Obama shields torturers permanently

[Eulogy]

It would take something big like a collapse or a lot of countries banding together to make the sadistic monsters involved pay for their atrocities. And with America rotting quite quickly, it might come sooner than you'd think.

Of course, people need to wake up and realize that America is not the white knight they think it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

It would take something big like a collapse or a lot of countries banding together to make the sadistic monsters involved pay for their atrocities. And with America rotting quite quickly, it might come sooner than you'd think.

Of course, people need to wake up and realize that America is not the white knight they think it is.

The problem is, the collapse of America would hurt so many innocent people that if that's the only way to gain justice in these cases, the price is sadly to high.

Other nations working together against America is dubious too, because while they could use diplomatic and economic influence, they can't actually force America to do anything without military action, which would be insane while America has massive nuclear stockpiles, and incredibly costly regardless.

Any attempt at Justice has to come from within America. That means an internal backlash against such behavior, and a move towards more liberal and/or libertarian (in the civil liberties not just economic sense) values.

[Eulogy]

It would take something big like a collapse or a lot of countries banding together to make the sadistic monsters involved pay for their atrocities. And with America rotting quite quickly, it might come sooner than you'd think.

Of course, people need to wake up and realize that America is not the white knight they think it is.

The problem is, the collapse of America would hurt so many innocent people that if that's the only way to gain justice in these cases, the price is sadly to high.

Other nations working together against America is dubious too, because while they could use diplomatic and economic influence, they can't actually force America to do anything without military action, which would be insane while America has massive nuclear stockpiles, and incredibly costly regardless.

Any attempt at Justice has to come from within America. That means an internal backlash against such behavior, and a move towards more liberal and/or libertarian (in the civil liberties not just economic sense) values.

How would such backlash occur? How would a collapse be prevented? I'm not optimistic with regards to America's future.

[The Romulan Republic]

To prevent a collapse in the short term, I think the best bet is Obama just doing what he has to and raising the debt ceiling on his own authority. Supposedly Constitutionally questionable, and I don't know if he'll actually do it, but Congress evidently has no ability to act.

Of course, it also depends on what you mean by "collapse". An economic collapse and perhaps loss of status as the premier superpower is quite likely. If you mean "collapse" as in "the US disintegrates into a bunch of independent warring nations" or something like that, that's less likely (thankfully).

Such a public backlash could be brought about by demographic shifts and the Right demonstrating to the public that they're willing to let the country go to hell. Or so I hope.

[Terralthra]

I'm not seeing anywhere in that article that this torture facility in Mogadishu was built under Obama. Where did you find that information?

[Simon_Jester]

The seeds are there for a mass repudiation of the far right's tactics and behavior. What's missing, in my opinion, is leadership. The American center and left suffer from a huge leadership deficit- people who can efficiently mobilize and organize popular movements.

Obama did a lot of this in 2008- but then didn't carry that forward into office, either for lack of courage or lack of inclination to do so.

So we're in a situation where the hard core of the left is far less effective at imposing its policy wishes on its own party than the hard core of the right (imagine a Democratic Party as adamant on tax hikes for multimillionaires as the Tea Party is on abolishing social spending). This is not the natural condition of the universe; it simply happens to be true of the US at the moment. Whether it will remain true in five years, or ten, or fifteen, is in my opinion still an open question.

Moreover, I predict that the left's job on these matters will become easier. Much of the far-right's support comes from elderly, shrinking demographics. And as their policies become more and more distilled towards their logical extreme, they run into bigger and bigger risks with driving the American center and left into firm coalition. The Republicans will be in trouble when the American center decides it can no longer depend on the American right to run the country in a sane fashion.

I had hoped the Bush administration would trigger this process, and I think it nearly did- to borrow a nuclear physics example we had a criticality excursion, but not a sustained chain reaction. I have hopes that the current debt crisis will trigger the process as well, and that might be the one silver lining to a debt default.

Of course, if this happens it won't be the end- at best, the beginning of the end.

[Thanas]

I'm not seeing anywhere in that article that this torture facility in Mogadishu was built under Obama. Where did you find that information?

It is likely that it was built under Obama. But even if it was not built, it was significantly improved and expanded under Obama, even in "violation" of his own executive order. No red cross visits etc..

