|
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Far-right violence and "mainstream" extremismDon't miss this video featuring Dave Neiwert, Sara Robinson and Rick Perlstein on The Deadly Results Of Right-Wing Extremism OurFuture.org 06/02/09.Tags: abortion, christian fundamentalism, christian right, christian terrorism, fanaticism, george tiller, terrorism
Friday, June 05, 2009
The Bad News and the Good?I always check the stock markets in the morning when I get to work. I know, I know, I'm crazy to still be invested in the markets after the last year, but the alternative to investing in the stock market is a savings account with a very low interest rate, or stuffing cash underneath my mattress. I am still hoping to retire at some point, I don't want to work until I'm eighty, in my line of work, that would be extremely difficult. I've lowered my expectations significantly, the apartment in Florence is completely out of the question, but if I can keep my job for about 10 more years, I might be able to afford one in Buenos Aires. The dream of retirement is still on the table, unless I get sick and have to sell my house to pay my medical bills.Anyway, this morning when I logged on to CNBC, one of the headlines read "Stocks open higher on Jobs Data". I thought that the unemployment rate must have declined, so I clicked on the headline to find out how much. As it turns out, the unemployment rate has hit 9.4 percent, which is the highest I can remember in my lifetime. The job losses amounted to 345,000 which was apparently not as bad as the experts were predicting. So the good news is that we've lost fewer jobs than expected. The bad news is that nearly one American in 10 is unemployed. I admit that I don't understand economics, but I do know that people need to work. Americans need to work not only so that they can support themselves and their families, but also so that they are not sitting around in the daytime watching "The Price is Right" or some other brainless daytime television show and becoming ever more stupid as the length of the vacation continues. We already have more than our share of stupid people in this country, what will happen to America if more than one in ten citizens are subjected to non-stop viewing of daytime TV? Have you ever listened to the crazy people who call into these radio shows, even good ones like C-span? People need something productive to do, they need to engage in something useful to society, not watch Oprah or "The View", which will only fill their already empty minds with dangerous thoughts, and we will never get them back to work. Where is the good news?
Ending torture: Domestic terrorism and "torture culture"Jack Balkin provides a sobering look at the state of the torture culture we developed in the United States during the Cheney-Bush years in Terrorism, Domestic and Foreign Balkinization blog 06/01/09. (I picked up the link from dday who also discusses Balkin's argument in Equal JusticeHullabaloo 06/04/09.) We've had two acts of deadly domestic terrorism just this week: the murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday in Kansas, with which far-right anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder has been charged, and the murder the next day of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long in Arkansas, to which the accused suspect Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad has admitted via his attorney. Balkin, a long-time critic of the Cheney-Bush torture program, raises some lawyerly questions about the Tiller case in particular. He was posting on Monday so may not have known about the Little Rock shooting. Muhammad has been charged with multiple counts of terrorism, but the county district attorney didn't not initially charge Roeder with terrorism, nor with capital murder. He asks rhetorically: One of the most important reasons for detaining terrorists (suspected or otherwise) is to obtain information about future terrorist attacks that may save lives and prevent future bombings. To procure this information, can the government dispense with the usual constitutional and legal safeguards against coercive interrogation? Should it be able to subject Roeder to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other methods, to determine whether Roeder knows of any other persons who are likely to commit violence against abortion clinics or against abortion providers in the future? Would your answer change if you believed that an attack on an abortion provider or a bombing of an abortion clinic was imminent? [my emphasis]Now, Balkin is definitely not arguing for doing this, quite the contrary: My assumption is that the government may not do any of these things. Roeder lives in the United States. He should be treated according to the ordinary criminal process. We should not be able to strip him of his rights simply by calling him a suspected terrorist, and it should make no difference whether he is a Muslim or a Christian, whether he is white or brown. And pro-life organizations, like Muslim charities, have rights of freedom of association that governments should protect lest we effectively criminalize political association and belief in the name of national security.But the blunt fact is that in the Cheneyist torture culture that has been adopted virtually wholesale by the Republican Party, then all the methods used against terrorist suspects in the Bush Gulag can be used on domestic terrorism suspects. Including those used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested on America soil and sent to a Navy brig where he was kept under conditions of extreme isolation that apparently turned his brain to something like mush. Balkin correctly pinpoints the future-oriented "ticking-time-bomb" argument as representing an open door to torture of all kinds for all kinds of reasons. As Stephen Holmes has described very well. That "ticking-time-bomb" scenario takes torture out of the long historical debate that rejected it for investigation of crime by putting its justification into an unknowable historical future. The torturer isn't asking the victim to confess a crime committed in the past, but in order to force him to help prevent a crime not yet committed. Since fears of the future can be open-ended, some hideous hypothesized threat in the future is an open-ended justification for torture. He also reminds us that institutionalized torture has always been directed at outsider groups of some kind. In ancient Athens, for example, slaves could be tortured, free Athenian citizens not, except in cases of high treason. That aspect of torture is exactly what Balking emphasizes