Tweet
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
The Nightmare Made Real: Torture, Murder and Endless Horror Institutionalized and Normalized -- by Democrats
I didn't want to write this post. It gives me no pleasure of any kind finally to have to make certain judgments, and to recognize that it is almost impossible that there will ever be any reason to revise or amend them. I have been very harsh in my evaluation of the Democrats and those who ceaselessly work for Democratic electoral victory -- as two examples: here, before the 2006 elections, and here, just the other day. Nonetheless, I still had clung to an exceedingly slim thread of hope -- a hope that at least a few of the Democrats and/or their supporters would choose to act on behalf of the sanctity of human life, of civilization, of the most basic sense of decency. That hope is now gone, probably forever.
You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.
And for this monstrous, unforgivable fact, you can thank the Democrats and those who whore themselves for the Democrats' success in our disgustingly meaningless elections.
My thoughts on this issue coalesced as I read Chris Floyd's recent essay. Floyd writes:
In "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland that Is Now Our Life," I wrote:
Others sometimes note (as I do, too, usually with much bitter regret) that my record of predictions is amazingly accurate, not that this fact matters a damn to anyone. I now provide you with a few further predictions. Let us assume that the Democrats win the White House and also establish significant majorities in both houses of Congress. I tell you now that we will still be in Iraq in five years, and even ten (and more); I tell you that it is almost certain the next President will order an attack on Iran, if Bush does not before he leaves office; I tell you that the Military Commissions Act will not be repealed, which means that the basic blueprint for a dictatorship -- one which employs torture as a legitimized instrument of the state -- will remain the law of the land. For several years, and many times a day now during campaign season, the Democrats and their supporters tell everyone who will listen that they are different from the evil Republicans -- that the Democrats will end the occupation of Iraq -- that the Democrats will restore the rule of law and the blessed innocence of our constitutional republic (which assumes that such innocence ever existed, which it emphatically did not). All of it is a series of monstrous lies. With regard to the most fundamental policies, the Democrats will change absolutely nothing. Indeed, most Democrats support all these policies to varying degrees.
Ted Rall writes:
The Nightmare Made Real: Torture, Murder and Endless Horror Institutionalized and Normalized -- by Democrats
I didn't want to write this post. It gives me no pleasure of any kind finally to have to make certain judgments, and to recognize that it is almost impossible that there will ever be any reason to revise or amend them. I have been very harsh in my evaluation of the Democrats and those who ceaselessly work for Democratic electoral victory -- as two examples: here, before the 2006 elections, and here, just the other day. Nonetheless, I still had clung to an exceedingly slim thread of hope -- a hope that at least a few of the Democrats and/or their supporters would choose to act on behalf of the sanctity of human life, of civilization, of the most basic sense of decency. That hope is now gone, probably forever.
You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.
And for this monstrous, unforgivable fact, you can thank the Democrats and those who whore themselves for the Democrats' success in our disgustingly meaningless elections.
My thoughts on this issue coalesced as I read Chris Floyd's recent essay. Floyd writes:
We've examined various aspects of America's Torture State many times at this site (most recently here), but in his latest column, Ted Rall pulls it all together and provides a succinct and powerful bill of indictment (excerpts below), drawing the only conclusion that anyone not corrupted or cowed into servility can possibly draw: George W. Bush and his chief advisers should be arrested and tried on charges of torture and murder.
Anyone who actually believed in democracy and the rule of law -- anyone who actually believed that the constitutional republic of the United States was worth preserving and strengthening -- anyone who had even a vestigial sense of morality or the most flickering commitment to the idea of justice -- would already be calling for the prosecution of Bush and his minions for these capital crimes. This goes double for anyone in public life, holding public office, with a national platform to speak from, and institutional tools at their disposal for investigating these crimes.
So where are these voices in the citadel of power calling for justice to be done? They are silent. In both houses of Congress, in both major parties, they are silent. On the campaign trail, preening before the public as wise and virtuous leaders worthy to lead a nation, they are silent.
It is clear -- clear beyond all doubt or dispute -- that our public officials do not believe in democracy and law. They don't want to preserve the constitutional republic. They have no sense of morality or the slightest commitment to justice. If they did, they would already be taking action, standing up, leading the nation out of this blood-drenched cesspit.
