Boehner's blunder
It's telling that in a news conference today John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, referred to some of the Bush Administration's terrorist-suspect interrogation methods as "torture"--as reported just now on the Huffington Post by Ryan Grim. Boehner uses this honest word as part of a defense of these methods, but the diction says more than the defense--a point that Grim has rightly seized on as the real news from the press conference. Boehner is not lying on my analytic couch, thank God, and my guess is that he is not lying on anyone else's analytic couch, either, unfortunately--as he is a politically benighted man and also seems singularly sour and joyless--but his use of "torture" was an
ur-Freudian slip of the tongue. It shows a man in moral conflict about these methods, whether or not he would admit to or is even conscious of that conflict, because it is an inescapably horrific and negative word, no matter how couched and cushioned it may be by its surrounding rationalizations, and the law says that the practice of torture is a crime.
Almost as telling, in another way, is the word "tecnhiques," as used by Boehner in this instance and by many others on this subject in many other instances. It is a word that implies finesse and expertise, if not actual art, and it is a chilling unconscious effort to normalize and cosmeticize the awful and gross reality of real-world torture. "Methods" and "practices" seem more straightforward. And "torture" standing on its own two monstrous feet without any other noun following it would be more straughtforward yet. You don't need to go to school to know how to torture. To imply otherwise is to torture our language.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Someone wrote on another thread today....
The moral high ground is the only ground worth fighting for!
Food for thought!
One of the problems with this country has been that the electorate tends to prefer electing people who are not noticeably brighter than average. Boehner is an example of the result; I see no signs of any special intelligence, instrospection, analytical skills, or even a sense of humor. That he is the Republican Minority Leader suggests that the House Republicans must be scraping the bottom of the barrel. My own Republican congressman, though usually on the wrong side, is far more personable and actually cares about his constituents but I don't think he has been on TV aside from local coverage. Why do the House Republicans think that Boehner is the best they can come up with?
Boehner said "torture" because he notices the polls and wants to protect his posterior in '10, since even in Ohio "the hard-working, you know, WHITE" workers are good Americans underneath their years of voting for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, as loyal dittoheads of the right, so, hearteningly enough, they actually get it that torture is unAmerican. Say what you will about Disney movies, they've taught the masses that much.
Dick Cheney, waterboarding's leading proponent and now a sudden convert to selective declassification, insists that the answer to question 4) is a resounding, yes. Pending the release of any decisive documentation, if it even exists, one may only speculate.
As the various arguments and bits of evidence mount for viewing in the public eye, this nation must take its stand on such questions. But they boil down to: “Was it legal?” “Was it moral?” “Was it useful”, and finally, “Was it worth it?” And in the end, what's the right approach in formulating and conducting anti-terrorist policy, Barack Obama's scalpel or Dick Cheney's hammer? With the potential for terrorist-scale WMD brewing in the background, these issues are sure to be revisited again and again.
Questions 1), 3), and 5) are arguable from multiple vantages. Question 2) is less so, while 6) is most serious, since it asks whether those who ordered and authorized such techniques really felt they were acting only in the best interests of this country, or were simply trying to coerce the confession of a then non-existent link between al Qaeda, and Iraq, but which in the aftermath of invasion certainly exists in major fashion? To put it more bluntly, was it done to maintain the critical interests of our national security, or simply as part of an attempt to justify the invasion and control of an oil-rich nation? In the long run, question 7) will probably be “the decider”. But we are not there yet, not by a long shot.
E.g., regarding 2), a series of legal opinions initiated by the previous administration have now been put into question by Congress and probably later our courts.
Regarding 1) carefully monitored waterboarding is used to help special forces military personnel resist enemy interrogation. Then again, when does quantity become quality? Single instances of waterboarding in controlled training may not be torture, but 183 times by one's enemy in a month? If that isn't torture, what is it? WWII enemy soldiers were convicted of war crimes in an American court, under American laws, for waterboarding. Whether a particular administration considers waterboarding to be torture seems more fungible than whether it really is torture.
Good policy decisions require cool heads, strong analytical skills, and an overriding interest in the common weal. In the heat of a national argument on "torture", how does that happen? When Boehner slips to call it “torture”, when sober Fox News anchor (Shepard Smith) tees off on national TV with unexpected expletives with an unexpected view.. Beyond the fervor of those in heated debate, there are substantive points of disagreement, frameable as a set of questions.
Are harsh but presumably limited interrogation techniques like waterboarding really torture? 2) Were such techniques legal at the time they were employed? 3) Are such techniques effective in obtaining actionable intelligence? 4) Did such techniques obtain any actionable intelligence? 5) If so, could less questionable techniques be equally effective? 6) Were such techniques employed to produce actionable intelligence to counter critical threats, or were they used primarily to coerce confessions consistent with a narrative consistent with the foreign policy agenda at the time? 7) From a strictly amoral, geopolitical perspective, does the use of such techniques now tend to incur negative military and/or political consequences that outweigh the usefulness of any actionable intelligence thus obtained? Does it serve to scare our enemies and give us pre-emptive intel, or does it further inflame them, turn world opinion against us by undermining our image as leaders of the civilized world, and raise risks for our current military personnel? What if it happens to be all of the above? What then? How do you decide?
1. Yes
2. No (See the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes trials)
3 No. Some intelligence may be developed, but it is buried in a mass of misleading results and probably will not be recognized unless it fitswith the preconceptions of the interrogator. On the other hand, false answers which fit the interrogator's preconceptions (which will stop the pain) may be acted on with potentially disastrous results; see Guns of Navaroe for a fictional example.
4. So far, mainly unsubstantiated claims by people not known for close association with the truth. Should be balanced by another question, How many soldiers were killed by people radicalized by the torture of friends or family?
