catch and punish Osama bin Laden himself, I think we'd calm down considerably, and be back to normal.

Optimism is one thing, but this is taking it to the point of delusion.

[Jos]

I agree with Jesurgislac. That kind of thing would help a lot. It's not gonna happen, but it'd help.

And while we're on the subject of fairytales anyway, it always bothered me that the US presents itself as The Protector Of Democracy and A Great Shining Example To All, but only has two political parties with any real influence. One right-wing party and one further right-wing party. It would be so nice if just once I'd be able to tell the difference between the ruling party and the opposition party. Granted, at the moment I can tell the difference because one is batshit insane (not to mention rather criminal) and the other is hopelessly spineless. But that's not the kind of difference I'm talking about.

So basically, I'd like to see more parties at the national level. I'd like it if any candidate who's not Republican or Democrat doesn't automatically get labelled as 'Independent'. And I'd really like it if any of them got a chance in Hell of getting elected.

[magistra]

I suspect it would be relatively easy to win back some affection for the US from white Europeans and those in other western countries. Under Bill Clinton, there was a sense in the UK (even if not entirely justified), that the US could be a force for good on the world and that the default intentions of the US government weren't wicked. The US government would obviously need to stop actively attacking other countries and sanctioning torture. They would also need to show some sense that that they respected other countries' opinions and wanted to co-operate with them to tackle problems such as global warming and poverty. It's very hard to feel positive towards a country whose foreign policy seems to be based so explicitly on 'one law for Americans' and another for the inferior rest of the world (e.g. Americans shouldn't be subject to international war crime tribunals).

That's how you might start to win over white liberals and moderates. I don't know how you can win over the far greater number of people who live in countries who have already suffered violent US interference or fear it (or who have close family ties with such countries). Have the Chileans yet forgiven the US for helping overthrow Allende more than thirty years ago? You can't easily undo the ill-will from invasions or supporting coups or cosying up to dictators. All you can do is stop doing that and hope eventually that people will come to feel you've changed.

[Jos]

You know, after a bit of thought, there is one other thing you could do.

In '08 you could elect someone like Bush again.

If you do that, I'm guessing (or perhaps perversely hoping) that this new incompetent would manage to lose the US their superpower status. Maybe even get our own governments to wake up and stop being your lapdogs. From what I've heard (and I could be wrong, I admit) America is already a debt-riddled mess with an overextended military, rampant poverty, failing infrastructure and laughable healthcare for the less priviliged. If those institutions and nations currently lending you large amounts of money every day decide to cut you off...

Well, after the massive economic crisis that'll probably sweep through the whole of the Western world, America will probably not be in a position to bully anyone any more. And that will help with getting people to like you again. Train wreck victims are always treated with more sympathy than remorseless wifebeaters.

Of course, I realise this would not be the most ideal solution from America's point of view, but hey.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't know, Jos. Russia isn't a superpower any more. I still don't like it very much for what it's doing in Chechnya. Yes, the US could collapse, especially if the Republican party succeeds in getting a Bush-clone appointed for another eight years, but - aside from what the complete collapse of the US economy would do to the world economy - the US would probably still have the power and the will to be a mini-bully, even if only to countries like Panama.

[Jos]

Good point.

However, while I still don't really like Russia, I can't honestly call them an Enemy of Peace either the way I can with America. Well, I can, but it'd be harder to justify the claim.

So yeah, while collapse wouldn't stop from being a dick, they'd be a rather smaller dick, which isn't quite so bad as the gigantic dick they're being right now. So it's still a win. Or, if you prefer, not quite as humungous a loss.

[McMartin]

John at 9:52 PM says:

While you're at it, you might as well just dump all 29% of the Crazification Factor in Kansas and wall it up at the border - it's your only hope to maybe, someday, get sane people running your country and maybe, someday, possibly be treated as more than a rogue nation run by criminals and the incompetent.

So, in order to restore our reputation for human rights, we'd need to put 90 million people in concentration camps?

Try not to feed your opponents quite so obvious straight lines, please. I'm likely to be caught in the blast radius.

