Dunking Stool
I wanted to say something about the Vice President and his "dunk in the water" comment from last week. Because it was such a strange comment it throws a stark light on this rhetoric and the thinking behind it. What he said was: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said, "but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."
Cheney's Remarks Fuel Torture Debate - washingtonpost.com He was giving a radio interview in Fargo ND with Scott Hennen and the question and phrasing were Mr. Hennen's. Mr. Cheney could respond naturally and without questioning the term, while later claiming to have no idea what it meant. Oh I thought we were talking about ways of making coffee, that's what I meant by all those later references to "the French Press." Dunk or Drip there are only two main ways water is used in in question or confessional: actual drowning or simulated drowning for psychological torture. Both of which are technically understood to be out-of-bounds
Cheney's Remarks Fuel Torture Debate - washingtonpost.com. Baptism, metaphorically hung between 'washing away sin', and 'drowning out the devil' will not directly considered today. Tarwater is standing by. The real key here was not what was meant by 'a dunk in the water', but what is a No Brainer?
What Was Cheney Thinking? Don't think, but react: emotionally, viscerally, thoughtlessly to our rhetoric, our coded wink and nods. Take one of these sticks from the tied bundle here, and give the prisoner a good thrashing with it, you'll feel better. When you have rationalized things to where water-boarding is an acceptable technique. Where what you are getting from the performance, information or whatever, is more important than the clay beneath your fingers. That is the tipping point - the point where your feet are no longer on the slippery slope of argument, but gallows' trap door and the necktie the devil sold you is a rope, and he is still holding one end. John Yoo currently professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration was on the Diane Rhem show last week
The Legal Framework for the War on Terrorism. Yoo is a smart guy, smart enough to know he isn't stating the complete story. In the portion of the discussion devoted to the status and disposition of our prisoners in the Global war on Terrorism - those encountered on the "battlefield." The encountered being anyone capable of being a non-American interest, or supporting non-American interests in the zone. The zone roughly equating to Tom Barrnett's non-integrating gap (see
The Pentagon's new map and
Blueprint for action). Probably not more than half the worlds population. When he speaks he takes pains to set what he says against the state of war we are in, undeclared as it may be. He will say something there to the end that it is no longer fashionable or necessary to formerly declare war to reap all its benefits. I am greatly suspicious of these wars. Eternal wars cast suggestively to speak to long term internal needs. What is being talked about are Rights. The possession of rights by individuals. About due process, the rule of law, the expectation that the coercive power of the state conduct itself legitimately. Those who find easy to give up or turn in rights probably do not truly believe they really are (they may be mistaken). It will supported in general, abstractly, for other people for whom it will be widely known it is really directed, others. Those on the other side of the line between us and them (and those of us perceived 'them-wise'). Part of what provides caution here is that generally conservatives have held considerable stock in the notion of Natural Rights, based on natural law, engendering a social compact in accordance with human nature. These are universal extensible rights, innately held by dint of our humanity - our God-given humanity, our collective humanity. Why we had them, even when kings say we didn't. Or manufactured rights, security, The freedom from unreasonble search and seizure, by station by power alone, resting easily with arbitrary and inconsistent application. Artificially held and bestowed, as a gift to a favored class or individuals by a regime. Much turns on what sort of age we see ourselves living in. An age of Extraordinary Peril. It must be a greater peril than since the dawn of the enlightenment, if not from Pericles time for the fear they wish to live with. We must be engaged in an annihilating struggle not just a greed feud among regional governing elites. Otherwise with whatever weapons we have invented it will be a matter of management, examining the type and level-of-detail of threat, and assigning a containing risk assessment for given behaviors. This is the Human Condition. The way of tribes, states, wealth and borders, for all of these there have always been enemies, rivals, transgression, and low level mortal violence. Occasionally breaking into overt war, but never ceasing. The American Experiment is that we would govern ourselves freely anyway. Leaving the false safety and order of closed and secret government by private committee. I wouldn't mention any of this except for the suggestion that was made:
Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats - washingtonpost.com. No, just no. However that was supposed to be understood; no! The ugliness and negativism of this political season will linger, Globe and Mail: U.S. attack ads 'astonishingly negative'. John Kerry's remarks, which I'm sure he wishes he had phrased tighter about the presidents head, had the looseness of a Freudian slip. He can sit down now. I don't know what the President's excuse is. For the rest: if Ken Mehlman has to step down as head of the RNC or Karl Rove his job, after this election. I'm sure either could quickly step into good positions over at the Klan.
11:45:26 PM  ;;
|
|