when he says, "our national deliberations on terrorism have largely proceeded on the assumption that all terrorists are non-Americans and/or non-Christians who live in or come from distant lands". But with the completely open-ended and fear-based justification of the ticking time bomb, that restriction of torture to the foreigner, to the dark-skinned or even to the "terrorist" cannot be maintained. International law bans torture in all circumstances, making it even more of a taboo than capital punishment, torture represents a kind of ultimate barrier. That understanding is consistent with the basic view of law in classical liberal theory on which democracy and the rule of law are based. Once that barrier has been breached and that taboo violated, torture has its own "radicalizing logic", just as the real existing anti-abortion movement has in its extreme definition of abortion in a way that essentially eliminates compromise as a possible solution. As David Luban explains in some detail, accepting torture means metaphorically falling off a cliff. Once torture is accepted as an legitimate tool of the state, a basic, basic element of the rule of law has been discarded. The torture culture that has to be built up around it will find more and more situations to include as ticking time bombs. Tags: establishment press, torture
Note on the Republican Party and the anti-abortion movementThis story, Kline spokesman says timing of letter was ‘unfortunate’ in light of Tiller’s death by Steve Kraske Kansas City Star 06/04/09, is about a former Kansas state attorney general, Republican Phill Kline, who sent out a fundraising letter late last week that mentioned Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered by an anti-abortion Christian terrorist last Sunday. The story is framed as how the coincidence made that seem like exceptionally bad taste.But I was more struck by the content of Kline's fundraising appeal: In the letter, Kline, a long-standing abortion opponent, said he is seeking donations to offset $200,000 of attorneys’ fees “billed to me personally” that stemmed from a December 2007 trial ordered by the Kansas Supreme Court. ...A lot of attention has been focused on how the rhetoric of Republican media figures like Rush the OxyContin Man contributed to a climate of violence against Tiller in particular. I've written here about how the framing of the issue by the "mainstream" anti-abortion movement - abortion being seen as the murder of innocent babies in the clear understanding of God Himself - will inevitably continue to encourage those activists of a more violent inclination to commit acts of violence against abortion providers. But Kline's letter highlights another aspect of the problem: the ways in which overzealous Republican officials pander to the anti-abortionists by pushing sometimes frivolous legal actions. (I'm not making any judgment here on the nature of the possible complaints that might be filed to which Kline's fundraising letter refers.) On the one hand, it's important to recognize that the anti-abortion movement in the US has plenty of legally legitimate methods to press their cause, including the legal right to advocate positions that have the effect of indirectly encouraging violence. But when prosecutors bring charges against abortion providers, it adds a legitimacy to the notion that the providers are doing something that requires punishment. And, when an ill-founded prosecution then loses, it gives hardline activists that the legal system is actually incapable of protecting "innocent babies" being "murdered" by the thousands. For instance, this news article about charges filed against Dr. Tiller appeared in the Christian Post on 06/29/07, Notorious Late-Term Abortionist Faces 19 Criminal Charges by Ethan Cole: The infamous late-term abortionist who revels in his notoriety for providing women easy abortions had 19 misdemeanor charges filed against him on Thursday.The same conservative evangelical site reported on the outcome earlier this year, Tiller Acquitted; Faces More Charges by Audrey Barrick 03/28/09: Late-term abortionist George Tiller was acquitted on 19 charges of illegal abortions.The Christian Post is not a fringe outlet within the evangelical world. Al Mohler, the leading Southern Baptist theologian, publishes a regular column there. Jimmy Carter has published at least one op-ed piece there. But this "respectable" evangelical news service quotes the president of the far-right Operation Rescue, which played a leading role in highlighting Tiller as a target of the anti-abortion movement using extreme rhetoric like "Tiller the Killer". Amanda Terkel looks at that group's dubious record in Operation Rescue Tries To Distance Itself From Roeder’s Activities On Behalf Of The Group Think Progress 06/01/09. Operation Rescue has so far managed to avoid legal culpability in violent attacks, as Dave Neiwert reported in Attacking the providers Orincus blog 06/03/04. But it's clear that other violent anti-abortionists besides Scott Roehmer, the accused in Tiller's murder, have found Operation Rescue's ideology and militancy appealing. One might think an evangelical Christian news service like The Christian Post would give its readers a bit more information when highlighting Operation Rescue as a legitimate representative of the anti-abortion movement. But it's yet another example of the real existing anti-abortion movement. Because of the way in which the movement defines abortion, and because much of the organizational background and donations for anti-abortion groups come from people who have hard-right views across the board, not just on abortion, in actual practice it's nearly impossible for the "mainstream" of the movement to unambiguously distance itself from the violent terrorist fringe. They have to fear that clearly labeling murderers of abortion providers as terrorists, or even condemning the murder of George Tiller straightforwardly without stating at the same time their view of Tiller as a mass murderer, would suggest to anti-abortionist activists a lack of true Christian commitment to the cause of stopping the "murder" of "innocent babies". Tags: abortion, christian fundamentalism, christian right, christian terrorism, fanaticism, george tiller, terrorism