[Ruana]

No, no, no, you're all getting it wrong. Come at it from the other direction, and it's easy to find a solution that can both clean up the US' image and has a chance of actually happening.

As Jesurgislac pointed out, there's nothing new about the US being a bit dodgy and high-handed, ostensibly in the name of the greater good. (Granted, there's a case to be made that Dubya has taken it to new depths, but stay with me.) It was just a lot easier for us to tell ourselves you were our good mates when we had the Huns/Nazis/Iron Curtain on our doorstep.

You see? The key is being the lesser evil. The problem is that 9/11 was a bigger shock to you than attacks such as 7/7 were to us. (I'm just old enough to remember the time when IRA bombings made the news with unhappy regularity.) So this enemy doesn't seem sufficiently big and threatening for us to be willing to let the US behave as it pleases. Things like the outstandingly incomptent car-bombing efforts last month don't help at all.

So, the solution? Set off a dirty bomb in a major European city and make darned sure it can be pinned on Al-Quaeda. Then watch the cross-Atlantic love mount with the casualty figures.

(I'm being sarcastic about there being more chance of this happening than of Dubya and his crowd cleaning up their act. At least, I hope I'm being sarcastic.)

Believing everything you read is a dangerous thing. So is presuming to know anything so far outside your experience that you are forced to rely upon speculation and imagination. Mr. Clark has created a post based upon articles he has read, then presumes to “understand” the characteristics and mindsets of people he has not only never met, but has no hope of understanding.

I happen to know Captain Lefever quite well, which can be said of neither Richey nor Clark. First, Captain Lefever does not “think of himself as a tough guy”--he thinks of himself as a loyal American (apparently anathema on this board) with knowledge of trauma, torture, and brainwashing born of both education and experience. Do you know that Captain Lefever has helped thousands of troops deal with the trauma and stress of war, capture, training accidents, etc.? Do you know he has trained hundreds of psychology and medical personnel to do the same? Does this matter to you at all, or do you agree with Kos, “Screw them”?

Do you know that the SERE school is to help prepare American troops to withstand the torture they will doubtless receive, and have received, at the hands of the enemy? Do you know that Captain Lefever voluntarily went through the training himself, including the waterboard, so he would have first-hand knowledge of the experience? What firsthand knowledge do you have about any of the issues about which you hold yourself forth as experts? What educational expertise?

Do you know that Captain Lefever is opposed to torture and believes it diminishes America in the eyes of the rest of the world? No, I don’t suppose you do--you would have none of that information from Richey’s article (or through other second, third, and hundredth-hand sources such as "Salon"). But, critical thinkers that you are, you took it all at face value, as you doubtless do every other negative article or op-ed that casts American and the military in a negative light. No context, no historical understanding--just an abundant willingness to believe anything you read that confirms your established notions. And of course, it ultimately doesn’t matter, does it? Facts may be stubborn things, but they are not nearly as stubborn as a smug sense of moral superiority held by people safely ensconced in their houses, clackety-clacking on their keyboards.

[Jos]

he thinks of himself as a loyal American (apparently anathema on this board)

That rather depends on your definition of 'loyal American'.

[Jesurgislac]

McMartin: So, in order to restore our reputation for human rights, we'd need to put 90 million people in concentration camps?

Only the ones who agree that the President of the United State should have the right to detain without charges any American citizen he likes under any conditions he likes. Poll everyone, ask if they approve of what happened to Jose Padilla, and if they say they do, then treat them like Jose Padilla. After all, they pre-approved it.

(I'm snarking, of course. I don't actually think even people who think that indefinite detention and systematic torture without evidence, charges, trial, or benefit of habeus corpus ought to be treated as they've said others should be treated. It's just awfully tempting.)

I'm not quite sure how to respond to Captain Anonymous, but if they'd like to pick a handle, they can join Aunursa in the Monty Python corner.

[Ruana]

Quite right, Jos. I'm appalled at how often the cry of 'Anti-American!' seems to go up when someone suggests that your current administration might be wrong about how to fight the 'War on Terror'.

