By Anonymous Liberal
Many years from now, when historians look back on this period in our history, I fear that they will describe it as the moment when the idea of America lost its resonance in the world, when America became just another country.
I've traveled enough to know that America has long occupied a unique place in the collective consciousness of people across the globe. The idea of America has long encompassed a number of adjectives: some complimentary, some derogatory, but all distinctive and uniquely American. America is viewed as a nation of unparalleled decadence, of conspicuous and unapologetic consumption. But it is also viewed as the land of opportunity, a place where innovation and industriousness are rewarded like nowhere else. People around the world have long complained of American arrogance and self-importance, but on some level, they understand why Americans are proud of their country. They grudgingly admit that America has, for most of its history, been a powerful force for good in the world.
Americans' sincere and earnest belief in their founding principles, in freedom of speech and religion, the rule of law and constitutional democracy, have popularized those concepts throughout the world. America's continued success and vitality have proven not only that a government based on such principles can survive, but that it can flourish. The power of the American dream is ultimately what doomed communism.
America has long been a country dedicated to leading by example. It has been a country that tries to hold itself to its own high standards, regardless of how its enemies behave. That's why there have been countless documented examples over the years of enemy soldiers seeking out American troops in order to surrender, knowing that Americans would not mistreat them. That's the idea of America boiled down to its essence. It's a belief that America, for all its arrogance and annoying self-righteousness, is a country that stands for something important. It's a country that very much believes in its own principles and endeavors heroically to live up to them. That kind of reputation did not develop overnight; it was earned, slowly and painstakingly, by the deeds and actions of countless Americans over many decades.
And it's exactly that reputation that the Bush administration has carelessly pissed away over the last four years. Confronted by a particularly brutal and unprincipled enemy, our leaders decided that our principles were the problem. They were just too confining. So almost immediately, the Administration began defining America down. Torture was essentially defined out of existence. Novel legal theories were introduced justifying the circumvention of long-standing prohibitions. International treaty obligations and rules of war were disregarded. The rule of law itself was up-ended--in secret, by executive decree. Many of the most celebrated American principles were hastily cast aside. Just yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon has decided to omit the prohibition on "humiliating and degrading treatment" from the Army Field Manual on interrogation. Just add it to the list.
This defining down of American principles has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. They see a country famous for its embrace of freedom and individual rights spying upon its own citizens without warrants and locking away its own citizens without due process of law. They see a country famous for its humane treatment of captives building secret torture prisons, engaging in widespread abuse and humiliation of detainees, and using an off-shore prison at Guantanamo Bay as a way of circumventing its own laws and constitutional principles. And worst of all, they see a country that appears to have no more interest in leading by example, a country more concerned with getting itself out of prior commitments and finding ways to exempt itself from the rules. A reputation that took the better part of a century to earn may soon be little more than a memory.
If America ceases to hold itself to a higher standard than the rest of the world, it will lose any legitimate claim to exceptionalism. If America ceases to value and abide by the very principles that it introduced and popularized to the rest of the world, it will no longer capture the imaginations or influence the thinking of people outside of its borders. America will become just another country, remarkable only for its size and strength. It's time to stop defining American down.
UPDATE: Having now reread my post in a less sleep-deprived state, there are some points I'd like to clarify. First, the idea of America that I'm talking about didn't really emerge until the 20th century. I'm talking about the period in our history from roughly World War I onward. Second, I don't mean to suggest that during that period America and Americans did nothing but good. Far from. But I think America did enough good and was true enough to its guiding principles that it became associated with certain ideals. What's troubling about the last four years is not so much that we've not lived up to those ideals; we've often failed in that regard. What's troubling is that in many respects we've disavowed those ideals, openly repudiating them in the name in expediency. It's one thing for the world to see Americans failing to live up to their own professed standards (e.g. by mistreating prisoners of war). That's damaging, but not unprecedented. It's quite another thing, however, for the world to see America, as a matter of policy, defining its standards down. That's what has been happening under the Bush administration, and I find it deeply troubling.
Digby had some good thoughts on this topic today as well. Good post, AL.
ReplyDeleteExactly right. In many ways I have had trouble describing what the problem is in the U.S. now. We are most certainly not a police state. I've been in police states and America is not even close. It is not as if we have become a paradise lost. It was not so long ago that we tolerated apartheid, had communist witch hunts and opened concentration camps to house our Japanese citizens. Such excesses would be unthinkable to most Americans now.
ReplyDeleteWhat has changed is, as you stated, is the idea of America. Never in our history have we tolerated systematic torture of our enemies. Never in our history have we accepted the notion that the president can ignore laws and have virtually unlimited powers.
It is not that America is a bad place. It is just that we are no better than anyone else. As you suggested, we are just another country. Better than most but no better than the rest. For that we have only ourselves to blame. The excesses of George Bush were well known in 2004 and a (slim)majority of Americans still chose him to be president.
I was talking to a Russian Jew who came to this country before the fall of the Soviet Union. He said people outside the country could and were making a distinction between the Bush government and the American people (the real America as it were). He thought the American people were still liked and admired inspite of Bush's actions.
ReplyDeleteBut now, what he feared is that people outside the country are no longer seeing the distinction between the violence and harshness of the government and the American people. He didn't really talk about consequences, except to say that this is really bad for America.
By the way, this guy is a Republican and somebody eternally gratiful to America for what it allowed him to gain through yes, hardwork and sweat.
But it will have consequences in a globalized world where we might become sort of a very powerful pariah.
God help us all.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking that if we can make it through the next 3 years, we'll be all right; but it seems every day, this administration and this congress get evn worse.
I was pretty down in late 2000, but I never dreamt these assholes would be as destructive as they've turned out to be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe mythos, the ideal... the American dream. A shining light to the world, a beacon to its oppressed and down trodden, a source of hope and pride and inspiration to We, The People.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. At what point do we get to call bullshit on all this irrational rhetoric? How many bullets have to be fired in the name of America's wealthy elite, how much blood has to be shed to maintain or increase corporate profit margins, before we are willing to admit that high falutin' words phrases like 'mythos', 'ideal', and 'dream' all pretty much boil down to a self-righteous delusion that America is something exceptional... a delusion we all use to justify and rationalize away the undeniable, objective fact that throughout the world, millions still suffer every minute of every day from a lack of urgent necessities... food, water, shelter, a healthy local environment... while we Americans cheerfully ignore it all, as we mindlessly pursue our own God given and utterly inalienable rights to continuous comfort and endless entertainment?