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Arkansas terrorist killingA 23-year-old Little Rock Muslim man, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, has been arrested and charged in the murder Monday of an Army recruiter, Pvt. William Long. Another recruiter who worked with him, Quinton Ezeagwula, was wounded in the attack. In addition to murder, he is charged with 15 counts of terrorism: Muslim convert pleads not guilty in killing of soldier by Kate Linthicum Los Angeles Times 06/03/09.According to an A********* P**** wire service report: A joint FBI-Homeland Security intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press said officers found maps to Jewish organizations, a child care center, a Baptist church, a post office and military recruiting centers in the southeastern U.S. and New York and Philadelphia.Linthicum's report raises an interesting question about the nature of his faith in Islam: Muhammad, who was known previously as Carlos Bledsoe, acted alone and was not part of a larger plot, said Cassandra Davis, a spokeswoman for the Little Rock Police Department. She said Muhammad previously lived in Memphis, Tenn., and Nashville and had recently moved to Little Rock.Another "lone nut"? Time will tell. At least in the case of Muslim terrorism, the national press don't automatically default to the "lone nut" assumption so his Muslim ties are more likely to be reported than in the case of Christian terrorists or secular-minded far-right terrorists. At this point, it's not entirely clear what Muhammad's possible motive may have been. And, as always in the early days of these cases, we have to remember that being accused means just that, accused, although the information needed for a reasonable factual assumption in a news event like this is not the same as having legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The initial profile being leaked by the authorities and spread by the press suggests that the suspect may have been heavily influenced by Islamist political thinking of some kind. Arkansas CW reports in Suspect in court Tuesday 06/03/09: Here are a few of the excerpts from Little Rock homicide detective Tommy Hudson's report:Despite that seeming confession, Muhammad pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Jacob Quinn Sanders in Wanted to kill more, suspect tells LR police by Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 06/03/09 gives us an account of munitions seized from the suspect's truck: Investigators seized more than 500 rounds of ammunition and three guns from the truck that police found Muhammad driving within 15 minutes after the shooting.I notice that Sanders does not list the Molotov cocktails mentioned in the A********* P**** report. Based on information from law-enforcement, the press is reporting that Muhammad had once traveled to Yemen on a Somali passport. The local authorities are saying that they are convinced he acted along, but who knows what that report means at this point? Sanders' report also has an interesting tidbit on the suspect's religion: According to a petition that Muhammad filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court in April, shortly after he moved to Little Rock, he was not fully satisfied with the name change.Dave Neiwert observes that Now the right-wingers want to blame military-recruiter slayings on liberals 06/02/09. I have have to wonder, do our Republican zealots really think that Muslim terrorists are some kind of "liberals"? Tags: terrorism
The politics of fanaticismDr. George Tiller's murder on Sunday in his church, almost certainly by a Christian terrorist, has the Republicans in a tizzy trying to distance themselves from that time of crime.It shouldn't be hard. "That's terrorism and murder and it's wrong. Period." should do it. But, as the invaluable Dave Neiwert puts it, "Right-wingers have a problem admitting that there's such a thing as right-wing terrorism." And that's one thing that makes it difficult for them to distance themselves clearly from the murder of Dr. Tiller. The Sedgwick County, Kansas, district attorney has filed charges in the case: Scott Roeder charged with first-degree murder in George Tiller shooting death by Stan Finger and Ron Sylvester The Wichita Eagle 06/02/09. Perhaps ironically, one of the more human responses I've seen came from the Roeder's ex-wife in Man likely to be charged with killing Tiller had history of mental illness, family says by Laura Bauer and David Klepper Kansas City Star 06/01/09: Lindsey Roeder’s focus now is on her son.I'm not criticizing Lindsey Roeder or her son in saying this, but they aren't doing Roeder's defense any good by talking to the press about him. I seriously don't mean that as a criticism; I can imagine more than one good reason why they would want to do so. But they convey in that article the distinct impression that they pretty much accept that Scott Roeder did the shooting. I'm sure it's partially because I've watched just about every episode of the Perry Mason show, including the TV movies, and came away with distinct images of how many people who appear unquestionably guilty of murder, e.g., caught standing over the body with the murder weapon in their hand, turn out to be Innocent. And in the real world, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to the Olympic bombing to the anthrax attacks of 2001, I've seen cases where the authorities and/or the press were convinced someone looked good for a crime and their "evidence" later turned out to be misleading or frivolous. Remember the "dirty bomber" that John Ashcroft arrested and turned over to the Navy to be tortured with extreme isolation for years but was never charged on any such count, probably because the evidence came from someone being tortured to make false claims? But this crime was almost certainly committed by a Christian terrorist of Roeder's reported political orientation. And the circumstantial evidence looks strong here, and it isn't based on torturing people or super-top-secret government documents or fabrications by segregationist redneck scammers from Arkansas. The headline writer of that Kansas City Star article picked up what rather bizarrely has become the knee-jerk conventional wisdom in rightwing terrorism cases, that the alleged perpetrator was a lone nut. Laura Bauer and David Klepper don't fall into that trap in the article. They do report that Roeder is said by his family to have had mental health problems in the past but they also report clearly his involvement in far-right fanaticism, which has been already documented in court proceedings. Near the end they write: Scott Roeder’s beliefs also came up in a custody battle in Pennsylvania. In 2003, Roeder sued for the right to visit a girl born the previous year. Roeder said he was the girl’s father.Dave Neiwert caught reporters on Monday already singing the lone-nut tune. I'm sure I'll have more to say about this case. But here, I want to mainly focus on the how the words and actions of non-violent