Anonymous Person Who Knows Captain Lefever, you may be right about everything, but that little barb gives me real doubts about your credibility. You call it disloyal to be against one's country employing torture, or to disagree with the authorities about where the line between coercion and torture is? You call it disloyal to stand up and say so? You'd get further defending Captain Lefever's reputation if you weren't coming across as exactly the kind of person whose blinkered, self-righteous patriotism has turned the rest of the world against the US in the first place.

[Rosina]

The Man with No Name says: Do you know that Captain Lefever is opposed to torture and believes it diminishes America in the eyes of the rest of the world? No, I don’t suppose you do--you would have none of that information from Richey’s article (or through other second, third, and hundredth-hand sources such as "Salon"). But, critical thinkers that you are, you took it all at face value, as you doubtless do every other negative article or op-ed that casts American and the military in a negative light.

In this, he appears to be criticising the Slackies for holding the same point of view as his hero, Captain Lefever - ie: that torture is wrong, ineffectual and the fact that America indulges in it is bad for America's reputation. (The MwNN doesn't actually admit that America tortures people, but Capt Lefever clearly believes it!)

So who is this MwNN? Not, one assumes, a regular reader of the Slacktivist. So did he just happen by pure coincidence to drop by in the middle of this conversation? Or is he a Lefever groupie, who searches the Internet for mention of his hero, and leaps anonymously to his defence? Is he paid to do this, or is a labour of love? Please return, MwNN, and let us know.

[twig]

There's a very interesting passage in the DC graphic novel Lex Luthor: Man of Steel where Lex Luthor is explaining why he opposes Superman. Basically, it boils down to the fact that no one can stop Superman from doing what he wants. "What if he decides that he knows better than we do, and that he should be the one who decides? All we have to keep him from that...is his word." (Or words to that general effect; I don't have the GN in front of me.) This could almost be the rest of the world, vis-a-vis the United States.

Oh goddamn it, intent matters!

Seriously, when the bad guys are happily and readily able to do whatever they want whenever they want to get what they want, and the good guys are capable of only muttering about and wishing that they were capable of grand designs while milquetoasting about and sticking to the middle of the road because it's safe and nobody might be tempted to do something naughty we're going to lose the fight!

[Fred]

Dear Mary Rosh (anonymous at 7:31):

Did Warren Richey misquote Lefever?

If not, is Dr. Lefever somehow unaware that the phrase "the gloves are coming off" is the slogan of choice for those who want to go beyond what the Geneva Conventions (i.e., the law for us loyal Americans) allow?

If Dr. Lefever was not misquoted, can you please explain how "systematic abuse ... for a righteous purpose" is NOT like the Inquisition?

If someone is asked about serious ethical and legal issues, and the best he can do is to defend illegal interrogation methods with a paraphrase of a Sean Connery quote from a Brian Depalma movie, what further evidence would you need to conclude that he thinks of himself as a tough guy? A John Wayne quote from a John Ford movie? How about this? The practice, advocacy and defense of torture requires bravado and a false machismo. Dr. Lefever advocates and defends torture. Ergo ...

I don't doubt that Dr. Lefever is an expert on the kinds and methods and effects of the evil torture practiced by America's enemies, past and present. Teaching American troops to survive, evade, resist or escape from such methods is honorable work. But according to Mark Benjamin and Warren Richey and the multiple sources they both cite, including Dr. Lefever himself, Lefever is an advocate and apologist for America adopting and employing those same evil methods "for a righteous purpose."

You say that Lefever "is opposed to torture and believes it diminishes America." Two professional journalists -- people who can be fired for misquoting or misrepresenting their subjects -- have described Lefever as opposed to torture only if one accepts his apparently very narrow -- narrower than the law of the land -- definition of the term.

If you are, in fact, a friend of Dr. Lefever's, then you should urge him to sue both Salon and the Monitor. Proving he never said the disgraceful things they have quoted him as saying is the only way for him to restore his good name.

-- Fred Clark (hey look, one of us signed his name)

[Geds]

he thinks of himself as a loyal American (apparently anathema on this board)

Y'know, the collective mothers of the world have a great deal of wisdom stored up in pithy little statements. The one I'm thinking of right now is, "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"

What is a "loyal American," Mr. Anonymous, assuming that you're still going to stick around and aren't some sort of drive-by troll?