The true history of America is now, and always has been, one of barely hidden greed, selfishness, dehumanization of ourselves and others... in short, outright evil, swaddled in poetic parchment. Ask the American Indian tribes, ask the native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Alaskans, Mexicans, ask the descendents of the Chinese and the Africans we imported to build our infrastructure, ask the Japanese we put in detainment camps.
Having said all this, yeah... our global image has taken some hard shots under the conservative consortium over the last half decade or so. I don't think this is so much that they've degraded America in any way, though... I think, they've simply become so brazen as we enter what are almost certainly the last days of our current state of civilization, that they've allowed the mask to slip a little bit.
Why not? Who's going to actually do anything about it? No one else in the world dares to stand up to us.
We won't do anything ourselves, other than whine a little bit on the Internet, and maybe go to a few meaningless public protests (after which we'll get back in our SUVs and head to the nearest upscale chain coffee house to congragulate ourselves over lattes). Our rulers have surreptitiously hijacked most if not all of our liberties, but they've been careful to let us keep our luxuries, our indulgences, and most important, our entertainments.
Americans will turn into an angry mob that our 'elected' officials feel some actual need to assuage... when? Over what? Free speech zones? Illegal wars? Random and endless imprisonment of our fellow citizens at presidential whim? Covert domestic surveillance? The imprisonment, torture, rape and murder of innocent non-Americans, many of them children? Secret prisons, support of viciously tyrannical puppet regimes, corporate exploitation of the poor?
No. We'll get pissed off by 'high' gas prices... and when I say 'high', of course, I don't mean, actually approaching anything like the gas prices the rest of the world has been paying for decades, I mean, about a third of those rates. But we can be lulled back to sleep there, too, if the autocracy just releases some of our national reserve to temporarily drive the market down again. It's not any kind of solution to the long term problem at all, but it keeps us off the streets and in our air conditioned houses watching SHOWTIME for another election cycle... which is all anyone cares about, nowadays.
The American way of life has, honestly, never been anything but a mass glorification of individual human selfishness. The American dream is to be better off, more comfortable, and more entertained than our neighbors. Is that something that can be degraded? I don't think so. But it's something that can be destroyed from within by its own internal fallacies, as we suddenly find ourselves facing the cessation of the resources we kidded ourselves into thinking were perpetual... oil, land, cheap foreign labor.
America's problems... the world's problems... are not, in essence, political, although they have certainly been exacerbated by the absolute evil exemplified by the conservative corporate coalition that has taken overt control of our elective apparatus over the past half decade. Our problems mostly stem from a rampantly out of control consumer lifestyle is rapidly approaching a point where it will simply become insupportable.
What we're going to do about that, I have no idea, but it's interesting that neither political party wants to even mention it. Americans don't sacrifice, and they don't vote for anyone who asks them to... not that that matters any more, in a land where the results of elections are largely determined before anyone does any voting, anyway.
One of the moments I felt proudest to be an American was when the marchers at Tiananmen chose the Statue of Liberty to symbolize their cause.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most painful realizations for me is the recognition that those same marchers would choose a different symbol today.
America has long occupied a unique place in the collective consciousness of people across the globe
ReplyDeleteOh, please. Pardon me for being blunt here, but America's fecal material stinks just like everybody else's. This "we're SOOOO SPECIAL" attitude of entitlement is a large part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place.
Sorry for the couple of errors in my post... I thought I'd weeded them out, but a few still remain. The price of typing things too fast before I run for the bus, I guess. ;)
ReplyDeleteI have an opposite take on this topic, though I'm not arguing with your point, or arguing with your call for us to return to our principles. In the mission statement of the Project for the New American Century, our "exceptionality" was used to rationalize exactly what has happened.
ReplyDeletewe need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Remaining "exceptional" has lead to an arrogance, just as it does in kids raised to be "special." I think we'd be a lot better off being "just another country" that enforces its principles with a vengence. One of the principles implied by our Constitution is, by the way, humility...
Digby is a moron - just another one of the "circle of links" that pumps up the faux "advertise liberally" crowd.
ReplyDeleteThis downward slide was precipitated (for the most part) by the events of 9/11.
ReplyDeleteIf we (the American people) don't reverse this, Osama Bin Laden will go down in history as the man that brought down America. Not by destroying buildings, but by initiating the destruction from within.
Seen from this prism, we begin to understand several things:
1) George W. Bush has played right into Al-Qaeda's hands. OBL couldn't have asked for a response by the US that would have done more damage in the long run.
2) Al-Qaeda doesn't need to attack us again. Their first attack is still doing the damage they want.
I believe OBL is taking a long view of his war with the west. He realizes it doesn't matter that AL-Qaeda lost in Afghanistan (if that even stays true). It doesn't matter if he is captured. The die has been cast. Like making a small hole in a dike, he has precipitated the action that has started the decline of America. And George Bush has been his unwitting accomplice.
If you want to understand why the left has such a visceral dislike of George Bush, this is it. Between his misguided anti-terrorism strategies, his tax and fiscal policies, and his lack of an alternative energy strategy, he has initiated the decline of America.
For those who think history will take a kindly view of George W. Bush, I think you're making a huge mistake. History will see 9/11 as a pivot point with OBL being the actor that give the giant a shove in the wrong direction and GWB gunning the engine.
You had me going there A.L., the first four paragraphs are a fairly accurate representation of what many Americans might also say, then you begin defining yourself down starting with this paragraph:
ReplyDelete"And it's exactly that reputation that the Bush administration has carelessly pissed away over the last four years"
America has always had a controversial reputation on the world stage, that's nothing new. During the 1950's and 60's we were conducting U2 spy plane flights over other sovereign nations, and regularly detonating hydrogen bombs, even during the Cuban missile crisis, while teaching our children to duck and cover. Then came the civil rights riots.