rightwingers, in this case essentially the entire base of the Republican Party, relate to a case like Tiller's murder. I'm actually a little more hesitant than, say, Keith Olbermann on Monday evening's Countdown, to hang this around the necks of media blowhards like Bill O'Reilly. Decades ago, cult leader Charles Manson (in)famously took the fun, eclectic, mostly nonsensical lyrics to a Beatles song, "Helter Skelter", and took it to contain a prophetic calling for him to kick off a race war by taking his cult to go murder a pregnant actress (Sharon Tate). It would be crazy to blame the songwriters (the late John Lennon and Sir Paul McCartney ) or performers for that crime. But, then again, that song didn't explicitly say, "Sharon Tate has killed thousands of babies and is like Adolf Hitler." Olbermann is a bit too much of a blowhard for my taste, and also too careless with facts and too weak on news judgment. I do feel much more comfortable with the analysis along those lines that Dave Neiwert does at his blogs and in his latest book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (2009). Not least among his accomplishments is that he took the "eliminationism" concept from Danny Goldhagen, who applies it in the shakiest of ways on behalf of a neoconservative policy outlook, and made it into something actually useful. But I think abortion opponents are stuck with a real dilemma if they are serious about minimizing the chances that their rhetoric will encourage acts of violence. One columnist that O'Reilly has criticized by name on that issue is Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star who writes (Incendiary language creates climate that kills 06/02/09), "Language like that creates a climate for violence. When it becomes accepted parlance in the anti-abortion movement, we shouldn’t be surprised that some nut job might feel justified in picking up a gun to intervene." But the problem is deeper than a matter of word choice. Not being sympathetic at all to the cause of outlawing abortion, I'm sure my advice on the subject would not be welcome. But there certainly is an outlook by which one can oppose abortion but be in favor of laws allowing women to choose whether or not to have an abortion within the legal boundaries of Roe v. Wade. Consumption of cigarettes or alcohol are behaviors that are proven in many cases to have deadly effects. It's an empirical fact that smoking causes many deaths and that drunk drivers cause a lot of fatal and debilitating accidents. Yet banning them altogether has proven to be unfeasible. It doesn't stop individuals, churches, governments, medical providers or other kinds of private groups from discouraging irresponsible behavior with tobacco and alcohol. I'm a major skeptic of the idea of decriminalizing the use of narcotics. But it's also true that banning them has scarcely been an unmitigated success story. An abortion opponent could believe that abortion is wrong, immoral, against the will of God, even a "mortal sin", which is the Catholic Church's position, and still take that kind of position on legal regulations. But that's not the real existing anti-abortion movement. In fact, that's pretty much a description of the position of pro-choice politicians, who typically say they personally are opposed to abortion but favor women's choice along with sex education and other "abortion reduction" strategies. That's not how the anti-abortion movement as it actually exists approaches things, though. Obviously, we have to use care in generalizing about an entire movement. I believe, for instance, that one can still be considered a "pro-lifer" in good standing in the movement and advocate abortion exceptions in the case of rape or incest. But the movement generally considers a fetus, even one moments old, to be a human being and that killing that fetus/human being/baby is murder. When you proceed from that premise, then how does an abortion not appear to be "baby-killing"? And when you look at a record of millions of abortions performed, isn't it perfectly reasonable to compare that to the Holocaust? Isn't it an unavoidable conclusion that a government which allows such mass killing of babies to go on is as bad as that of Hitler's, if not worse? To me, a good rule in detecting fanaticism is that when your premises require you to adopt conclusions that are obvious bullshit, then it's time to look at things in a different way. To imagine that democratic government in the United States, or Spain, or Germany today, is worse than that of Nazi Germany because the laws in those countries allow a woman to choose to abort a fetus that cannot survive outside her own body, is a false and fanatical conclusion. Because that is a comparison that is equally true if you switch the subject and the object, i.e., Hitler's government was better than democratic government today in the US, Spain and Germany. Anybody who doesn't wanted to be conned by some really nasty fanatics had better develop a bullshit detector that goes off loudly when such conclusions are insisted upon. Mine goes off also when I hear people saying that the number of abortions that have been performed in America since Roe v. Wade (1973) is worse than the Holocaust. That means that aborting a fetus that cannot survive outside its mother's body is at least as bad as killing a real live Jew. If not worse, because an unborn baby is considered to be perfectly innocent of anything wrong. Again, it seems to me if your inner bullshit alarms don't start going off loudly when statements like that get tossed around, then you really don't have sense enough to even begin to understand the theology of when a fetus becomes human. Yet those kinds of claims are as common as dirt in the anti-abortion movement, yes, including the vast nonviolent majority of anti-abortion activists, including high officials in the Catholic Church and some of the most popular Protestant ministers in the US. Jamison Foser takes William Saletan to task in Slate's Saletan plays with fire County Fair blog 06/02/09 for this column, Tiller's Killer: Is it wrong to murder an abortionist? Slate 06/01/09, and Duncan "Atrios" Black labels Saletan his "wanker of the day" for it. In that piece, Saletan argues along something of the same lines I do here, which is that given the premises of the real existing anti-abortion movement, killing an abortion provider may be a crime but not a sin. "If abortion is murder," he writes, "the most efficient thing you could have done to prevent such murders this month was to kill George Tiller." He does conclude with saying: If you don't accept what he [Tiller's assassin] did, then maybe it's time to ask yourself what you really believe. Is abortion murder? Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Most of us think it's the latter. We're looking for ways to prevent abortions—not just a few this month, but millions down the line—without killing or prosecuting people. Come and join us.Saletan's argument is so flabby I don't like it either. He makes a far better case on why the principles of the movement justify murdering abortion providers than he does to say what's might be wrong with their thinking. As we're seeing in practice, people who think they are doing the Lord's work by saving innocent "babies" from being "murdered" aren't going to be moved by dippy appeals to support sex educations programs. A great many of them are against honest sex education programs, for reasons on which I won't speculate here. I think his basic point is correct, though. but I don't see that as grounds for appeal for anti-abortion zealots to sit down and let's reason together. They don't need invitations to polite dialogue. They need to snap out of their fanaticism. Because even though most anti-abortion activists may be too moral or too straight-laced or too repressed or too cowardly to actually murder an abortion provider, as long as they promote an ideological framework that equates abortion with murder, their propaganda is going to encourage some people to consider acts of violence against abortion providers. And as long as they are willing to accept ideological constructions that make Nazism morally superior to democratic government and that equate aborting a fetus that has no possibility of surviving outside its mother's womb with murdering a living, breathing Jew just because you feel like killing a Jew, then their activism and propaganda is going to encourage far-right violent extremism. To put their alternatives another way, it's theoretically possible for anti-abortionists to recognize that until very recently in history, i.e., a century or so ago, Christianity didn't see reason any reason to assume that a zygote was a full human being. And that abortion in the United States was first banned around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century because even medical abortions were dangerous to the lives of the women carrying the fetus. Both Christianity and Judaism in medieval times had some notion that "ensoulment" (the point at which the soul enters the body of the fetus) occurred at some time during the first months of pregnancy. But they didn't get that directly out of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, because it's not there. And that absence is signficant, too. Because in Jesus' time, a form of abortion was practiced in the Roman Empire. And neither Jesus (so far as we see in the Gospels) nor the writers of the canonical books of the New Testament thought it necessary to even mention it. So a little Christian humility in this matter could go a long way in getting anti-abortionists out of a fanatical mindset. Maybe God isn't speaking to them quite so unambiguously on the subject as they might think. And more plain honesty would help, as well. Yes, miracle premature births have been around for a long time. Lots of babies that were conceived on or soon after a couple's wedding night have been born four or five months later perfectly healthy, as the incomparable Miss Manners once pointed out. But that is a purely social "reality". Roe v. Wade was based on a medical reality that hasn't changed, despite all the prenatal and postnatal care advances since 1973: a fetus cannot survive outside its mother's body until the end of the second trimester. So in medical terms, the fetus is part of its mother's body until that point. And government should rely on that medical reality when it comes to abortion laws. According to Roe, US Constitutional law requires it to do so. Still, it would be entirely possible to reconceive the issue as a fetus being potentially a human life or spiritually human and to campaign for laws and/or Constitutional amendments against abortion, but doing so without resorting to fanatical constructions that equate aborting a fetus to murdering a living breathing human or to view a democratic government that protects women's rights as worse than Nazism. Theoretically. But that's not the real existing anti-abortion movement in America. And until they break with their fanatical framing of the basic issue, they are going to continue to encourage the kind of fatal extremist practice that ended Dr. George Tiller's life this past weekend. Tags: abortion, christian fundamentalism, christian right, christian terrorism, fanaticism, george tiller, terrorism
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Ending torture: "Torture culture" David Luban in "Liberalismus und die Verführing zur Folter" Kursbuch 163/Mar 2006 writes about the danger of trying to establish some stable legal basis for practicing torture. It is translated from the essay which appeared as "Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb" in Karen Greenberg, ed., The Torture Debate in America (2006). I'll be quoting from several pieces from that issue of Kursbuch in other posts.I won't try to summarize Luban's entire long argument in this post. But the essence of it is that the notion suggested by some that torture can be allowed in limited circumstances by having it carefully regulated and without endangering the rule of law, like Alan Derschowitz' idea of a "torture warrant", is a dangerous illusion. The "liberalism" of his title refers to classical liberal political theory on which the US Constitution is based, not to the liberal/conservative definitions used in American politics. Stephen Holmes in the same issue (and also in Greenberg's Torture Debate in America) argues that the "ticking time bomb" scenario makes a popular ideological argument for those who support torture because, for one thing, it takes it out of the long historical debate condemning torture for investigation of crime by putting its justification into an unknowable historical future. The torturer isn't asking the victim to confess a crime committed in the past, but to force him to help prevent a crime not yet committed. Since fears of the future can be open-ended, some hideous hypothesized threat in the future is an open-ended justification for torture. And in the Cheneyist vision of government by open-ended fear, it becomes a justification for torture as a permanent practice. Luban points out that within the classical liberal concept of the state, the ticking-time-bomb argument has a certain appeal. He doesn't cite Jeremy Bentham's concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. But the ticking-time-bomb torture justification is a perverted form of it. In general it's wrong to inflict cruelty on people, the argument goes. But in order to save the lives of thousands menaced by that ticking-time-bomb, the pain of the torture victim is a trade-off for the greater good. Luban makes a focused argument about the problem of trying to limit torture to very specific practices and situations by explaining the real-world requirements that to have a torture program, you have to have a torture culture, which involves having a supply of experts and specialists in the practice of inflicting pain on individual victims. Even without the torture memos released in 2009 at his disposal, Luban used the ones that were in the public record at the time he wrote to show that the seeming specificity in them was false. The ticking-time-bomb argument itself assumes that the situations which justify torture in the eyes of its advocates assume those are situations in which the normal rules of society and civilized social behavior have to be set aside. In the actual practice of torture, the hands-on torturer will find himself confronted with nuances of the torture experience not spelled out in those seemingly comprehensive memos. And the mentality of the ticking-time-bomb ideology will tend to validate the notion of pushing beyond them. The ever-perceptive Tom Tomorrow provides us a darkly satirical look at the extent to which our media and political establishments have absorbed a "torture culture" in Look what happens when Dick Cheney makes a startling admission! Salon 06/02/09. We now know that the real existing torture practices of the Cheney-Bush torture program in fact went beyond those seemingly highly specific conditions "permitted" under the Mob-lawyer-style legal opinions on which that administration relied. And there is more than the dubious source of Colin Powell's assistant Larry Wilkerson that give us reason to believe that Dark Lord Cheney used the torture program to produce false information needed for his pre-Iraq-War propaganda, not "only" to look for those "ticking time bombs". Luban's article analyzes the torture memos to which he had access in some detail, showing the painfully and obviously faulty legal reasoning in them. He also looks at some of the sophomoric arguments that can be easily built on the ticking-time-bomb idea, and inevitably will be. This is not a matter of the fabled "slippery slope". The more appropriate metaphor here is falling off a cliff. Once torture is accepted as an acceptable tool of the state, a basic element of the rule of law has been discarded. The torture culture that has to be built up around it will find more and more situations to include as ticking time bombs. In any case, the torture of accused terrorists in the Cheney-Bush program was not literally about ticking time bombs about to go off. The idea is that any information that the torture victims might yield about "Al Qa'ida" might help in some way to foil some plot that might be in some stage of development. That is already a radically different situation than a huge bomb about to go off in an hour in a highly populated area. Luban also provides an historical survey of the pre-liberal (i.e., pre-Enlightenment) justifications for torture: as a privilege of military victors; as state Terror; as punishment for crimes; and, to induce confession of crimes. He argues that the classical liberal notions of democracy and rule of law reject the legitimacy of those justifications. The US Bill of Rights expresses that outlook in the third and fourth instances, by banning "cruel and unusual punishment" and providing for the right against self-incrimination. The ticking-time-bomb ideology for torture doesn't explicitly challenge any of those well-established taboos of classical liberalism. And for that reason, Luban cautions, it can have a certain seductive appeal to those willing to accept the illusion that a torture culture can be limited within bounds that don't threaten social or the underlying rule of law. Tags: establishment press, david luban, torture
Violence and silenceWe lift up our prayer against the oddsAnd fear the silence is the voice of God Of God. Of God. - Emmylou Harris, "The Pearl" Alfred Herrhausen (1930-1989) Carolyn Emcke's Stumme Gewalt: Nachdenken uber die RAF [Mute Violence: Reflections on the RAF] (2008) is a long essay by the goddaughter of Alfred Herrhausen, the Vorstandssprecher (CEO) of Deutsche Bank. Herrhausen was killed by the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) in late 1989, nearly 20 years ago. His assassination was one of the group's last high-profile actions. The murder has never been solved. (I started this before the news that Dr. George Tiller had been gunned down in his church by a Christian terrorist gave it an immediately relevance to today's current news.) Emcke gives us the basic facts of the killing. But her essay is really about her own mourning and her desire to achieve a closure she has not yet been able to achieve. But the story is also about silence, about the burden created by the silence of others that leaves a lasting burden for the survivors of someone who is killed. She talks about a recurring dream that she had in which she would be sitting down with the terrorists who were planning the act and discussing with them why they wanted to do it and trying to talk them out of it. And she builds on that image throughout the book, imagining what it would be like if she could just talk to those who killed her godfather, with whom she was very close. How it would be if such a conversation could take place without accusation or threat, but completely openly. If she could talk to those who planned and executed the act to just understand what they were thinking, what their reasoning was, what they think about their actions from the perspective of today. She continues on to propose in all seriousness an amnesty for the remaining RAF activists so that they actually could come forward, voluntarily and without the tradeoff of amnesty for their willingness to speak. While she makes good arguments for the idea, she also realizes that it's likely to remain a fantasy. And she talks about why that is so. The state is understandably reluctant to set aside its laws against murder for specific cases, and Germany has no statute of limitations on murder. Even if a special arrangement were made for the RAF cases to take prosecution off the table, those involved with the killing would still have powerful reasons to avoid speaking about it. They may have spouses and children who