Floyd notes that none of those who will be our next President believes "in law, or justice, or the republic." Not Hillary Clinton or John McCain, and certainly not Barack Obama, who is "changing the very nature of politics" -- but who believes "impeachment should be reserved for 'exceptional circumstances.' And outright violations of United States law against torture and murder are not, in Obama's eyes, exceptional circumstances." Anyone who continues to believe that Obama is notably, uniquely "idealistic" and "different" in some fundamental way from all politicians who have come before is viciously, dangerously, nauseatingly self-deluded.Anyone who actually believed in democracy and the rule of law -- anyone who actually believed that the constitutional republic of the United States was worth preserving and strengthening -- anyone who had even a vestigial sense of morality or the most flickering commitment to the idea of justice -- would already be calling for the prosecution of Bush and his minions for these capital crimes. This goes double for anyone in public life, holding public office, with a national platform to speak from, and institutional tools at their disposal for investigating these crimes.
So where are these voices in the citadel of power calling for justice to be done? They are silent. In both houses of Congress, in both major parties, they are silent. On the campaign trail, preening before the public as wise and virtuous leaders worthy to lead a nation, they are silent.
It is clear -- clear beyond all doubt or dispute -- that our public officials do not believe in democracy and law. They don't want to preserve the constitutional republic. They have no sense of morality or the slightest commitment to justice. If they did, they would already be taking action, standing up, leading the nation out of this blood-drenched cesspit.
In "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland that Is Now Our Life," I wrote:
[T]he Democrats say that they now oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But they consistently and adamantly refuse to recognize the criminal nature of what the U.S. has done. At worst, they will say that the invasion of Iraq was a monumental "blunder," and that the invasion and occupation have been executed "incompetently." They cannot and will not say that we have committed a crime of historic proportions. According to the Democrats, if we had committed the crime efficiently, all would be well. In addition, despite all their pathetic mewling that they can't, they just can't end the criminal occupation of Iraq, the Democrats could do exactly that within months. They won't -- while they continue to insist that this "blunder" is profoundly damaging our country. In a similar manner, the Democrats say they oppose an authoritarian executive branch, and that they oppose the incipient dictatorship at home. Despite these protestations, they permitted the Military Commissions Act to pass -- and they have provided no indication whatsoever that they propose to repeal it. The Democrats helped pass the FISA bill several months ago -- an act that significantly increases the government's surveillance powers. At every opportunity, the Democrats either fail to mount any serious opposition or they actively support the further means to a more oppressive government. (In fact, and as I have explained in detail - see "Blinded by the Story" and "Cui Bono?" -- the Republicans and Democrats do not disagree about fundamentals; they both work toward worldwide American hegemony in foreign policy, and toward a corporatist-authoritarian state at home.)
So which is worse? Those who support evil, but insist they believe it is good? Or those who support evil while claiming, at least some of the time, that they actually know it is evil? I didn't write that post in the form I originally planned for only one reason: given the nature of the evil involved -- the complete destruction of liberty domestically and an unending series of murderous, ungraspably destructive wars abroad -- I consider distinctions of this kind ultimately to be morally insignificant to the point of invisibility. The only fact that matters is that Republicans and Democrats -- two or three honorable exceptions aside -- all act to destroy liberty and to further criminal war abroad. But in a psychological sense, I probably would have to say the Democrats (and certain of their apologists) are worse: to say you recognize evil to any extent at all, yet to fail to oppose it or, which is still more reprehensible, to act for its furtherance, consigns one to the lowest rung of Hell.
You may now remove the "probably" from the last sentence of that excerpt. There is no question in my mind that the Democrats and their whore apologists -- including their whore supporters and apologists among the progressive bloggers -- are worse, and much more sickening. To repeatedly and loudly insist that you view certain policies and behaviors as evil, while you simultaneously do nothing of any significance to oppose them or slow them down or, still worse, act to further them, requires a lethal, murderous dishonesty that should be deeply sickening to any semi-decent human being.So which is worse? Those who support evil, but insist they believe it is good? Or those who support evil while claiming, at least some of the time, that they actually know it is evil? I didn't write that post in the form I originally planned for only one reason: given the nature of the evil involved -- the complete destruction of liberty domestically and an unending series of murderous, ungraspably destructive wars abroad -- I consider distinctions of this kind ultimately to be morally insignificant to the point of invisibility. The only fact that matters is that Republicans and Democrats -- two or three honorable exceptions aside -- all act to destroy liberty and to further criminal war abroad. But in a psychological sense, I probably would have to say the Democrats (and certain of their apologists) are worse: to say you recognize evil to any extent at all, yet to fail to oppose it or, which is still more reprehensible, to act for its furtherance, consigns one to the lowest rung of Hell.