If that's not enough, while we were putting men on the moon in 1969, no doubt one of the highest points of our modern history, we were still dropping napalm in Vietnam and Ted Kennedy was on television addressing his constituents in Massachusetts following the incident on Chappaquiddick.
I am proud of America, past and present, regardless of each of our presidents inevitable human frailties. If you are sincerely concerned about America's image, don't let this post be the best that you have to offer on this subject.
You may be shortchanging the world's ability to recognize the United States vices as well as its virtues. Nevertheless, you're almost right when you say: "And it's exactly that reputation that the Bush administration has carelessly pissed away over the last four years." To say that the administration's pissing has been careless does a grave injustice to the devious deviants who have sometimes carelessly, but always deliberately, dismantled our domestic and foreign policies to concentrate their power and wealth.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to grant them a worthy opponent: "Confronted by a particularly brutal and unprincipled enemy, our leaders decided that our principles were the problem. They were just too confining. So almost immediately, the Administration began defining America down." Or was it the other way around?
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the official and unofficial crew have consistently opposed the benign definition of the United States. With the PNAC blueprint in hand, they set about changing things immediately, looking forward to a cause to justify all the effects they were planning.
Knowing that an attack involving civilian airliners was possible or even probable, their response was to sit on their hands and wait. Then, John Yoo and the rest turned up to clear the way to accomplish everything they wanted to do all along--a global assault on international cooperation and law as well as the Constitution, increasing power and reducing responsibility.
And by amazing coincidence, they and their friends and families have managed to suck in even more wealth.
Yeah. It was all Osama's fault. And someday, when we're finally satisfied with what we have, we'll flatten the bastard.
If we (the American people) don't reverse this, Osama Bin Laden will go down in history as the man that brought down America.
ReplyDeleteYou are spewing garbage -- OBL didn't do anything except become the "poster boy" for the neocons that have been planning this for many years.
9/11 was an inside job. Old men that need kidney dialysis in the desert don't really have the ability to be the world's leading terrorist groups.
Independent analysis show that the videos that purport to he OBL are fake -- he probably died years ago. He was a man with very serious medical conditions before 911.
We could stop the war in Iraq and begin the process of healing this great nation if we would bring the current administration before a court or grand jury. Their lies, treason, and criminal acts started this war and now demand the slaughter to continue.
The Bush administration had the motives, means, and opportunity to create the events that enabled a war of conquest and personal profits in Iraq. The administration acted to bring their preconceived war in Iraq to fruitarian.
Only the U.S Government could have orchestrated the events that started the war drums and fed the mighty Wurlitzer that was used to build support for the Iraq war.
The Department of Defense stood down
The WTC was demolished with a controlled demolition
The pentagon was “attacked” with a hoax about a passenger airliner
Another hoax was used to create a distraction in PA, flight 93 and build the myth of “Let’s Roll”
Pre-9/11 intelligence failures-by-design were used to create “patsies” with excuses for the events
The power of a grand jury or even the "discovery" process in a civil suit would result in a meaningful investigation. It might convince some to talk and the ability to grant some people immunity might result in "flipping" some conspirators.
The actions of the defendants tell you they are guilty. For example, it would be a serious violation of rules and regulations to let a president read an upside-down goat book while the nation was experiencing the worst attack on U.S. soil in history.
The “official story” would be laughable on its face if it wasn’t so tragic and if it wasn’t used to commit even greater war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no way the administration’s version of events could withstand cross-examination by competent counsel.
Under Convention I, Chapter II, Art. 13, a combatant must meet the following conditions to enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions:
ReplyDelete"... Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups do not comply with qualifications (b) through (d).
America has not changed its reading of the Geneva Conventions in the least. Rather, our enemy has changed from the regular soldiers of nation states or guerillas in uniforms and openly carrying weapons to terrorists who hide among civilians to commit war crimes designed to ambush and kill civilians and our troops.
David:
ReplyDeleteYou are free to leave this "horror show" of a country for more enlightened lands like France.
Paul Rosenberg:
ReplyDeleteThat Langston Hughes poem is one of favorites. I think you were reading a little too much into what I was trying to say. The idea of America that I'm talking about didn't really emerge until the 20th century, well after the purge of the native Americans and slavery. I'm speaking generally of WWI onward.
And I'm not suggesting that during that period America and Americans did nothning but good. Far from. But America did enough good and was true enough to its guiding principles that it became associated with certain ideals.
What's troubling about the last four years is not just that we're not living up to those ideals; we've often failed in that regard. But in many respects we've disavowed them, we've openly repudiated them in the name in expediency. That kind damage is lasting.
The easiest way to measure the actual conditions of a country is to see how people around the world vote with their feet. In this election, the US comes in second to none.
ReplyDeleteIf they migrate to a country to live, the conditions must be better than most places.
If they migrate from the country to live, something in the old country must be wrong.
Currently, people from the world over are emigrating to the United States in record numbers.
The second greatest destination is Europe. However, when Euros migrate, they come to the United States for opportunities unavailable in the Old World.
Awful totalitarian states often have to use walls or the military to keep their citizens in. We are actually considering building walls and using the NG to slow down the flood of immigrants into our country.
The American Dream is alive and well and shared across the globe.
Parodying "the liberals," shooter declaims,
ReplyDelete" ... There should be no war, everyone is accepted as is with no reservation, the world should be happy, healthy, and humanistic. It's a wonderful set of goals, but an impossible achievement ..."
"Need I remind you that ... "
Need I remind you that life sucks and then you die? And that the only thing that even vaguely makes it all worthwhile is to attempt to rise above it--in fact, to attempt to live up to ideals?
As for davidbyron and bart, the both of yez can just blow it out your collective ass.
The problem is not that the detainees deserve the status of "enemy soldier" and to be placed in POW camps. It's that the Bush administration has systematically defied any attempt to categorize them in a position where they would have any rights whatsoever. The Bush administration has invented the category of "enemy combatants" to say that the people are not criminal defendants subject to the legal protections of the criminal justice system. And yet they are not prisoners of war, subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. So just what the hell are they?