Is a "loyal American" one who says that everything his country does is right, no matter what, because it's America?

Or is a "loyal American" one who stands up for the ideals on which his country was founded, no matter what current policy says and no matter how many "patriots" there are shouting him down?

Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm a freaking historian, so I know a couple things about the country), if we went with that first definition of a "loyal American," there would have been no Civil Rights Movement and no Women's Suffrage. It was courageous men and women of all creeds and colors standing up and saying, "This isn't right," that made those things possible. Of course there were plenty of equally "loyal Americans" who were defending the status quo. But I don't think there are too many people in the world these days who idolize George Wallace...

And I'm not just tossing out pacifist "loyal Americans don't go to war and try to affect social change" lingo, either. I'd also argue that the men who joined Claire Chennault and formed the Flying Tigers in an attempt to help China fight off the Japanese and the Americans who joined the RAF and fought in the Battle of Britain were just as loyal to America as anyone else, but they also saw the higher ideals of fighting against tyranny and assisting others in their time of need.

So, Mr. Anonymous, tell me again what it means to be a "loyal American." Because until the day this country abolishes the Constitution and rescinds the Declaration of Independence, I can be a more loyal American by pointing out the evils of the current system than I will ever be by supporting them.

Oh, and I'm not so gutless as to leave anonymous postings on a blog. And neither is Fred, for that matter. Just thought I'd point that out, since this is also the country wherein John Hancock signed his name really big on the Declaration of Independence to make sure that King George III could read it...

(And for everyone else, please feel free to substitute "her" for "his" in the previous paragraphs until a suitable gender-neutral singular pronoun can be produced. Using "their" just looks stupid to me and the practice of alternating genders doesn't work in a situation where you're trying to make a cohesive point...)

[Zyzzyva]

Jos: However, while I still don't really like Russia, I can't honestly call them an Enemy of Peace either the way I can with America. Well, I can, but it'd be harder to justify the claim.

Well, maybe, but have you heard what's happening to Georgia these days? Or the Ukraine the last couple of months, or Estonia a couple of months before now? Russia is a big, nasty place, even these days. And it has nukes; lots of nukes.

So while the US is not the world's most happy and peace-loving country these days, it is still a long, long way from the bottom of the heap. And moving it down the heap is the last thing we want to do. Speaking as a Canadian, haivng the states become another Russia and

-Declare Quebec a soverign nation
-Embargo us every time we elect an NDP government
-Attemt to shut down all .ca websites every time we have a war of 1812 anniversary
-Randomly have figters drop missiles into empty fields, just for kicks.
(All things, IIRC, tht Russia has done to its neighbours since New years).

Anyhow, back to lurking.

[Geds]

Fred @9:01: -- Fred Clark (hey look, one of us signed his name)

Me @9:04: Oh, and I'm not so gutless as to leave anonymous postings on a blog. And neither is Fred, for that matter.

Natch.

[alfgifu]

Of course intent matters. What is America's intent, at the moment? Ever since the attacks on September 11th stopped being an outrage perpatrated by criminals and became a terrifying act that opened an amorphous war with shadowy and indistinct foes, it seems that America mainly wants to crush as many other individuals and countries as it can. It seems that America's intent is to cause harm in the name of some comfortably vague ideal of freedom - and I do not think that word means what you think it means.

This isn't a war. This shouldn't be a war. Terror is not an evil nation you can invade, its an eternally fragmenting and reforming network or networks. Terror can't be defeated, but terrorists can be captured, treated decently, tried and locked away for life. If that could be done without brutality, then it would look a lot less like a glamorous martyr's fate.

The thing is, that as long as you're fighting terror, the danger can come from anywhere. There's no way to completely secure a country against the whole of the rest of the world, and the more a country tries to smash any threats, the more threats will appear. In the end, if America makes it 'them or us', without being able to draw a line around 'them', then all the rest of us become 'them' - less important than Americans, deserving less dignity and, if necessary, abused with impunity.