[Maelstrom]

Nothing will ever come of this. During the Cold War, we bought into the notion that those "damn Commies" wanted to conquer the world, and destroy our way of life, and so, if certain unpleasantries needed to be undertaken by the gov't to prevent that, then so be it. And after 9/11, well shit, we discovered that there were a billion evil muslims out there that wanted to destroy our way of life, and just kill us dead in the streets at ever opportunity. So, if the government needed to once again engage in some unpleasantries to keep us safe, then so be it. This mentality, coupled with short attention spans and general apathy(and ignorance) regarding most things that don't directly affect them, and I just don't ever see the American public demanding something be done. Maybe, just maybe, if the economy was booming right now, things in general were just peachy, and Obama had the political capital, then maybe right now something could be done. But that's not the case. I'm not sure the window was ever open, and now I believe it's permanently nailed shut.

[The Romulan Republic]

Permanently is a long time. Ideologies change. Systems change. Public opinion changes. Sometimes it takes a fucking long time, and a lot of people suffer in the meanwhile, but we live in a world where slavery is gone, racial minorities and women can vote, and in some place gay people can get married.

So don't say it can't ever change. That's not only foolish cynicism and demonstrating an ignorance of both human nature and history, its downright dangerous. Because if anything would make reform impossible, its everyone believing it is. Welcome to the self-defeating Left.

[Lord Insanity]

Well most of the people I have talked to about this issue basically go "So, what?" See as far as they are concerned all the "detainees" are those "evil Muslim enemy combatants" that are/were fighting our troops and beheading innocent people on camera. They don't even consider torturing or killing them while in custody to be a big deal, because they are "evil Muslim enemy combatants." The idea that those might have been innocent people that had nothing to do with it doesn't even cross their minds. When I point out that possibility they immediately go into denial and tell me that would never happen in America, after all we don't torture innocent people those "evil Muslim enemy combatants" do. The average American Idiot doesn't even know anything is wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, do you live in an exceptionally conservative area? How do you know your personal aquaintences are representative of average Americans?

[Thanas]

^The alternative to the majority of the US being ignorant about this is not particularly flattering either. In fact, it is even worse.

[Stark]

The average American Idiot doesn't even know anything is wrong.

I think you mean 'are so morally bankrupt they don't care about crimes committed against people they are trained not to identify with'.

But hey, you say, none of this would ever happen to an American citizen, right? So who cares!

[Simon_Jester]

Perceptions of impending crisis are great for getting people to not worry about things like this, too. If you're worried about losing your job in person, and if in the public sphere you're worried about the federal government touching off a depression on account of inability to pay its bills, you're probably not going to spend a lot of time and mental energy thinking about people in Guantanamo. Not unless you're the sort of person who likes to spend time thinking about it.

Maybe we need a new definition of 'morally bankrupt:' too beaten-down, stressed, world-weary, or concerned with other matters to give the moral issue any really serious consideration, because one simply lacks the energy to become outraged over something new.

[The Romulan Republic]

I expect its an issue that, like others, America is heavily divided on.

I also wonder how many people know about it, oppose it, but believe (as Maelstrom does) that nothing can change it, and therefore do not try to change it.

Of course, even if the majority oppose it, that wouldn't garuntee the government would change its policies. The government often ignores the popular will.

See, issues can be complex beyond "most Americans are evil/stupid." And I'll ask you to present statistics from a respected non-partisan source demonstrating that a clear majority of Americans think as you claim they do.

[Simon_Jester]

If it's an issue where 60% of Americans quietly agree (torture bad, punish torturers) and 40% of Americans loudly agree (torture foreign evildoers!), and it's relatively low on the priority list of the 60%... yeah, nothing's going to get done about that. Our political system makes a moderate-sized but vocal and organized minority fairly effective at blocking action by creating fake consensus.

[Maelstrom]

Permanently is a long time. Ideologies change. Systems change. Public opinion changes. Sometimes it takes a fucking long time, and a lot of people suffer in the meanwhile, but we live in a world where slavery is gone, racial minorities and women can vote, and in some place gay people can get married.