ReplyDeleteGiven the dubious circumstances under which many of these people were "detained", this is not a tolerable state of affairs. The blunt answer is that these are people who have been lawlessly kidnapped by the US government. Many of them are innocent - but since it would allegedly compromise "national security" to even know the names of the people being detained, the full stories are only known when people are ultimately released (invariably without being charged with anything in a criminal court).
See
the Guardian for details.
What AL is complaining about, and I agree, is that these development represent an attitude that is utterly backwards from where the US has traditionally been. It is the kind of behavior that one associates with medeival courts and star chambers, not a modern enlightened democracy.
Paul Rosenberg has a good point that this kind of self-interested atavism has always lay under the facade of reasoanbleness that governs American culture and self-image. But it's also true that we have, as a nation, gradually gotten over many of the bugaboos that remain as vestiges of less civilized eras. I think the most useful lens through which to view the current state of affairs is to recognize that the people really in charge right now are Cheney and Rumsfeld, and essentially what they have been doing is resurrecting the policies of the Nixon adminstration that served as their introduction into national politics.
Part of the problem with the Nixon pardon is that festering tumors like Cheney and Rumsfeld have been allowed to stew in the system for decades, maintaining a facade of reasonableness while waiting for the moment to seize power.
In a sense, I am more optimistic than AL. For one thing, people are waking up to the utter mendacity of the Republican leadership, to the point where they've lost the support of the 20% of the population who were willing to suspend a negative judgment until it became transparently clear just how awful they were. They still only have the support of the true kool-aid drinkers like Bart.
Part of the source of optimism is the growing recognition that the GOP has achieved electoral power largely through gerrymandering and outright cheating. There is only so long that kind of tactic can endure, and when it falters there will be a massive backlash.
Let's keep this all in perspective. Consider what the people of Eastern Europe had to endure in the 20th century. Invasion by the Nazis, then by the Soviets, and only after decades of oppression did they win their autonomy. Americans have had it easy.
"One of the moments I felt proudest to be an American was when the marchers at Tiananmen chose the Statue of Liberty to symbolize their cause.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most painful realizations for me is the recognition that those same marchers would choose a different symbol today."
Really? Which appeasing country will they choose? Germany? France?
An EU symbol? Chavez? Castro? They probably wouldn't pick a symbol of muhammed, wouldn't want any riots you know.
There are only a handful of countries that will actually fight for freedom: US, England, Australia.
I'm just glad there are people in China who still crave it. Unlike the cryers on this board who think this is a police state, they live in a real one.
whispers said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that the detainees deserve the status of "enemy soldier" and to be placed in POW camps. It's that the Bush administration has systematically defied any attempt to categorize them in a position where they would have any rights whatsoever. The Bush administration has invented the category of "enemy combatants" to say that the people are not criminal defendants subject to the legal protections of the criminal justice system. And yet they are not prisoners of war, subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. So just what the hell are they?
The Geneva Conventions explicitly recognizes and defines two categories of persons - combatants and civilians - and implicitly recognizes a third category of persons which do not fall under its definitions - illegal combatants.
Consequently, George Bush did not invent the distinction between combatants and civilians. This has been a distinction recognized since international law began.
Combatants of any type have never had access to our civilian justice system under international treaties, the Constitution of by statute.
Illegal combatants have only two rights - a hearing to determine whether they fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions and not to be tortured under the definition we agreed upon under the Torture Conventions - intentional infliction of severe physical or emotional pain.
Otherwise, the illegal combatant has no rights under the law. We can summarily execute an illegal combatant once his status has been determined at a hearing. The illegal combatants in Gitmo are only living because we are a merciful people. They would be worm meat in most other countries.
Indeed, we are extending to them a series of privileges which the law does not require.
Apparently, we are going to provide them military trials before taking any action against them beyond detainment.
The detainees at Gitmo are given plenty of food which meets their religious traditions, allowed to freely practice their religion, were allowed organized sports (injuries on the basketball court at Gitmo was the leading source of injuries treated in the infirmary), medical care, and, until a recent organized ambush of our troops under the guise of a suicide, the detainees were allowed to congregate and socialize.
[A.L. from the post]: Just yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon has decided to omit the prohibition on "humiliating and degrading treatment" from the Army Field Manual on interrogation. Just add it to the list.
ReplyDeleteIn the last thread, the troll HWSNBN claimed:
[HWSNBN]:
"This is a complete lie."
"Nothing has changed. Under the strictest adherence to the legal standards set out in the Geneva Conventions, illegal combatants never qualified for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
"This manual update merely recognizes that fact and the paper is deliberately distorting the law."
HWSNBN is, unsurprisingly, simply wrong. The manual was updated, and the manual wasn't updated to leave it the same.
As for the law, HWSNBN is, unsurprisingly, wrong again.
The Third Geneva Convention:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
"[P[ersons" placed "hors de combat". "[A]t a minimum".
I'd note that the idea of "unlawful combatants" is a category manufactured by the maladministration to avoid or evade the proscriptions of the Geneva Conventions, but is not a concept that the Gevena Conventions themselves define (much less say what acts are permissible WRT such people).
Cheers,
You know what would go down real well about now? A nice rendition of former AG Asscrack singing his soaring eagle ditty.
ReplyDeleteA nice film could cut back and forth from Asscrack "singing" to, oh, Abu Gonzales Ghraib pictures, pictures from Haditha, pictures from Gitmo, New Orleans, Bush strumming his geetar while New Orleans was erased.
Yep. I can picture the whole thing like I've already seen it.
Soar eagle. Soar.
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteBart Cheers On Illegal Immigration
You bet. I would legalize all immigration so long as the immigrant was identified, was employed, paid taxes, stayed out of trouble and did not use our welfare services.
bart said: The easiest way to measure the actual conditions of a country is to see how people around the world vote with their feet. In this election, the US comes in second to none.
The devolution of our national motto: From "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" to "We're better than Mexico!"
And Central and South America, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, the rest of the EU, Russia, Africa, the Middle East, Asia...
Hell, just about the rest of the World.
Paul, you sound like a NY or CA leftwingnut. Just go strolling through cities like LA and NYC and count the number of languages you hear in the different neighborhoods. I believe CA has determined that its public school students speak about 100 different languages.