Normally, when a part of the human race goes mad and starts fighting all the rest of us, even if it tells us that it's all for our own good, that part gets labelled bully at best, evil at worst.

So, what are America's intentions, currently?

[Kate]

I've read a bunch of the responses, but not all, so if I'm echoing someone else take it as a hearty agreement.

What I feel the US needs to do is finally live up to the laws and systems that they have helped to put in place. From the ground up, starting with fixing the election system and preventing those who want to 'game' it by moving electoral boundaries and using unclear, untracked voting methods.

Then it'd be great if the US honoured their international committments adn treaties to which they are signators. I'm Canadian and the number of fair trade deals that the US has tried to weasle around is ridiculous... starting with but not ending with the softwood lumber fiasco(s). The online gambling matter currently being looked into by international bodies in the matter of the US v. Antigua is another issue where the US is trying to enforce their will outside their own borders.

I think that's pretty much the real problem, we can see that the US is having real problems keeping its own house in order, but they keep pushing outwards and for some reason feel entitled to meddle in business that is not their own.

I'd gain a great deal of respect for the US if they could finally "be a man about it" and admit that there's a problem within the country that needs to be fixed before they step back out as a predominant member of the world stage and try to fix everyone else's problems. It's one thing to be asked for help, it's another entirely to push your way into a situation you don't understand all the nuances of.

So ya, fix things at home before making further efforts to change things abroad. And start from the ground up, making sure that the whole point is that everyone honours the rule of law and takes responsibility for their actions.

[BugHunter]

As a personal friend of Dr. Lefever I'm getting a kick out of these replies. (I'm also a good chum of Doc Mengele and a drinking buddy of Torquemada. Its amazing what you can get away with using anonomous comments.)

[Jeff]

Bug: I know Dr Lefever. Dr Lefever is a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Johnny Lefever. "As God as my witness, I thought torture could fly!"

[Geds]

Hey, something just occurred to me and I need somebody to refresh my memory.

Five years ago Jose Padilla was arrested on suspicion of running a plot to plant a dirty bomb in [insert metropolitan area here], correct?

He then received, like, four years of psychological torture, wait, sorry, righteous solitary confinement. After all of that, the "truth" was revealed that...Jose Padilla kinda really wanted to get in contact with al Qaeda?

Isn't that pretty much what happened? Because I've been hearing a lot about the verdict on the news, but I haven't heard a lot about the original reasons why he was arrested. It's almost like we've forgotten (although WGN Radio did air Padilla's mother's remarks about how badly Jose was treated, so good on them for that).

So, again, somebody, please tell me why an American citizen was held without formal charges, pyschologically broken, then eventually proven to be little more than a small-time thug with aspirations to, uh, greatness, I suppose? How is this righteous? How has this made America more secure?

[sievetronix]

Yea Geds the poor schmuck was caught, detained, tortured and when brought to trial convicted for more or less what they knew when the caught him in the first place.

some triumph of torture....

[hapax]

Okay, I'm a U.S. citizen. And I've read a lot of comments here about what "the USA should do" (which is what Fred asked, and most of which I agree with.)

But.

I can't single-handedly march on DC and arrest Bushco et al with my trusty muzzle-loader (even if I could find the musket balls). I can't shut down Guantanomo or make treaties. My Congressional reps now sigh and roll their eyes when I call and write. I can't even get the local fishwrap to publish my letters more than once a month.

I travel fairly frequently overseas, and communicate with international friends several times a day. And all I hear is "Americans -- well, not you, hapax -- are this and that and so forth."

So. What do you recommend that I, personally, do, to help erase the stain on my country?

(Not snark, btw. A sincere question. I'm not ready to emigrate, but maybe I'm just too overwhelmed by the forest to see any particular tree...)

[damnedyankee]

Intent matters.

It's time to play the Match Game!

"The road to Hell is paved with blank."

[Angelika]

Close down Guantanamo Bay and the prison at Bagram Airbase and Abu Ghraib and the black sites, free the prisoners with appropriate compensation, and prosecute everyone involved, right up to the highest levels: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and on down. Sign up to the International Criminal Court. Uphold the rule of law. That kind of thing.