So don't say it can't ever change. That's not only foolish cynicism and demonstrating an ignorance of both human nature and history, its downright dangerous. Because if anything would make reform impossible, its everyone believing it is. Welcome to the self-defeating Left.

Well, I believe that the system by which we execute the "war on terror", and attitudes towards such, will evolve and change over time. I think that's inevitable, and I really hope it's for the better, and certainly hope it's more just. Whether it will be obviously remains to be seen. But, do I think it ever likely someone of relevance from the Bush/Cheney administration will be held accountable for injustices/warcrimes(call them what you will) in say, a court of law? That, is a big no, and specifically to what I was referring.

[Lord Insanity]

Hmm, do you live in an exceptionally conservative area?

Well most of the people I have talked to think Obama is a Commie Muslim that wants to destroy America so... Obviously.

How do you know your personal aquaintences are representative of average Americans?

Sorry, I don't actually think my personal acquaintances are representative of Americans in general, just the "conservative" ones. I guess you missed the whole American Idiot joke. I certainly don't think its is under argument that the "conservative" half of Americans will oppose anyone going after American war criminals. After all holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies isn't "fighting fair" Yes I have actually had someone tell me that. "Well they do it to our guys, why shouldn't we treat them the same."

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I believe that the system by which we execute the "war on terror", and attitudes towards such, will evolve and change over time. I think that's inevitable, and I really hope it's for the better, and certainly hope it's more just. Whether it will be obviously remains to be seen. But, do I think it ever likely someone of relevance from the Bush/Cheney administration will be held accountable for injustices/warcrimes(call them what you will) in say, a court of law? That, is a big no, and specifically to what I was referring.

You may be correct, sadly. I hope you're not though, and I would not treat any outcome as certain. Personally I support trying those known or suspected to be involved. I can understand why some people think its not worth the trouble. But I feel the precedent needs to be set that you can't do this sort of thing in America, and Justice needs to be done.

Well most of the people I have talked to think Obama is a Commie Muslim that wants to destroy America so... Obviously.

I suspected as much.

Sorry, I don't actually think my personal acquaintances are representative of Americans in general, just the "conservative" ones. I guess you missed the whole American Idiot joke. I certainly don't think its is under argument that the "conservative" half of Americans will oppose anyone going after American war criminals. After all holding ourselves to a higher standard than our enemies isn't "fighting fair" Yes I have actually had someone tell me that. "Well they do it to our guys, why shouldn't we treat them the same."

I'm glad to know you weren't referring to America as a whole.

But yeah, I'm perfectly well aware of how most of the Right feels about this. And it repulses me.

[Winston Blake]

Maybe we need a new definition of 'morally bankrupt:' too beaten-down, stressed, world-weary, or concerned with other matters to give the moral issue any really serious consideration, because one simply lacks the energy to become outraged over something new.

No matter how many times this happens in history, no population ever seems to be able to overcome it. Maybe someone more familiar with history will be able to give a counterexample.

And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better.

(Note that I am not implying that the U.S. is about to break out the swastikas, I'm merely pointing out how similar the 'permissive atmosphere of exhaustion & busy-ness' was. I am currently sure that the woes of the U.S. are 'emergent' (as much as I dislike that term), and not the result of some secret evil master plan).

For people who haven't read it, the rest of that article is worth a read.

Also, while I'm on the topic of Nazis (No time limit for Nazi convictions), if it's currently impractical to investigate war crimes now, why not set it aside for the future? Why grant immunity? Maybe the CIA et al were threatening some kind of strike? It's a mess in any case.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe we need a new definition of 'morally bankrupt:' too beaten-down, stressed, world-weary, or concerned with other matters to give the moral issue any really serious consideration, because one simply lacks the energy to become outraged over something new.

No matter how many times this happens in history, no population ever seems to be able to overcome it. Maybe someone more familiar with history will be able to give a counterexample.

It's a very human thing.

Although the example you cite isn't quite right- in the US today it isn't so much the demands of expected activities as the sheer economic strain and psychological exhaustion of coping with what is, in reality, a depression. I, personally, am more worried about finding a new job, or keeping my old one. If I'm worried about politics, I'm worried about the debt crisis, I'm worried about the fiscal solvency of the US government, I'm worried about the Opposing Party and the sheer lunacy of their platform (this much is true on both sides of the aisle; there's less and less comfortable ground in the middle).

