Grave Error

If there were any doubts left whatsoever as to whether a liberal mainstream press actually existed in the United States, the Washington Post’s op-ed page once again proved itself to be overwhelmingly neo-conservative with four out of six articles, including articles by the blood thirsty, macho, war-wongering neocons Krauthammer and Kristol. Then there are the Bushdom nostalgists, Michael Gerson and Michael B. Mukasey, who want us to believe that neither U.S. sovereignty nor the U.S. legal system are strong enough to prosecute and incarcerate terrorists.  Maybe the two should put their articles together and then they’d come to the conclusion that after you fail to afford criminal and even military suspects their rights, then the evidence you have obtained against them is no longer admissible in either civilian or criminal courts. That leaves you with the only option left of operating a prison like Guatanamo, hidden from the Rule of Law, where suspects are held without ever being charged or tried with a crime. Then when Iran holds a trial against a U.S. citizen, Kristol and Krauthammer cry “human rights violation” and plead for a healthy dose of air strikes; what Hillary diplomatically calls obliteration.

Forget the fact that Miranda requires all suspects who are in custody and being interrogated to be read their rights. Forget that Robert Reid was Mirandized and tried in civil court under Bush/Cheney. Forget the fact that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights applies to people, not just citizens (even though Mukasey appears to believe that Miranda does not always apply citizens). Forget that these Constitutional rights — under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments — do not come with “except during wartime” exceptions (or that Congress has not declared war). Forget all of the domestic and foreign terrorists tried and convicted in federal civilian court over the past decade, and forget about the ones that could not be convicted by military tribunals under Bush/Cheney. Forget all your facts and your law. Sarah Palin — a politician to take seriously according to senior Washington Post pundit Broder — says she’s a Constitutionalist and, along with the neocon Post, believes that the Constitution just shouldn’t apply to the law anymore.

More than a political post, this is a post about our politics. From the recent article by Glenn Greenwald:

The Lynch Mob mentality
If I had the power to have one statement of fact be universally recognized in our political discussions, it would be this one:

The fact that the Government labels Person X a “Terrorist” is not proof that Person X is, in fact, a Terrorist.

That proposition should be intrinsically understood by any American who completed sixth grade civics and was thus taught that a central prong of our political system is that government officials often abuse their power and/or err and therefore must prove accusations to be true (with tested evidence) before they’re assumed to be true and the person punished accordingly.  In particular, the fact that the U.S. Government, over and over, has falsely accused numerous people of being Terrorists — only for it to turn out that they did nothing wrong — by itself should compel a recognition of this truth.  But it doesn’t.

All throughout the Bush years, no matter what one objected to — illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of civilian trials — the response from Bush followers was the same:  “But these are Terrorists, and Terrorists have no rights, so who cares what is done to them?”  What they actually meant was:  “the Government has claimed they are Terrorists,” but in their minds, that was the same thing as:  “they are Terrorists.”  They recognized no distinction between “a government accusation” and “unchallengeable truth”; in the authoritarian’s mind, by definition, those are synonymous.  The whole point of the Bush-era controversies was that — away from an actual battlefield and where the Constitution applies (on U.S. soil and/or towards American citizens wherever they are) — the Government should have to demonstrate someone’s guilt before it’s assumed (e.g., they should have to show probable cause to a court and obtain warrants before eavesdropping; they should have to offer evidence that a person engaged in Terrorism before locking them in a cage, etc.).  But to someone who equates unproven government accusations with proof, those processes are entirely unnecessary.  Even in the absence of those processes, they already know that these persons are Terrorists.  How do they know that?  Because the Government said so.  Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that’s all the “proof” that is needed.

That authoritarian mentality is stronger than ever now.  Why?  Because unlike during the Bush years, when it was primarily Republicans willing to blindly trust Government accusations, many Democrats are now willing to do so as well.  Just look at the reaction to the Government’s recent attempts to assassinate the U.S.-born American citizen and Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.  Up until last November, virtually no Americans had ever even heard of al-Awlaki.  But in the past few months, beginning with the Fort Hood shootings, government officials have repeatedly claimed that he’s a Terrorist:  usually anonymously, with virtually no evidence, and in the face of al-Awlaki’s vehement denials but without any opportunity for him to defend himself (because he’s in hiding out of fear of being killed by his own Government).  The Government can literally just flash someone’s face on the TV screen with the word Terrorist over it (as was done with al-Awlaki), and provided the face is nefarious and Muslim-looking enough (basically the same thing), nothing else need be offered.

That’s enough for many people — including many Democrats — to march forward overnight and mindlessly proclaim that al-Awlaki is “a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans” (if you can stomach it, read some of these comments — from Obama defenders at a liberal blog — with several sounding exactly like Dick Cheney, screeching:  “Of course al-Awlaki should be killed without charges; he’s a Terrorist who is trying to kill Americans!!!”).  Even now, beyond government assertions about his associations, the public knows virtually nothing about al-Awlaki other than the fact that he’s a Muslim cleric with a Muslim name dressed in Muslim garb, sitting in a Bad Arab Country expressing anger towards the actions of the U.S. and Israel.  But no matter.  That’s more than enough.  They’re willing not only to mindlessly embrace the Government’s unproven accusation that their fellow citizen is a TERRORIST (“a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans”), but even beyond that, to cheer for his due-process-free execution like drunken fans at a football game.  And the same people declare:  no civilian trials are necessary for Terrorists (meaning:  people accused by the Government of being Terrorists).  Even more amazingly, the identities of the other Americans on the hit list aren’t even known, but that’s OK:  they’re Terrorists, because the Government said so.