They all came to America for its freedom and opportunity.
WRT the reputation of the United States, I'm currently in the midst of Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow:America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. His book, "All the Shah's Men" should have been required reading for everyone in the maladministration, but wasn't, unfortunately. I suspect they mistook "Overthrow" as a training manual.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Bart said, (paraphrasing)...customary legalistic justication of America's beastly behavior by pointing out that the cited law or treaty restrictions do not apply to us for reasons listed....
ReplyDeleteLaw and treaties are codifications of what societies define as right behavior. We should refrain from abuse or humiliation of prisoners not merely where or because we are bound by law or treaty to restrain ourselves...we should refrain from abuse or humiliation of prisoners because it's the right fucking way to behave.
Even though the prisoners at Gitmo, for example, may not be American citizens, we owe it not just to them, but to ourselves to allow them access to legal counsel; we owe it to them and to ourselves to allow them presumption of innocence; and we owe it to them and to ourselves to allow them the opportunity to argue their innocence before the courts.
We owe it to them and to ourselves for humanitarian reasons, for ethical reasons, and simply to show our respect for civilized behavior informed by rule of law, even if the law doesn't necessarily apply in the instance.
Vigilantism--which is behavior of the mob unrestrained by respect for law or for civilized behavior--tends, too often, to punish innocents who have been unjustly or too easily accused. In other words, observing self-restraint, whether legally compelled to or not, helps us get it right, or at least mitigates the degree to which we get it wrong.
A man--and also a society--who refrains from murder only where the law prohibits it is not civilized or humane, but merely a barbarian whose drive for self-preservation is acute enough he is willing to curb himself--but only when he must--to escape punishment. The test of a man's--or a society's--true character and committment to justice is found in the behavior he exhibits in the absence of law.
Bart is squarely on the side of barbarism.
Nice post AL. There's a piece by John Brown at TomPaine that considers this issue from the angle of "soft power":
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons for the decline of America's soft power. The most immediate is President George W. Bush's aggressive foreign policy. Since our internationally condemned attack on Iraq, our country is seen as the illegitimate sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later. Contrast this to the worldwide sympathy for the U.S. immediately after 9/11, when we were considered the attacked, not the attacker.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWe are still the most loved and most hated country in the world. It has been that way for a very very long time.
ReplyDeleteSince King Georgieboy, you are more right than you know. We are still the most loved...by ourselves (or at least the mouthbreathers and assorted nutbags of the rightwingding)...and the most hated...by everyone else.
Georgiegirl (no offense to true grrls) has "accomplished" more in 5 years than the GOP has managed over most of its history. Georgie has done the most to push Merika back into the 19th century, socially and educationally, than any president since the 19th century.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "Nothing has changed. Under the strictest adherence to the legal standards set out in the Geneva Conventions, illegal combatants never qualified for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. This manual update merely recognizes that fact and the paper is deliberately distorting the law."
HWSNBN is, unsurprisingly, simply wrong. The manual was updated, and the manual wasn't updated to leave it the same.
Neither the article nor I were referring to the update of the Army Manual. The article lied that the updates were not complying with the Geneva Conventions and rendered the Geneva Conventions a dead letter.
As for the law, HWSNBN is, unsurprisingly, wrong again.
The Third Geneva Convention:
The persons referred to in the Third Geneva Convention are legal combatants as defined under the First Geneva Convention. Note the reference to "members of armed forces." Terrorists are not members of armed forces as defined by the Geneva Convention section which I provided.
america's image like everything else about america, is and always was propaganda. The Bush administration cast off alll pretenses and stripped away the mask for all to see.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, america's imperial policies throughout the world have left most of the indigenous populations on Earth impoverished and hopeless.
Now the oligarchs, bankers and insurers are in the process of placing the majority of american citizens on a $2 a day diet.
Will you finally believe when they pull the plug on the economy for their ultimate wealth redistribution>
Bart,
ReplyDeleteBy your destination for immigrants criterion, Canada must be a much better country than the US. Far more people immigrate to Canada per year on a per capita basis. So when are you going to join them and move to Canada?
Robert1014 said...
ReplyDeleteWe should refrain from abuse or humiliation of prisoners not merely where or because we are bound by law or treaty to restrain ourselves...we should refrain from abuse or humiliation of prisoners because it's the right fucking way to behave.
Reportedly, we captured Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the chief al Qaeda planner, and used coercive interrogation techniques including waterboarding. He broke in about an hour and started spilling his guts about al Qaeda cells around the world. We started rolling up those cells before the Pakistanis leaked to the press that we had captured KSM and the cells knew they were compromised.
That was the right f*cking way to behave.
Even though the prisoners at Gitmo, for example, may not be American citizens, we owe it not just to them, but to ourselves to allow them access to legal counsel
We have never provided attorneys to POWs. Why would we provide them to illegal combatants?
we owe it to them and to ourselves to allow them presumption of innocence
Ditto above answer.
and we owe it to them and to ourselves to allow them the opportunity to argue their innocence before the courts.
They get the chance to argue that they are legal combatants or civilians in the hearings provided for by the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds have been released after these hearings at Gitmo. Indeed, some releasees have ended up fighting us in Afghanistan again.
Geneva Conventions, Smcheneva Conventions. Skipping out of those "quaint" rules or rewriting the Army Field Manual doesn't get one out of the OTHER conventions: The Conventions Against Torture and Inhumane Treatment. The nice thing about these latter conventions, being the law of the land and all as per the Constitution, is that they make no distinction between combatant and noncombatant, nor even between legal or illegal combatants. Those conventions, the Law of the Land, apply to ALL prisoners. Period.
ReplyDeleteWhile one can argue the minute technicalities of the Geneva Conventions as concerning legal vs illegal combatants and/or uniformed or un-uniformed combatants, you cannot get away with such technicalities with the latter Conventions. You can't write them out of the Field Manual and you cannot skirt past them even if you did. They are the Law of the Land. Period.
crust said...
ReplyDeleteBart, By your destination for immigrants criterion, Canada must be a much better country than the US. Far more people immigrate to Canada per year on a per capita basis. So when are you going to join them and move to Canada?
