newsrackblog.com

a citizen’s journal by Thomas Nephew

  • Recent Comments

    • Thomas Nephew on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Nell on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Thomas Nephew on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Seth Grimes on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Joe Blunt on How’s that lesser evil thing working out?
    • Thomas Ray Worley on National Popular Vote vs. fixing the electoral college
    • Dan on County Council’s retreat loses respect — and Busboys
    • Thomas Nephew on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Bruce Godfrey on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
    • ballgame on Were recalls the way to go?
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
  • Recent Trackbacks

  • Real News

  • RSS my delicious

    • In Congress, Dem and GOPer Working Together to Change the NDAA | Mother Jones
      "Smith and Amash's effort comes amid a bipartisan backlash against indefinite detention that has already produced legislation on the state level. Republican-dominated legislatures in Arizona, Maine, and Virginia have passed anti-NDAA legislation. Proponents of indefinite detention argue that Congress' 2001 authorization of the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban permits the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens, even those apprehended in the United States. But the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the issue. Opponents counter that indefinite detention of American citizens in the United States is unconstitutional."
    • Review & Outlook: The Tea Party's Inner ACLU - WSJ.com
      The Wall Street Journal has a conniption fit about conservative opposition to the NDAA: "The ACLU tea partiers may be well-intentioned but they are woefully uninformed about the war on the terror. Their efforts would undermine executive war-fighting authority and the legitimacy of a terrorist detention and military tribunal system that has been established over many Congresses, endorsed by two Presidents and confirmed by the Supreme Court. They should stick to shrinking the entitlement state."
    • Arizona Joins Virginia in the NDAA Exodus. Is Nullification the Next New Thing? (Cutting the Gordian Knot)
      "In less than a week’s time a second state has put a foot down making it clear that it will not cooperate with Federal Law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Yesterday Arizona became the second state to pass a nullification of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)."
    • How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | | AlterNet
      “The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”
    • ‘I withdraw’: A talk with climate defeatist Paul Kingsnorth (Stephenson, Grist)
      I don’t think any “climate movement” is going to reverse the tide of history, for one reason: We are all climate change. It is not the evil “1%” destroying the planet. We are all of us part of that destruction. This is the great, conflicted, complex situation we find ourselves in. I am climate change. You are climate change. Our culture is climate change. And climate change itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, if you’ll pardon the terrible but appropriate pun. If we were to wake up tomorrow to the news that climate change were a hoax or a huge mistake, we would still be living in a world in which extinction rates were between 100 and 1000 times natural levels and in which we have managed to destroy 25 percent of the world’s wildlife in the last four decades alone.
    • Chris Hedges: Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
      “You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked. “We can’t say that,” Torrance answered. “Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked. “That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said. Advertisement “Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked. “We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered. “What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.” “We have not come to a position on that,” he said. “So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said. “I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”
    • America brings the ‘war on terror’ home (Wolf, Daily Star)
      "(Judge) Forrest also repeatedly asked for assurances – at least five times – that the NDAA would not sweep up people like the plaintiffs: journalists engaged in journalism and citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Again, every time, the lawyers for Obama and Panetta said that they could not give her such assurances. [...] We now have it from the U.S. government lawyers’ own mouths: This law may put journalists at risk, or at least the lawyers explicitly refused to rule out that option for their client – and, as Forrest put it, they have “one very big client.”"
    • Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt (Wallsten/Montgomery/Wilson, WaPo)
      "That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. [...] White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table."
    • Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement (Elk, In These Times)
      “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.” The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other.
    • Elections: What Are They Good For? (Swanson, War Is A Crime.org)
      Voting isn't everything. "I think Emma Goldman had a point in saying that if voting changed anything they would ban it. I think Howard Zinn had a point in saying that it doesn't matter who is sitting in the White House so much as who is doing the sitting in. The relentless ubiquitous question of how you can change the world if you refuse to engage in electoral politics strikes me as crazy. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote. Workers didn't elect the eight hour day. India didn't vote the British out."
    • Part II Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States (Zeese, Occupy Washington, DC)
      "When the long history of political infiltration is reviewed, the Occupy Movement should be surprised if it is not infiltrated. Almost every movement in modern history has been infiltrated by police and others using many of the same tactics we are now seeing in Occupy. "
    • Critiques Of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ (Huben)
      "The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement. Let's fix that."
    • UPDATED: Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol (Media Matters for America)
      Always good to have a reference, this is it. "Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception. " Multiple clips for future show and tells.
    • America's Death Squads (Davies, PDA Community/ZCommunications)
      "Barack Obama has halted the macabre parade of hooded, shackled suspects in orange jumpsuits stumbling off American planes into the tropical sunshine at Guantanamo, but he has not done so by restoring the rule of law. Instead, to a great extent, he has replaced Bush’s policy with a global campaign to simply kill a wide range of people in cold blood: terrorism suspects, resistance fighters, and anyone else added to secret lists for secret reasons. From a uniquely American “exceptionalist” point of view, killing suspects instead of capturing them is a convenient way to avoid the embarrassment of sweeping up hundreds of mostly innocent people in an indiscriminate global dragnet and then not knowing what to do with them. The dead tell no tales. Public outrage is contained within the faraway countries where the killings take place and does not cause domestic political problems."
    • Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay' (Abdul-Ahad, Guardian)
      Iraq ten years after: instead of one Saddam, many little ones. "Yassir was detained in 2007. For three years she heard nothing of him and assumed he was dead like his brothers. Then one day she took a phone call from an officer who said she could go to visit him if she paid a bribe. She borrowed the money from her neighbour and set off for the prison. "We waited until they brought him," she said. "His hands and legs were tied in metal chains like a criminal. I didn't know him from the torture. He wasn't my son, he was someone else.""
  • Subscribe