I guess the first part of Jesu's suggestions (up to compensation) are quite easy to do, if the will is there. And it won't take 10 years to close a prison and stop torturing. That could be done in a matter of a week. And maybe give a months or two to figure out the exact amount of the compensation... And then a while to clearly outlaw all questionable practices.

Prosecuting everyone involved would be much harder. My main concern is: Would we be able to prove that the actions in Guatamano Bay e.g. were indeed illegal at the time they were committed? It seems to me that the present administration is making use of a rather fuzzy definition of torture in the laws. And such a fuzzy definition will also interfer with any criminal persecution.

By the way, Amnesty International is currently running a fundraising campain for another trial on behalf of the prisioners in Guatamano Bay. They have found one generous donor who primised to match any donation that is collected until September 30th.

[damnedyankee]

However, while I still don't really like Russia, I can't honestly call them an Enemy of Peace either the way I can with America. Well, I can, but it'd be harder to justify the claim.

Not as hard as you might think, Jos.

But don't worry. Bush looked into Putin's soul and everything is hunky-dory.

[hapax]

@damnedyankee: ""The road to Hell is paved with blank."

Mini-Snickers bars!

[damnedyankee]

Steaming piles of produce drenched in butter!

[Wakboth]

"So. What do you recommend that I, personally, do, to help erase the stain on my country?"

A few things that come to mind:
* Keep reminding the people from other countries that yes, there are a *lot* of Americans who are unhappy with what's going on with their country, and trying to change things. It's unfortunately too easy to see USA as a nation of Bushes, which it isn't.

* Get politically active: vote for the change, contact your representatives, donate money if you can afford it, donate time if you can spare it, and encourage others to do the same.

[the opoponax]

@ hapax --

That's a question I've been asking myself a lot lately. Not so much in response to this thread or Fred's question (obvs), but in general.

What can I do?

I mean beyond voting, or giving to the ACLU, or showing up at a protest? Because I've been voting and giving and protesting my ass off for the past 6 years, and wow, yeah, that doesn't seem to be going so well. And the rate at which the Executive branch is being converted into an absolute monarchy doesn't bode well for long term results of all that participation in the traditional political process.

The other alternative seems to be armed revolution, but that seems both extreme and also risky, given that even in the 60's, when people really were forming armed cells and blowing up draft boards, the Nixon administration managed to put a stop to it pretty handily via the CIA - and that was when we still paid lip service to basic civil rights.

So I feel that I have the limp dick of "civic participation" in one hand, and the volatile pipe bomb of "armed revolution" in the other. Surely there must be a middle ground where meaningful action is possible.

[twig]

It's time to play the Match Game!

"The road to Hell is paved with blank."

I'd rather sit next to the guy who had a good idea and a sincere desire to help and failed than the guy who didn't risk doing anything at all because it might go wrong.

[McJulie]

Captain Lefever says it is unfair to compare US antiterror interrogations with Soviet interrogation techniques. "Their abuse was a systematic practice to conceal the truth," he says. "If Padilla was abused, then it was for a righteous purpose -- to reveal the truth."

Chilling. I've never met Mr. Lefever, but that is exactly the sort of quote that always seems to be uttered by the villain of the piece. The bad guys don't think they're bad guys, they think they're doing bad things "for the greater good."

It's tempting to believe "the ends justify the means." But if things go on long enough, the ends are the means. I've never been swayed by the post-9/11 argument that I should happily give up all my freedoms in order to preserve my freedoms.

If we could catch and punish Osama bin Laden himself, I think we'd calm down considerably, and be back to normal.

Possibly. It would certainly explain why the Bush administration seems to have deliberately avoided catching him.

[Angelika]

opo The other alternative seems to be armed revolution

Well, the one thing that has me worried about armed revolution is the lead contamination on the lawn in front of the White House once we have lined up the administration at the fence...

But seriously, my hope is still that even the spineless moluscs that presently represent us in congress and parlament will eventually act, if we manage to pester them enough. After all, this democracy is still functional enough for them to worry about reelection.