5. Plenty of Intel professionals say yes.
6. Probably instances of both.
7 You cannot scare an enemy with a martyr complex.
You forgot one question to ask of all conservative proponents of torture - What would Jesus do? If they answer torture, ask to see their Bible - Cheney seems to be operating on the basis of a translation I have never seen.
Despite the Bible-thumping of those in the previous administration, I have serious doubts that any of them were "true" Christians. If they had subscribed to the teachings of Jesus Christ, we would not be having this discussion now. How sad!!
I agree that Boehner and the Republicans generally speaking are intellectually inferior to the more liberal and social democratic amongst us, but these elaborate, well-written criticisms of that party actually accomplish very little. The Republicans know this and let the pundits and reporters blog away. The real way to accomplish things is for mass action on the part of the majority that wants change, for example a mammoth protest with signs, whistles, drums etc outside of Congress calling for universal health care, free post-secondary education, arrests for war crimes, etc. Everything other form of action is just a waste of time really without organized protesting. I am not a protest organizer, but I have put my money where my mouth is on occasion and participated in protests in college and since then, and they are extremely effective. Shame on the Left for allowing the Right to dominate the protest scene with their Tea Bagging. At least a few brave protesters marched with signs outside of AIG headquarters, drawing attention to the flagrantly foul policies of that TARP recipient.
See Daniel Menaker's Profile
.I couldn't agree a whole lot more. Having sometimes put more of my money than I could afford and often my far less valuable corporeal self where my mouth is, I simply don't understand the absence of organized protests and demonstrations against the Bush policy and the Obama Administration's resistance to investigation and prosecution. But that doesn't mean that the written word--like that of Intellectu
I'm not sure if I could disagree more. To say that Republicans are "intellectually inferior" is the equivalent of philosophical racism. Imagine the outcry if that statement were reversed! Liberals and Conservatives conduct their lives out of two distinctly different portions of the brain. Liberals are more attuned to "ideals" and "empathy", and "everyone should have the same amount of stuff". Conservatives use free thought, personal achievement, and self-reliance as their primary standards. There is a huge disconnect in the discussion, because as of right now in DC, there is a huge imbalance in power. I think the Democrat's inability to mount a meaningful "protest" of any kind, is because "Change You Can Believe In" is an immensely versatile phrase, that can mean anything to anybody; and it does. You see, the Dem. Party is made up of a dozen or more special interest groups, who will never be on the same page. Republicans, on the other hand, are being tremendously inspired, and consolidated by Obama, because their core values are much more uniform.
Patience! There are definitely rumblings out there concerning a march on Washington. I am willing to give the Attorney General time to do his job. It must take an amazing amount of work to lay out a case against a POTUS and a VPOTUS, not to mention the ideologues in the Justice Department.
AG Holder has said he would "follow the law". If he does so, I believe we will see justice done here. Otherwise, I am ready to take it to the streets, along with a very large number of other people!
Surprised that the GOP hasn't re-branded " torture "
to something like " comfort deprivation " -
it sounds so " less bad "...
--
Like "Man Caused Disasters"? Like "Overseas Contingency Operations"??? Well, Obama *did* promise to end "The War". Looks like he's doing it by "changing" the name...oh, and sending 21,000 more troops into Afghanista
He always said the real threat was in Afghanistan.
OT but not....The republicans are now trying to call it the "Democrat Socialist Party"! Sounds like something Michelle Bachmann would come up with! LOL
It looks like John "Frank Burns" Boehner had a moment of clarity.
Looks like he was suffering from a torturous hang over.. courtesy of Jack Daniels, the truth serum.
Here's what they don't get: In the eyes of the world, our torture policies lost us the moral high ground against TERRORISTS. I wouldn't think you could do that if you tried. But the Bush regime somehow found a way.
Thank you! That's the point that is utterly missed by the apologists. WE HAVE CEDED THE MORAL HIGH GROUND TO OSAMA BIN LADEN.
So now Boehner is going to be in trouble with his fellow goppers for using correct terminology: a big no no for the Rushpubelickers.
I'm waiting for the montage to come out on You Tube. Remember the one on Flip flop McCain?
Boehner didn't "blunder", nor did he make a Freudian slip. He's just been bludgeoned to near unconsciousness by leftist, defeatist jargon, that he accidentally repeated the oft recited mantra.
To call torture, torture is defeatist jargon? What's wrong with you man - oh wait, wreckedkar
"Torture" is defeatist when used in the pejorative. As for "wreckedkarma", I guess irony is lost on you too...
That's a good one. We know how good Republicans are at listening to the opinions of the opposition.
Let me get this correctly: Are you suggesting that Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representative, has been brainwashed (or may be tortured to "unconsciousness") "by leftist" that he just simply repeats what you label "defeatist jargon"? By the way, you seem to be trying to weasel out of you tortured logic: how can some one "bludgeoned to near unconsciousness" make a remark that is both an accident as well as a result "bludgeoning?"
You can;t wash what isn;t there.
ecunning is correct. I wonder what the Republicans would say if the Iranians took our soldiers to their prison and performed "enhanced interrogation techniques". The Republicans would denounce this as "TORTURE" and cry for war. So it is because it is us that doing the torture to them, thats OK but not the other way around. This American exceptionalism is rampant in the Republican Party. Never admitting a mistake is the Bush doctrine. In fact, when asked, Bush could not even think of any mistake he ever made. The Republican Hubris is amazing.
It is interesting that McCain can speak out torture and even get something passed in congress, but when it comes to fighting and hoping people people accountable (the law), he is a COWARD.
McCain COWARD on enforcing Torture
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