  • Meta

Blogged.com

A dialogue with Jeff Jarvis: torture by Iran, torture by us

Posted by Thomas Nephew on January 2nd, 2005

Looking back on 2004, several stories stood out for me, among them the election and certainly the terrible tsunami at the end of the year. But the story that was uniquely depressing and disappointing for me was the news that Americans were torturing and humiliating their prisoners in Iraq, under the auspices of American government policy.

At the time I wrote that I’ve rarely been so ashamed of this country, and I still feel that way. As an American — the more so as an American who had supported the Iraq war — I felt personally kicked in the stomach by those abuses, and responsible for demanding their punishment at every level of government. This conviction has grown as more background information and more accounts of abuse have emerged from Iraq and elsewhere; I want my country back.

Recently Jeff Jarvis drew attention to the sadly credible news — forwarded by an Iranian government figure named Abtahi — that the Iranian regime is torturing bloggers who speak out against it. Jarvis wrote that “If what we read here is true, then it is incumbent of us to bring attention to this abuse who are doing nothing more than we are doing.” I agree.* But I commented:

What about the torturing we’re doing? Or its outsourcing? It doesn’t excuse what’s happening in Iran, but let’s get the beam out of our own eye before going after the mote (or the beam) in someone else’s. (Matthew 7:3)

Jarvis replied as if I was trying to suppress the news:

Oh, come now, Thomas: I cannot stand up and warn about torture of fellow citizens because you say I’m not holy enough… because I am American?…. Well, then, certainly our friends in Germany should not be criticizing us or anyone, should they? And the French and their colonialism and stingy contributions to work aid make them unqualified. And…. Don’t be ridculous! What an inane equivalency to make! People are being tortured and you turn it into your own spin! For shame, sir. I will stand up for my Iranian brothers and sisters no matter whether you think I should or not.

My reply:

Jeff, I’m not saying you can’t speak out about Iranian torture because you’re American, not at all. I’m saying it would behoove you and us to look at our own misdeeds as well — it makes our protests about misdeeds by others more effective and less hypocritical.

Maybe I used the wrong words to express that — but I honestly don’t see anywhere near the same kind of outrage in your writings about American torture that I do about torture by others. Yet American torture is something we as Americans can do something about far sooner than we can do anything about Iranian torture, and with far greater authority. That isn’t “my own spin,” that’s the simple truth. We are *responsible* for one, we are not for the other. Which ought to come first? How do we have standing to criticize in others what we do ourselves?

I said “it doesn’t excuse what’s happening in Iran”. I’m willing to sign petitions, write e-mails, etc. about Iranian torture victims. But it’s with a hollow feeling, given the ongoing stream of revelations about our own misdeeds in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.

Equivalency? Well, yes, I guess torture by us is pretty much equivalent to torture by them. Lets stand up for our detained and tormented Iraqi, Afghan, and Arab brothers and sisters too, while we’re at it: 1) they may well be mostly innocent of terrorism, and 2) even if some of them aren’t, no one deserves to be tortured.