Cute spin with the per capita basis given that there are very few Canadians in relation to the size of their country.
However, like Europe, far more Canadians migrate into the US than the reverse.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=244
We have never provided attorneys to POWs. Why would we provide them to illegal combatants?
ReplyDeleteBecause they are either combatants to be properly and humanely held OR they are criminals and in need of trial. It is unacceptable, period, to hold prisoner anyone indefinitely. This is particularly heinous as the military itself admits that many to most of the detainees at Gitmo ARE INNOCENT...yet they still hold them. This is itself a crime against humanity.
Treat them well and properly or give them a fair trial. Imprisonment in conditions worse than those of a penitentiary, absolutely without any communication with family, without a fair trial to justify imprisonment is unacceptable. Imprisonment of innocents, as the military has admitted (no argument here, they have) many in Gitmo are, is unacceptable and must end. Now.
shooter242 fires his pop-gun at straw men:
ReplyDeleteOne of the charms of liberals is the idealism with which the world is viewed. There should be no war, everyone is accepted as is with no reservation, the world should be happy, healthy, and humanistic. It's a wonderful set of goals, but an impossible achievement.
ROFLMAO! Coming from a sycophantic suck-b*tt for the reality-challenged maladministration who think that "we're turning the corner in Iraq" every new day, that contemporary Baghdad rivals the days of the fabled hanging gardens (but with electricity now!), and that this is the best economy ever, far better than those days of doom and despair of the Clinton era, this is just too precious....
I'd note the RW is hardly a stranger to "idealism" ... but their Elysium is of a rather darker shade.
As for "the world should be happy, healthy, and humanistic", I'll be glad to step 'out of character' for a "liberal" and say that if Shooter here can't tell the difference between -- say, ... 2 Prozacs and ... ummm, 846 - 293 + 2 Prozacs -- one fine day when life gets too "unbearable" for him, I'm really not going to get all that worked up about it.
Cheers,
HWSNBN gets it wrong again:
ReplyDeleteUnder Convention I, Chapter II, Art. 13, a combatant must meet the following conditions to enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions:
"... Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Ummm, the First Geneva Convention ("for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field") has to do with care of the sick and wounded.
HWSNBN should probably be quoting from the Third Convention (which relates to "Treatment of Prisoners of War"). Granted, it has similar language in Article 4, but Article 3 (quoted above) lays down minimum conditions for treatment of "persons", and does not confine itself to "prisoners of war" as defined.
In addition, the Fourth Convention (on treatment of civilians) arguably applies as well to those not covered under the first three conventions. Criminal behaviour can be punished under the Geneva Conventions, but only under circumstances and safeguards as prescribed. If HWSNBN insists on the appellation "unlawful combatants", then what they are accused of is a crime, and should be punished as such.
HWSNBN's insistence that "they broke the rules, so we don't need to follow the rules either" is a standard tu quoque fallacy, and makes no sense as a matter of law or humanity.
Cheers,
Praedor said...
ReplyDeleteWe have never provided attorneys to POWs. Why would we provide them to illegal combatants?
Because they are either combatants to be properly and humanely held OR they are criminals and in need of trial.
They are combatants, albeit illegal, and are being treated more than humanely.
What US civilian law have these combatants violated for which they need to be tried? You do not require lawyers if there is no trial.
It is unacceptable, period, to hold prisoner anyone indefinitely.
Why? Under international law, you may hold combatants until the end of the conflict in which they fought. I am not releasing combatants to fight us again as we have done by mistake previously at Gitmo.
This is particularly heinous as the military itself admits that many to most of the detainees at Gitmo ARE INNOCENT...yet they still hold them. This is itself a crime against humanity.
Feel free to post a link to any such statement.
There are a few detainees being held because we can not send them to their home country where they would be persecuted and most other countries do not want to accept immigrants who may well be terrorists.
paul:
ReplyDeleteThank God For Neil Young, Joanie Mitchell, Alanis Morissette and Sandra Oh
And about 850,000 others. I believe my link noted that Canadians are the 8th largest immigrant group in the US.
HWSNBN is an ignerrent berk:
ReplyDeleteRather, our enemy has changed from the regular soldiers of nation states or guerillas in uniforms and openly carrying weapons to terrorists who hide among civilians to commit war crimes designed to ambush and kill civilians and our troops.
Geurrilla warfare is as old as combat itself (I'd note our wonderful fawning coverage in the Afghanistan war of the U.S. special forces troops in Afghani garb riding horses or camels). As are attacks on civilians and even crimes against humanity. The distinction is whether such crimes as attacking civilians has been done. If so, then try the crime and punish it (whether done by uniformed soldiers or not). But do it under the law.
HWSNBN seems to think that certain things 'fall outside the law'. I'd counter that the only time our actions 'fall outside the law' is if we choose to put them there. And then we're acting lawlessly.
Cheers,
arne:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of legal combatants who are accorded the rights of prisoners of war is the same in Articles I and III of the Geneva Conventions.
I cited Article I to demonstrate that these standards apply even if the illegal combatant is injured and helpless.
Next, Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention applies to internal civil wars.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions...
HWSNBN sees only the stuff that he wants to see:
ReplyDeleteThe Geneva Conventions explicitly recognizes and defines two categories of persons - combatants and civilians - and implicitly recognizes a third category of persons which do not fall under its definitions - illegal combatants.
Just like he sees "wiretapping" in Article II, but no "regulation" in Article I. He 'sees' what he wants to see and disregards the rest....
You know, to understand HWSNBN, you just have to be inside his pointy little head. But, despite the horror of such a trip in "Being John Malkovich", such a journey through the fetid, miasmatric swamps of HWSNBN's mind would make "Requiem For A Dream" seem like a Dickinson poem.
Cheers,
arne:
ReplyDeleteAfter I schooled you yet again, you seem to have stopped citing to laws which you have not read nor understand and have gone back to your usual pseudo-intellectual name calling.
BTW, just because you found the term "berk" in some English novel doesn't make you English or sophisticated, it just makes you sound pretentious.
HWSNBN ignores reality:
ReplyDeleteIllegal combatants have only two rights - a hearing to determine whether they fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions and not to be tortured under the definition we agreed upon under the Torture Conventions - intentional infliction of severe physical or emotional pain.