If people ask me to worry about enough things, at some point I simply have no further worry to give them. I do not have the strength to worry about, in addition to these pressing problems, global warming and punishing Guantanamo torturers and providing foreign aid to starving children in Africa and wrapping up the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and rebuilding America's highway infrastructure and... you get the idea.

There is a limit on how many massive, abstract issues beyond my personal ability to do anything about that I can regard as important concerns at any one time.

That's why I think "morally bankrupt" is still an apt term- but in the sense of having 'spent' one's psychological resources as a public-minded citizen, and having no new sources of strength and outrage to draw upon. "Financially bankrupt" doesn't mean you have no possessions, after all; it just means your debts have grown to the point where you have no realistic chance of paying for everything unless drastic steps are taken.

[Stark]

You mean it's a very EASY thing. It's not morally bankrupt; it's just morally lazy.

That you even think most people are 'public minded citizens' in the face of recent history is a giant laugh. Yeah, they ran out of moral hitpoints, that's where the bigotry and hypocrisy and don't-give-a-shit comes from.

[Simon_Jester]

You mean it's a very EASY thing. It's not morally bankrupt; it's just morally lazy.

That you even think most people are 'public minded citizens' in the face of recent history is a giant laugh. Yeah, they ran out of moral hitpoints, that's where the bigotry and hypocrisy and don't-give-a-shit comes from.

Just because you can find new reserves of outrage on demand for everything that comes down the pike doesn't mean other people are as... inexhaustible as you are.

People worry about politics when their life's not fucked up, or when their life's so fucked up they have no choice but to worry about politics. A lot of Americans are in between those extremes, even the ones who would worry about the politics at all, which is a minority.

Of the ones who do care, or ever would, and I am not saying they are a majority, they have bigger things to worry about. There are a lot of ways for domestic policy in this country to result in hundreds or thousands of surplus deaths, purely by callousness or stupidity; do you honestly expect Americans to worry more about Guantanamo than they do about everything else that's going on in the middle of a goddamn depression?

Maybe you do. But I'm surprised you'd place Americans on such a pedestal, then shit all over them when they turn out to be just like everybody else and not live up to it.

That is why there is less public reaction over the failure to punish torturers than there was when Abu Gharaib first hit the press, for example. Because when Abu Gharaib came out, there wasn't a lot else going on. It was not a time of national emergency, we were not staring a credit default in the eye, we did not have double-digit unemployment. Normal people do not remain in a permanent state of outrage over past atrocities, especially not when their own livelihood is in danger.

And yes, it is easier not to live in a permanent state of outrage. I'm surprised, though, that you would actually expect people to do so.

[Thanas]

Although the example you cite isn't quite right- in the US today it isn't so much the demands of expected activities as the sheer economic strain and psychological exhaustion of coping with what is, in reality, a depression. I, personally, am more worried about finding a new job, or keeping my old one. If I'm worried about politics, I'm worried about the debt crisis, I'm worried about the fiscal solvency of the US government, I'm worried about the Opposing Party and the sheer lunacy of their platform (this much is true on both sides of the aisle; there's less and less comfortable ground in the middle).

If people ask me to worry about enough things, at some point I simply have no further worry to give them. I do not have the strength to worry about, in addition to these pressing problems, global warming and punishing Guantanamo torturers and providing foreign aid to starving children in Africa and wrapping up the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and rebuilding America's highway infrastructure and... you get the idea.

The same was true for most citizens of Germany who went through a much heavier depression, yet no one expects them to be cut any slack for electing Hitler, so I really do not think this excuse holds any water. In a sense, the paralells between this political process and the 1920s/30s are frightening.

[K. A. Pital]

The same was true for most citizens of Germany who went through a much heavier depression, yet no one expects them to be cut any slack for electing Hitler, so I really do not think this excuse holds any water. In a sense, the paralells between this political process and the 1920s/30s are frightening.

A lot of people consider the mind-boggling post-war glee of the victorious imperialist powers in World War I effectively doing a lot to shift German public opinion. Which would mean that there is, in fact, some slack cut due to the depression and humiliating conditions forced on Germany, even if that's not a lot of slack.