Others sometimes note (as I do, too, usually with much bitter regret) that my record of predictions is amazingly accurate, not that this fact matters a damn to anyone. I now provide you with a few further predictions. Let us assume that the Democrats win the White House and also establish significant majorities in both houses of Congress. I tell you now that we will still be in Iraq in five years, and even ten (and more); I tell you that it is almost certain the next President will order an attack on Iran, if Bush does not before he leaves office; I tell you that the Military Commissions Act will not be repealed, which means that the basic blueprint for a dictatorship -- one which employs torture as a legitimized instrument of the state -- will remain the law of the land. For several years, and many times a day now during campaign season, the Democrats and their supporters tell everyone who will listen that they are different from the evil Republicans -- that the Democrats will end the occupation of Iraq -- that the Democrats will restore the rule of law and the blessed innocence of our constitutional republic (which assumes that such innocence ever existed, which it emphatically did not). All of it is a series of monstrous lies. With regard to the most fundamental policies, the Democrats will change absolutely nothing. Indeed, most Democrats support all these policies to varying degrees.
Ted Rall writes:
George W. Bush has publicly confessed that he ordered torture, thus violating the Convention Against Torture. He, Cheney, Rumseld, Rice and the other Principals must therefore be arrested and, unlike the thousands of detainees kidnapped by the U.S. since 9/11, arraigned and placed on trial.
Because the torture ordered by Bush and his cabinet directly resulted in death, they must additionally be charged with several counts of murder. Fifteen U.S. soldiers have been charged with the murders of two detainees at the U.S. airbase at Bagram, Afghanistan in 2002. They were following orders issued by their Commander-in-Chief and his Principals.
...
If George W. Bush were an ordinary citizen, there can be little doubt that he would face a long prison sentence for the scores of acts of torture he authorized both specifically and generally. Four of the seven white hillbillies charged with the kidnap-torture of a black woman in Logan County, West Virginia are now in jail for at least the next ten years.
If Bush weren't president, he would face murder charges. The maximum sentence in a federal murder case is death.
If Bush and his co-conspirators are not above the law, if the United States remains a nation where all citizens are equal, they must be arrested and indicted. But by whom?
...
[L]eaving the presidency in the hands of an self-admitted torture killer is unacceptable. Congress could ask a U.S. Marshal to arrest Bush as part of impeachment charges. But the ultimate outcome — removing him from office a few months before the end of his term — seems woefully inadequate given the nature of the charges. In any case, Democrats have already said that impeachment is "off the table."
Bush could be extradited to one of the countries where the torture and murders were committed — such as Afghanistan or Cuba. But he could claim immunity as a head of state.
There is, however, a person who could begin holding Bush and the others accountable for their crimes.
She is Cathy L. Lanier, the 39-year-old chief of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Lanier, take note: you have probable cause to arrest a self-confessed serial torturer and mass murderer within the borders of the District of Columbia. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Go get him.
It is the judgment of the Democrats -- and it is the judgment of Barack Obama -- that none of these acts merit impeachment.
Because the torture ordered by Bush and his cabinet directly resulted in death, they must additionally be charged with several counts of murder. Fifteen U.S. soldiers have been charged with the murders of two detainees at the U.S. airbase at Bagram, Afghanistan in 2002. They were following orders issued by their Commander-in-Chief and his Principals.
...
If George W. Bush were an ordinary citizen, there can be little doubt that he would face a long prison sentence for the scores of acts of torture he authorized both specifically and generally. Four of the seven white hillbillies charged with the kidnap-torture of a black woman in Logan County, West Virginia are now in jail for at least the next ten years.
If Bush weren't president, he would face murder charges. The maximum sentence in a federal murder case is death.
If Bush and his co-conspirators are not above the law, if the United States remains a nation where all citizens are equal, they must be arrested and indicted. But by whom?
...
[L]eaving the presidency in the hands of an self-admitted torture killer is unacceptable. Congress could ask a U.S. Marshal to arrest Bush as part of impeachment charges. But the ultimate outcome — removing him from office a few months before the end of his term — seems woefully inadequate given the nature of the charges. In any case, Democrats have already said that impeachment is "off the table."
Bush could be extradited to one of the countries where the torture and murders were committed — such as Afghanistan or Cuba. But he could claim immunity as a head of state.
There is, however, a person who could begin holding Bush and the others accountable for their crimes.
She is Cathy L. Lanier, the 39-year-old chief of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Lanier, take note: you have probable cause to arrest a self-confessed serial torturer and mass murderer within the borders of the District of Columbia. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Go get him.
Comment