A very long time ago, I would be baffled when I’d read about things like the Salem witch hunts.  How could so many people be collectively worked up into that level of irrational frenzy, where they cheered for people’s torturous death as “witches” without any real due process or meaningful evidence?  But all one has to do is look at our current Terrorism debates and it’s easy to see how things like that happen.  It’s just pure mob mentality:  an authority figure appears and affixes a demonizing Other label to someone’s forehead, and the adoring crowd — frothing-at-the-mouth and feeding on each other’s hatred, fears and desire to be lead — demands “justice.”  I imagine that if one could travel back in time to the Salem era in order to speak with some of those gathered outside an accused witch’s home, screaming for her to be burned, the conversation would go something like this:

Mob Participant:  Burn the Witch!!!  Kill her!!!

Far Left Civil Liberties Extremist-Purist (“FLCLE-P”):  How do you know she’s a witch?

Mob Participant:  Didn’t you just hear the government official say so?

FLCLE-P:  But don’t you want to see real evidence before you assume that’s true and call for her death?

Mob Participant:  You just heard the evidence!  The magistrate said she’s a witch!

FLCLE-P:  But shouldn’t there be a real trial first, with tangible evidence and due process protections, to see if the accusation is actually true?

Mob Participant:  A “real” trial?  She’s a witch!  She’s trying to curse us and kill us all.  She got more than what she deserved.  Witches don’t have rights!!!

Return to Question 1.

That’s essentially how I hear our debates over Terrorism, and how I’ve heard them for quite some time.  And it’s how I hear them more loudly now than ever before.  And with those deeply confused premises now locked into place on a bipartisan basis (“no trials are needed to determine if someone is a Terrorist because Terrorists don’t have rights”), imagine how much louder that will get if there is another successful terrorist attack in the U.S.  But in fairness to the 17th Century Puritans, at least the Salem witches received pretenses of due process and even trials (albeit with coerced confessions and speculative hearsay).  Even when it comes to our fellow citizens, we don’t even bother with those.  For us, the mere accusation by our leaders is sufficient:  Kill that American Terrorist with a drone!

This I promise is not a political post. It is about the willingness of the masses to believe whatever the government tells them (with the full support of an abetting media). Ironically, for a nation that innately distrusts the government in all things domestic, it is a blind follower of the government abroad as supreme warrior leader beyond good and evil.

The most recent example is the new story in Harper’s Magazine by Scott Horton about the government’s cover-up of three detainee deaths — most likely from torture and made to look like suicide — at Guantanamo in June 2006. All three of the detainees had previously been cleared for release.

In reference to this article, Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic writes,

We have been told for so long that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are just “aggressive questioning”; that the ancient waterboarding technique is not torture; that Guantanamo Bay is a model prison facility where detainees are, if anything, molly-coddled (in fact, Rudy Giuliani recently opined that “Guantanamo is better than half the Federal prisons.”) We are also told routinely on Fox News that the United States has not and never would torture prisoners; we are told by the New York Times and NPR that use of the word “torture” is too biased; we have been told by many that to argue that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are war criminals is such an extreme position it disgraces anyone who states it, and marginalizes them to the fever swamps of leftist haters and hysterics.

These are all lies. They are pre-meditated lies. They are attempts to lie about some of the worst crimes committed by a president and vice-president of the United States in history. Anyone with their eyes open and their mind not closed knows this somewhere deep inside. And the only reason we do not know more about this is because of the criminal cover-up under the Bush administration and the enraging refusal of the Obama administration to do the right thing and open all of it to sunlight.

In the past, the Bush-Cheney administration could cover up their total control of the torture program and their direct authorization of the techniques used at Abu Ghraib by several distancing moves: “we are shocked that this happened”; it was the work of a “few bad apples”; the techniques we use are “relatively benign”; waterboarding is only torture if the Communists do it, and so on.

Glenn Greenwald explains the problem as such

The single biggest lie in War on Terror revisionist history is that our torture was confined only to a handful of “high-value” prisoners.  New credible reports of torture continuously emerge.  That’s because America implemented and maintained a systematic torture regime spread throughout our worldwide, due-process-free detention system.  There have been at least 100 deaths of detainees in American custody who died during or as the result of interrogation.  Gen. Barry McCaffrey said:  “We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.”  Gen. Antonio Taguba said after investigating the Abu Ghraib abuses and finding they were part and parcel of official policy sanctioned at the highest levels of the U.S. Government, and not the acts of a few “rogue” agents:  “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes.  The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Despite all of this, our media persists in sustaining the lie that the torture controversy is about three cases of waterboarding and a few “high-value” detainees who were treated a bit harshly.  That’s why Horton’s story received so little attention and was almost completely ignored by right-wing commentators:  because it shatters the central myth that torture was used only in the most extreme cases — virtual Ticking Time Bomb scenarios — when there was simply no other choice.  Leading American media outlets, as a matter of policy, won’t even use the word “torture.”  This, despite the fact that the abuse was so brutal and inhumane that it led to the deaths of helpless captives — including run-of-the-mill detainees, almost certainly ones guilty of absolutely nothing — in numerous cases.  These three detainee deaths — like so many other similar cases — illustrate how extreme is the myth that has taken root in order to obscure what was really done.

At the end of the day, it becomes hard to believe almost anything we are told about the War on Terror either by our government or the rubberstamping mainstream media.