Nope. Covered above.
Otherwise, the illegal combatant has no rights under the law. We can summarily execute an illegal combatant once his status has been determined at a hearing. The illegal combatants in Gitmo are only living because we are a merciful people. They would be worm meat in most other countries.
Nope. Wrong in so many ways. I'd point out for starters that the maladministration initially refused to even give the folks in Gitmo a hearing, and only did so after a huge outcry was raised. His contention that they can be "summarily execute[d]" is of HWSNBN's own manufacture, and is a concept foreign to any shred of humanity or law. OTOH, it might bring to mind the accusations against Saddam for the execution of the folks in the village that allegedly tried to assassinate him. Sad when HWSNBN thinks that 'summary justice' is a "right" of the UNited States.
Cheers,
HWSNBN sez disingenuously:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: As for the law, HWSNBN is, unsurprisingly, wrong again.
[Arne]: The Third Geneva Convention:
[reinsert that which HWSNBN snipped]:
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
"(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
"(b) Taking of hostages;
"(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
"(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
The persons referred to in the Third Geneva Convention are legal combatants as defined under the First Geneva Convention. Note the reference to "members of armed forces."...
Note the "and". Also note the "persons taking no active part in the hostilities".
... Terrorists are not members of armed forces as defined by the Geneva Convention section which I provided.
What makes a person a "terrorist" is the acts, not the clothes. They may well be criminals. Then try them as criminals. But the Geneva Conventions also specifies what is to be done about criminal acts. But HWSNBN assumes here that we know who the "terrorists" are. That's the point of having hearings and trials. HWSNBN thinks that the say-so of Dubya "We Found The Weapons Of Mass Destruction" the Second is sufficient.
HWSNBNM thinks nothing of writing certain people out of the rules of society as long as his Chimperor says so. Where did I hear such a sentiment before? Wait, wait, don't tell me....
Cheers,
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteReportedly, we captured Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the chief al Qaeda planner, and used coercive interrogation techniques including waterboarding. He broke in about an hour and started spilling his guts about al Qaeda cells around the world. We started rolling up those cells before the Pakistanis leaked to the press that we had captured KSM and the cells knew they were compromised.
That was the right f*cking way to behave.
Even if the facts as alleged are true, I've covered this here.
I'd note also that one of the reasons we have 2476 (and counting) dead U.S. soldiers (and unfortunately, HWSNBN is not one of them) is that we tortured a couple other guys and they told us what we (read: "the stoopid and brutal maladministration") wanted to hear. As a consequence, people were told by the maladministration that Saddam was running training camps for al Qaeda at Salman Pak.
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteWe have never provided attorneys to POWs. Why would we provide them to illegal combatants?
We don't charge POWs with crimes. Hey, waiddaminnit, we haven't charged the (alleged) "illegal combatants" with crimes, either.....
Cheers,
HWSNBN slips over the line into fantasy:
ReplyDelete"I am not releasing combatants to fight us again as we have done by mistake previously at Gitmo."
Oh, really? ROFLMAO.....
Cheers,
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of legal combatants who are accorded the rights of prisoners of war is the same in Articles I and III of the Geneva Conventions.
So why not quote the one that actually applies? You know, like citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that actually exist....
Cheers,
HWSNBN hallucinates:
ReplyDeleteAfter I schooled you yet again, you seem to have stopped citing to laws which you have not read nor understand and have gone back to your usual pseudo-intellectual name calling....
Plenty of lawyers here, Mr. DePalma. Want a show of hands on who's schooling who?
Why don't you try explaining once more for the folks that have no experience as a "criminal prosecutor" why you can't do a SJ motion until after discocery has been done? I suspect all the trial lawyers here got a good chuckle out of that one....
Cheers,
whispers said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that the detainees deserve the status of "enemy soldier" and to be placed in POW camps. It's that the Bush administration has systematically defied any attempt to categorize them in a position where they would have any rights whatsoever. The Bush administration has invented the category of "enemy combatants" to say that the people are not criminal defendants subject to the legal protections of the criminal justice system. And yet they are not prisoners of war, subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. So just what the hell are they?
bart said:
The Geneva Conventions explicitly recognizes and defines two categories of persons - combatants and civilians - and implicitly recognizes a third category of persons which do not fall under its definitions - illegal combatants.
Uh, if you have to say "implicitly recognizes" with regard to a legal document, odds are that you're just making something up. The category of "illegal enemy combatant" is a creation of the Bush legal team to allow them to designate a person they capture as without either the rights of somebody taken as a POW (an actual combatant) or as a criminal (who would then be subject to the civilian judicial system). There is no legal justification for having the military indefinitely detain people unless they are POWs.
Consequently, George Bush did not invent the distinction between combatants and civilians. This has been a distinction recognized since international law began.
Irrelevant. I didn't say he invented the distinction between "civilians" and "combatants". He invented a new, third category.
Combatants of any type have never had access to our civilian justice system under international treaties, the Constitution of by statute.
No, combatants are, however, covered by the Geneva convention. And any question about the status of a person taken as a prisoner as to whether the person is a "combatant" or a "civilian" is supposed to be resolved by an independent tribunal. The United States government has never bothered to do this. They have refused any attempt by any body to place the combatants under any kind of contolling legal authority.
Illegal combatants have only two rights - a hearing to determine whether they fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions and not to be tortured under the definition we agreed upon under the Torture Conventions - intentional infliction of severe physical or emotional pain.
Again, you're just making things up.
You are neglecting habeas corpus, the right to counsel, the right to due process.
Otherwise, the illegal combatant has no rights under the law. We can summarily execute an illegal combatant once his status has been determined at a hearing.
Um, that's murder. I'm trying to reconcile your statement saying that we are not allowed to torture prisoners with this one that says summary execution is allowed. I'm failing. Or rather, you are.
The illegal combatants in Gitmo are only living because we are a merciful people. They would be worm meat in most other countries.
Indeed, we are extending to them a series of privileges which the law does not require.