they don't want to know about that aspect of their past. Even if an individual wanted to talk themselves, they might have to betray others that were involved in doing so. Another set of secrets have to do with the the East German (DDR) and West German (BRD) governments. The RAF was not directed by the DDR. But the DDR did provide them significant support from the start, including free passage through the DDR (and other countries of the "socialist bloc"), refuge and new identities during the 1980s for several members who had burned out on the underground terrorist life, and some direct military training. (Palestinian guerrilla groups also provided some training for the RAF.) A lot of the history of the RAF and the DDR is known. Other parts of it would be either "known unknowns" or "unknown unknown", to use Rummy's famous terms. The recent revelation that the policeman was the shooter in the killing of a demonstrator in West Berlin in 1967 - June 2, so today is the 42nd anniversary - is a reminder that there are still DDR secrets to be revealed. I can't pretend to be able to give Emcke's specific proposal for an RAF amnesty dispassionate consideration because I'm so stunned at the willingness of our media and political establishments - sadly, of both parties - to like torturers from the Cheney-Bush administration skate without enforcing the law on the perpetrators. Torture actually is a distinct category of law from murder. But I find it hard to imagine how it can be a good idea in the end to indemnify people for murder. As a practical matter, this sometimes has to be done in civil war situations. And Emcke does reference "transitional justice" concepts in arguing for the kind of amnesty she proposes. But I'm not convinced, not least because in the case of the RAF, only they and a small handful of supporters through they were in a civil war in 1989, if even they did. And with a massive peaceful revolution under way at that moment in the DDR and other Soviet bloc countries, it's hard to see how the RAF's situation at that moment can be compared those in a civil war. But she makes a moving statement on the effect of those unknowns, that thick and heavy silence, on the survivors of victims of terrorism. Another part of Emmy's "The Pearl" seems appropriate for a conclusion: It is the heart that kills us in the end Just one more poor broken bone that cannot mend As it was now and ever shall be, Amen. Amen. Amen. And here's a video of her performing the entire song, along with Buddy Miller, Patty Cayamo and Shawn Colvin: Tags: carolyn emcke, raf, rote armee fraktion, stumme gewalt
Monday, June 01, 2009
Christian terrorism strikes again Paul Jennings Hill, Christian terrorist martyr (executed in 2003 for murder in the killings of an abortion provider and his bodyguard)It looks like a Christian terrorist just took out another physician who performs abortions, Dr. George Tiller of Kansas: Suspect in Kansas abortion doctor's slaying reportedly belonged to anti-government militia Los Angeles Times 06/01/09. Gunned him down while he was attending church. As always in these cases, we should remember that the accused is just that, accused. What is a reasonable assumption in terms of judging news may not be the same as legal proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially with our national press as broken as it is, it's always helpful to remember that. But that also doesn't mean that we can't look at the environment of Christian terrorists, which looks very much like it was involved in this latest murder of an abortion provider. (While looking up Paul Hill, the guy depicted above, I see that he attended Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi, at the same time I was attending Millsaps College just literally a few blocks away.) Journalist Michelle Goldberg, author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World, writes about George Tiller's murder this past weekend in The Pro-Life Insurrection The Daily Beast 06/001/09: In this context, says Levin, Tiller's murder is a call to action. “I think the assassin wanted to make a statement by killing him at a church, to say that the holy act was killing this guy and ending this hypocrisy and saving babies,” he says. “He wanted to do more than just kill someone he considers an evil baby killer, wanted to send a message to friend and foe alike that hopefully there will be more.” Tiller’s assassination looks like what anarchists and far-right groups alike sometimes call the “propaganda of the deed.” Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, is unabashed in saying that the murder could help the antiabortion movement. “This is a teaching moment,” he said when reached by phone Sunday night. “We can talk about what a vile, evil man [Tiller] was, and discuss all the different ways that he killed children. Dr. Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet. Part of my goal is I’m going to shore up pro-life leaders to not flinch, not fear, not waver.”One of the many problems in the Cheney-Bush administration's "War on Terror" was the administration's claim that The Terrorists were motivated by some nihilistic, inexplicable urge to destroy America and kill Americans. "They hate us for our freedoms." How many times did we hear that during the Cheney-Bush years? But terrorism is a technique of warfare, not a generic ideology or brand of evil. And in understanding and combating terrorism, the ideology motivating them matters. Anti-abortion terrorists are not typically driven by the same ideology as tax-protester terrorists, though they may share some common political obsessions. And I don't use the term "Christian terrorist" frivolously. Various forms of militant Christianity are very popular and influential on the far right, such as the Christian Identity movement. Randall Terry quoted above was a major figure in the "Patriot militia" movement during the 1990s. David Neiwert and Sara Robinson at the Orcinus blog are already writing about this there, as I'm sure they will in their respective individual blogging at Crooks and Liars and Our Future. Sara writes in Jesus's Jihadis 05/31/09: Tiller was one of just three doctors in the entire US who performed late-term abortions. Now, there are just two. Which means that 36 years of anti-choice terrorism is now just two assassinations away from completely ending late-term abortion in America. Violence has won out -- over the will of the people, over the courts, over the horrific logic of medical necessity. And whenever terrorists win, democracy has lost ...And she catches an interesting symbolic element: First Knoxville, then this. Sherilyn Ifill once made the point that lynchings typically occurred on courthouse lawns as a symbol that the mob had overridden the authority of the state and taken justice into its own hands. So what does it mean when right-wing terrorists start gunning down progressives in the pews of their own churches? Two events do not a pattern make -- but if this keeps happening, it'll be clear that there's a message being sent.Sara considers herself to be a former (or recovering?) fundamentalist, and she writes: I've often said that fundamentalism begins the minute you decide you have the One True Right and Only Way -- and that you have a God-given duty to impose that way on the rest of the world. Because of this, fundamentalists have never been willing to recognize the legitimacy of other faiths. And certain factions on the far right have never had qualms about vandalizing mosques or synagogues in order to harass Muslims and Jews into political and social silence.Tags: christian terrorism, terrorism
