A Month of Crucial Decisions on Torture
Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 04:43PM No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
An inflection point is a place on a curve where the growth rate flips from positive to negative (or vice versa). Once it is hit the curve will continue its trend, but unless another inflection point is reached it will inevitably turn down (or up). We may be approaching something like that with civil liberties and human rights. This week Mark Danner published the second half of his coverage of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) report on detainee torture at CIA black site prisons, along with the report itself. The ICRC document is sickening, a gruesome catalog of horrors inflicted by us on those in our custody. In his first article Danner noted how the public message was that we needed to “take the gloves off” after 9/11. That was not just White House spin or a slogan for the new product getting rolled out, though - it also constituted the whole debate on torture. It was both inflection and turning point.
There was plenty of evidence evil was being done in our names, but the fundamental dishonesty of our leaders prevented an airing. As Jane Mayer wrote, “[t]he Bush Administration could have openly asked Congress for greater authority, or engaged the public in a discussion of the morality and efficacy of ‘enhanced’ interrogations, but instead it chose a path of tricky legalisms adopted in classified memos.” With Congress being controlled first by Republicans with an authoritarian streak who placed obedience to the president above the law, then by timid and cowardly Democrats who refused to confront a bully (then) or a hyperventilating minority (now) we have seen no action on this vital issue. Since at least December 26, 2002 - the day the Washington Post reported on a black site near Bagram air base - Congress has been grossly negligent on the issue.
We as a people are responsible for our country’s descent into state sponsored torture. We freely elected our leaders and they began these programs in our name. It may be tempting (it certainly is for me) for those of us who object to think: I always opposed torture; I never approved of it or tried to rationalize it; I did not use euphemisms for it; I never tried to deny that it had happened. That is all well and good, but whatever our individual feelings on it we all share the collective responsibility for it. As a country, we did it.
But now we no longer have even that implausible deniability. Probably every country on the face of the earth claims its people enjoy great freedom and that it reveres the rule of law, but asserting it does not make it so. In some countries oligarchs control key industries, bend politicians to their will and suppress dissenting voices - with violence if need be. Other countries promote relatively liberal economic policies but have dismal records on human rights; still others claim a new model of governing that combines impressive economic growth with severe restrictions on civil liberties. We are on a path to join them. That is the inflection point straight ahead. The growth rate has moderated a little but is still negative.
Whether that changes may depend largely on two outcomes, one just beginning and one in process. The former is our public discussion of torture. Danner writes: “We are having, in a ragged way, the debate about ethics and morality in our national security policies that we never had in the days after September 11, when decisions were made in secret by a handful of officials.” We can no longer pretend not to know, and we all will be responsible for what becomes of those policies in the years ahead. We need to demand details, no matter how uncomfortable, and stop letting government hide behind the fearmongering rhetoric of national security, state secrets and classification.
The one in process is the handling of Bush administration documents by president Obama. April 16th is the Justice Department’s deadline for a response on the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for several torture memos. Obama has already declassified some documents, but these ones appear to be explosive. If he lets them see the light of day it may be more than Congress can ignore. The public conversation will intensify as well. It feels like we have arrived at a crucial moment - when the course of our country, and what it means to be an American, will be set for a good time to come. What will our leaders do, and what will we? Will we stretch toward the sunlight or keep looking, slouched, at the ground?
Reader Comments (3)
The idea of individual responsibility for what our government does is deeply unpopular. Or so I found when I first joined a chat room way back in the early-mid '90's. Ouch! You wouldn't believe the number of intelligent people out there who really believe the government is separate from the rest of us. Dangerous belief. The point is that being American and subscribing to our system gives us the responsibility for that system; denying it means giving up on our democracy.
Last night some talk show guy was pointing out that Senate Repubs are holding a gun to Obama's head on the issue of releasing those documents, refusing to confirm appointees if the president doesn't keep a lid on the torture issue. My own reaction is -- as you write -- we've reached the bottom line here. If we go along with any efforts to hide the truth this time, we will have given up our privileges and responsibilities as citizens and will have been fully complicit in the destruction of our system. No way around it. Unless we're willing to cede self-governance to an endless supply of Bushes and Cheneys willing to run things for us.
I think it's natural to gravitate towards individual instead of collective guilt/sin. It's much easier to figure out on that level - either you injure someone or you don't, either you act out of prejudice or you don't. It's a lot more clear cut and therefore much more appealing. Plus when you get to collective guilt you start edging into systemic problems that may require legislative remedies. For instance, by almost any measure - education, income, incarceration rate, etc. - African Americans are statistically worse off than whites. There are 2 possible explanations: Either they are inherently inferior or we are racist. While we all may be individually very nice and open minded, collectively we perpetuate inequality and feel no urgency about correcting it. How well do you think that argument typically goes over?
It's hard for people -- well, it's certainly hard for many Americans -- to admit emotional and moral complexity. Years ago I was on an urban freeway bounded by high concrete walls on both sides. Everyone was going about 70 and a dog had somehow gotten itself onto the highway. It was a matter of moments: which one of us would hit it? Turned out to be me. It was awful. It was particularly perplexing when I realized a) there wasn't a damn thing I could have done about it (difficult/impossible to believe -- still! now! decades later! -- and to let go of personal responsibility), and b) the crunch of the body under the wheels gave the same pleasure that cracking one's knuckles does. Pain, guilt, horror, and odd pleasure all mixed up together. What the torturers feel, though would they admit it? even to themselves?
Hidden in your comment, Dan, is the reason why we "hate" Congress. We are part of the system; we are responsible for pressuring them; they are just like us; we/they know we/they are inept and fear we/they can't change the situation. Something like that.
I'm trying hard not to launch into a peroration about the horrible increase in narcissism which probably is at the bottom of the whole damn thing. And yes, collectively we do perpetuate inequality.