[damnedyankee]

I'd rather sit next to the guy who had a good idea and a sincere desire to help and failed than the guy who didn't risk doing anything at all because it might go wrong.

That's assuming, of course, that the idea is, indeed, good. And that the implementation of the idea won't lead to even worse situations as time goes on. The war in Iraq, for instance, is a prime example of a bad idea followed by bad implementation.

And the alternative to doing something stupid is not "doing nothing". It's "doing something that's not stupid."

The choice to remain anonymous is made for a variety of reasons (and, by the way, screen names that don't fully identify the poster mean that person has also chosen to remain anonymous). But you would like definitions of patriotism, loyalty, etc. To many of us who love America, loyalty means measuring her by the same yardstick by which we measure others--we don't make excuses for the wrong decisions our country has made (and there certainly have been some--how many depends upon your point of view), but neither do we pretend that the yardstick only applies to America and the rest of the world gets a pass. Patriotism means recognizing that your country, for all her flaws, is worthy of love and protection. It means standing up when the government is doing the wrong thing and demanding better; it also means recognizing that while results count, so do motives.

The point being made about Captain Lefever, which many of you choose to ignore, is that context matters, and none of you know what the context is. Are you aware of the recent study indicating that fewer than 2% of the errors made in news articles are ever corrected? Do you have any idea what it takes to sue a newspaper? Having taught Mass Media and the Law, I can tell you it is very, very difficult to win such a suit--you must go beyond proving inaccuracy, and prove a malicious intention. Few people are willing or able to go to the considerable effort and expense to pursue such a result. But that doesn't mean that they have been quoted accurately--surely you recognize that context changes meaning.

Captain Lefever doesn't believe in torture--he believes there are more effective methods of interrogation. That is his belief based on his experience. And although I admittedly do not have his experience and am perhaps unqualified to contradict him, I happen to believe in using tecniques that many here would consider torture. And before you get yourselves all wrapped up in moral indignation, ask yourselves this: If you believed waterboarding a suspect would have saved Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, or the numerous others who have been butchered by terrorists, would you do it? If you knew it would have stopped the 9/11 attacks, would you? Or, closer to home, if someone was holding your mother, or your wife, or your child, would you? I can say with absolute certainty that I would. Anyone who would do the same believes in torture. You may believe in it only in the direst of circumstances, but if you believe in it, ever, you believe in it.

[Patrick Phelan]

There's a bingo card somewhere where we can tick off "ticking time bomb", isn't there?

[twig]

That's assuming, of course, that the idea is, indeed, good. And that the implementation of the idea won't lead to even worse situations as time goes on.

Well, the original post used Lex Luthor and Superman as its dichotomy. So yes, I would have to go with Superman. Even if he fucks it up.

And the alternative to doing something stupid is not "doing nothing". It's "doing something that's not stupid."

I dare you to find the unchallenged counter-opinion. Pretending there's some gold standard solution is a ridiculous counterargument.

[cjmr's husband]

If you believed waterboarding a suspect would have saved...would you do it?

No.

Because the ticking timebomb scenario is fictional strawman argument.

As for anonymity, yes my handle is anonymous. Please pick one so that we don't have to call you "Mary Rosh".

[Bugmaster]

Patriotism means recognizing that your country, for all her flaws, is worthy of love and protection.

Why ? Just because I happened to be born in it ? I don't really understand this notion of patriotism. If your country is a blasted wasteland, or a corrupt hellhole bent on destroying you, then you leave your country and never come back. This is how many people ended up emigrating to the US over the years. Were they not patriotic enough ?

[Zyzzyva]

If waterboarding a suspect could be proven to prevent a major upcoming terrorist attack, waterboarding him would be the right thing to do.

I do not, however, believe there are any circumstances in which the first half of that conditional woul be true. Torture is never that effective and it is never right. I do not believe in torture.

[damnedyankee]

If somebody pressed you to use real-world scenarios instead of sticking Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and my immediate family into plot points from the last few seasons of 24, would you do it?

Motives count as long as your actions are consistent with them. I wonder how the Iraqis, as a whole, feel about their "liberation from tyranny" right about now, considering that our actions have delivered them instead into chaos?