I’m frankly surprised and disappointed you consider any of this “inane,” and that you employ “for shame” against someone who doesn’t.
(link added)

Mr. Jarvis replied again, but continued to claim I was trying to “diminish” his news and make “rhetorical” points:

Thomas: You created the equivalency by bringing it up in this context. You can’t find me being outraged enough — by your standards — about torture of Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody (sorry, but I figured there was plenty of outrage already and I didn’t see that I added much to the discussion; like any blogger, I don’t cover all issues with the same attention because I’m an individual, not a news organizatin and, to quote Jon Stewart, I’m not your monkey). By making that comparison, you are trying to diminish what I am saying about the torture of bloggers. Well, by that standard, have you been outraged enough about the torture of victims in Saddam’s custody? What does that say about your outrage vs. my outrage? I’d call that inane. It’s a rhetorical non sequitor. As Hubris says, above, it’s tu quoque. It’s also slightly exploitive: dangling one class of victims to try to win points against someone advocating for another class of victims. One has no impact on the other — other than an attempt at distraction. The point of this post is very simple: I am trying to draw attention to what appears to be new disclosures of torture of our fellow bloggers. As far as I can tell, this is news. Pay attention or don’t — your choice. But don’t diminish what is being said about these people just to make your rhetorical point.
(link added)

Continuing this dialogue here: At no point do I say anything resembling “don’t pay attention to the plight of these Iranian bloggers.” Thus I think the charge of a so-called “tu quoque” fallacy is itself fallacious, strictly speaking.

I’m not “trying to diminish what [Jeff is] saying about the torture of [Iranian] bloggers” or distract from that. I’m challenging him to expand his outrage and activism to victims of American and American-sponsored torture as well, and I’m suggesting that may be the first step towards being taken seriously around the world and especially in Iran with regard to the plight of the Iranian bloggers.

Say we get a little traction about the Iranian situation among Americans, without frankly acknowledging and fighting torture by and on behalf of our own government. An Iranian spokesman could simply say, these are people who can’t be bothered to care about their own government’s transgressions — why should any of us care what they think? They’re just hypocrites who would do it themselves to us if they got the chance. I count the aptness of this answer — however “tu quoque” it may be — as one of the huge costs of our own crimes and our own failures to address them.

As for Jarvis, I’ve actually understated at least his initial lack of outrage when it came to American wrongs. At the time of the Abu Ghraib revelations, Jarvis wrote:

And let me say something quite unpopular and throw just a little perspective into the Iraqi prison scandal. I’ll repeat: What happened there was wrong and strategically idiotic and does not reflect either American ideals or American aims for the region. However, let’s remember that this is a war; the people being interrogated were likely suspected in movements to bring more violence upon not only American soldiers but also the Iraqi people. The means were wrong but the end was right: Bringing peace to Iraq and protecting its people. And was the “torture” all that shocking? Hell, watch an episode of Oz and compare.
(emphasis added)

This wasn’t even “the ends justify the means” — it was the ends excusing the means, even if the means were reprehensible, stupid, and patently at odds with those ends. The torturers of Iran can just throw such attitudes right back in our face — and sadly, they’ll have a point: we all have ends, we all have means, and we all have people who think means don’t matter when it comes to their particular ends. As long as we put up with that, or agree with that, we have little standing to object to it elsewhere.

What matters is whether we keep torturers under control and torture beyond the pale — and it looks like both Iran and the U.S. are generally busy failing that test, both inside government and outside it. This isn’t just a matter of fixing government policies any more. It’s about us as individuals deciding what we want our democracy and society to stand for. As Matt Welch wrote in his Reason piece, “Who’s Tortured?“:

But we now know that many of the shocking images from Abu Ghraib that we’ve been allowed to see —the hoods, the dogs, the sexual humiliation, the photography, the beating —have occurred elsewhere in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan; and in many instances they reflect nothing more than official United States policy. How we respond, whether conservative, libertarian, liberal or other, will tell us a lot about what we’ve become.

=====
* You can comment about the charges of Iranian torture by e-mail to members and institutions of the Iranian government, e.g., Iranian President Khatami, Ambassador to the United Nations M. Javad Zarif, the Iranian mission to the UN at iran@un.int, and the Iranian Interests Section at the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D.C. at requests@daftar.org. You can help investigate and oppose torture by the US by supporting organizations such as the ACLU , Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>