If any American were treated by any foreign power in the manner which the US treats these individuals, that would be cause for a declaration of war. The only reason the US is not being punished internationally for this behavior is because we have, at the moment, a dominant military force. But discarding any moral stance in favor of military dominance is exactly what AL is complaining about. You, Bart, serve as a great example of the "Fuck 'em" school of foreign policy.
It is, sadly, not a terribly advanced approach to international relationships or, indeed, to any human relationships at all.
Apparently, we are going to provide them military trials before taking any action against them beyond detainment.
It's hard to say exactly what's going to happen. The judicial system has already told the military that the detainees have the legal right to challenge their detentions. However, the military has done a tremendous job ignoring the directions of the court, seeming with the intent of waiting for Justices like Alito and Roberts to reach SCOTUS.
The detainees at Gitmo are given plenty of food which meets their religious traditions, allowed to freely practice their religion, were allowed organized sports (injuries on the basketball court at Gitmo was the leading source of injuries treated in the infirmary), medical care, and, until a recent organized ambush of our troops under the guise of a suicide, the detainees were allowed to congregate and socialize.
And in March 2005, 38 detainees who had been literally held for years without any legal recourse were released by the US government because, after years of stonewalling, the US was forced to admit that these people were in fact innocent.
If we were living in Bart's world, these people would still be in Camp X-Ray, suffering strip searches, being denied sleep, facing interrogation at gunpoint, waterboarding, and whatever he thought would be appropriate. When the US built a legal system, we included a lot of checks such as the right to habeas corpus, because it's well understood that a legal system in which the prosecutor & police are given unlimited powers is liable to make egregious errors fairly often. The situation at Camp X-Ray is designed to be beyond all legal protections. So, essentially, the US government has gotten into the businses of kidnapping innocent people, disappearing them, and putting them beyond the reach of the law.
I, for one, am utterly disgusted at these developments. It may comfort Bart to think that the US is still morally superior to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. But I was kinda setting my sights a little higher than that.
11:22 AM
Bart, it's not the direction (or rate) of immigration that's important, it's the change in the rate of immigration that's important.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to sit there and say, hey more people are trying to get in that get out. But that trend is softening. Now people are giving it a second thought and saying maybe Canada or Europe or Scandanavia, or Australia/New Zealand should be considered.
University students from other countries are now more frequently returning home rather than settling here. This is a particularly bad trend as these are often highly trained people.
The point isn't "if they don't wanna be here", we don't want 'em". It's to look at the trend in immigration rather than the direction.
Incidentally, it's the same with the dollar. The dollar is still the world's currency. But what's the trend?
I forget Article it is, but there are standards of treatment that apply to all those detained, regardless of whether they are classified POW or enemy combatant.
ReplyDeleteThe Pentagon looked to abandon those, as well.
While I agree that that's what americans and other countries thought about america, this was in large part a result of the US propaganda. Americans are indoctrinated with it since childhood and the educational system has never taught people how to think critically and independently, but to conform; so they are gullible. And foreigners know the US mainly from TV which has little resemblance to reality.
ReplyDelete"Currently, people from the world over are emigrating to the United States in record numbers."
ReplyDelete[...]
"Awful totalitarian states often have to use walls or the military to keep their citizens in. We are actually considering building walls and using the NG to slow down the flood of immigrants into our country."
[...]
Suggest checking something with a little more, er, nuance than a single-number statistic. Smart people aren't coming here anymore, or are showing less inclination to do so.
Just in my little town, the private university is facing cutbacks... because the supply of bright foreign students, looking to get a foot in the door with a student visa, has dried up. Meanwhile, the parking lot of the corner convenience store is thronged with desperate illiterate immigrants, who will apply unlicensed pesticides to farm crops for five bucks an hour.
We can argue the issue of the wall separately, but even people like you need to wake up and smell the coffee... all is not right with the reputation of our country in the world at large.
What a remarkably good post.
ReplyDeleteFrom Good Nonsense...
ReplyDeleteOver at Glenn Greenwald's place, Anonymous Liberal sits in and pens a wonderful piece on the meaning of the "Defining America Down," as performed by Bushnev and the Busheviks. He understands that, before the New Politburo, for all our consumption and self-absorption, Americans held a special place in the world and its history for its beliefs in the integrity of and opportunities for common people. Fairness and a very special willingness to be critical of our failures, which have been many, to live up to our ideals have separated us from most of the other "great powers" of human history. This has given us a claim on moral high ground and self-reform that has acted literally as extra power in the face of challengers, including Commies and Nazis. All this has been forfeited for the foreseeable future and whether it can be recovered is frankly not clear right now.
Great post, Glenn (pity the usual trogolodytes come to piss all over the comments section...)
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, you, the people of the USA have voted for Bush not once, but twice (and that's after voting for and then discarding his miserable father). And while many of you are up in arms over Bush's behaviour, it still proceeds unchecked.
It's all well and good to defend yourselves saying the GOP controls both Senate and Congress, Bush only got 51% (or 49% even) of the vote, etc etc. But what the world sees is that Bush ploughs ahead and nothing ever changes, except perhaps his plummetting poll numbers.
If you, the people of the USA really, really care, why don't you do something? Why don't you all stand up for yourselves, put your collective foot down and stop Bush right now? Don't say it can't be done: it happens all the time in real Democracies like Argentina and Nepal.
Actions speak louder than words, and in the places where it matters (e.g. Big Media and the Senate floor) there are not even enough words, let alone actions. That's what the world sees.
Personally, I think the best thing the USA can do now is drop this whole phony pretext of "exceptionalism" entirely. Maybe the myth of US "exceptionalism" served a propaganda purpose during the Cold War, but it's time has passed.
We all need to start acknowledging that people are people the whole world over. Why should some be rich while others are poor, some educated while others are ignorant? It offends our innate sense of decency, and anyway it makes no sense: we are all stronger when we unite as one.
And it looks increasingly certain that the whole planet is going down the tube unless we can all band together, put our differences aside and make the most of what we've got.
Truth be told, it is nationalist fervour (stirred up by business and politicians for their own purposes) and old-fashioned, nation-based government structures which create an impediment to the better instincts of ordinary people, who are by nature far more ready to embrace a cohesive vision of humanity.
OK, everybody. Gimme a hug now....!