Ending torture: Torture Awareness MonthThe National Religious Campaign Against Torture has designated June 2009 as their Torture Awareness Month:June 26th is United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. A few years ago, religious and human rights organizations in the United States declared the month of June to be Torture Awareness Month as a way to provide greater visibility to this issue and provide an opportunity for coordinated actions across the country.Since it's a live issue in American politics in any case, I'm planning to post about the issue regularly this month. Torture is illegal. Torture destroys the rule of law. Torture perpetrators have to be prosecuted. Torture functions in practice as an instrument of state terror. Those are four realities about the practice of torture that should be front and center in the discussions of torture now going on the United States. The very fact that torture is up as a topic of discussion at all as a tool of American policy is itself a sign of rot in our political culture. ![]() The Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus by Dieric Bouts (1475) And the factual suppression of these elements in those discussions as they have taken place is an example of "repressive tolerance" in operation. The focus is elsewhere because of three major sets of competing interests at work. The Republican Party is committed now to the practice of torture and to the Cheney dogma of the Unitary Executive, which holds that the President is inherently free to violate the law and even the Constitution, though most are not ready to explicitly defend the latter. And in reality they only apply the latter to Republican Presidents. But to maintain this authoritarian vision as a viable option for the next Republican Presidency, they desperately need to avoid having the higher-level torture perpetrators from the Cheney-Bush administration prosecuted. The process would undermine their case for torture and for the Unitary (Republican) Executive notion. It would also be politically devastating. And some individuals like Dick Cheney have a personal stake in not being prosecuted. Especially since some people actually died under the Cheney-Bush torture program, some officials could be charged with depraved indifference or other counts in those deaths. The Democratic Party establishment would like the issue to go away. Unlike the Republicans, they also want the practice of torture to go away. The Party leadership just has too many hacks like Senate Majority Leader "Give-'Em-Whine-Harry" Reid who suffering from some combination of not much caring whether the laws against torture are enforced and being terrified of opposing the Republicans on a "national security" issue. The Party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson is being crippled on this issue by poor leaders like Reid. Even thought with few exceptions, the most active opponents of torture are Democrats and the Democratic base is overwhelmingly in favor of prosecuting torture perpetrators. Then there's our corporate media, our sad, broken national press corps who largely understand themselves as infotainers though they insist on calling themselves "journalists" because that's who they play on TV. The overpaid and undercompetent group that are mostly who we see on TV as the Pod Pundits who really do influence the framing and prioritization of issues a great deal are also driven by Groupthink. And in developing their Groupthink conventional wisdom on issues, they generally apply the news judgment and analytical ability that one would expect among the participants in a fraternity keg party at around 2:00AM. These interests have largely converged to minimize to keep the legal issues out of the center of the discussion. The Reps don't want there to be any legal issue at all. The Dems don't want the legal issue to be prominent, because it would put pressure on their leaders to insist on enforcing the law and emphasize how feckless they were as an opposition Party in failing to raise a stink about the torture program. And our sad excuse for a press corps seem incapable of understanding that there is a legal issue, they try to cram all these issues into "process" questions where the story is this side arguing with that side and they do stenography of what each side is saying and keep score as to which side seems to be ahead, and the celebrity press is so committed to the values of the Beltway Village that the notion of actually prosecuting their pals from the Cheney-Bush administration seems unthinkable to them. And, like we saw during the Scooter Libby trial, trials over the torture program would also expose the failures and even collusion of the corporate press with the torture program, though I would be surprised if any of the press were legally culpable in any of it. I'm going to do a series of posts on the more general background issues, including several from a series of related articles in the German magazine Kursbuch, a publication of Die Zeit company, whose flagship is a respected weekly newspaper of that name. I discussed one of them previously in The purpose of torture 05/20/09. Tags: establishment press, torture
|
FEATURED QUOTE
No subject for immortal verse That we who lived by honest dreams Defend the bad against the worse." -- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?
ABOUT US
RECENT POSTS
ARCHIVES
RECENT COMMENTS
[Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
SEARCH THIS SITE
BLUE'S NEWS
ACT BLUE
BLUE LINKS
Environmental Links Gay/Lesbian Links News & Media Links Organization Links Political Links Religious Links Watchdog Links
BLUE ROLL
MISCELLANEOUS
|