Please help me establish some historical perspective re: the torture bill

[RoseMead]

I'm appalled at the passage of the Military Commissions Act, and like most people here, I find the implications of this piece of legislation frightening. However, I need some help putting it in a historical context.

I'm 38 years old. I have no memories of Vietnam (many memories of Vietnam movies, however) and only the dimmest memories of Watergate (mostly happiness that the bad man who ruined my afternoon cartoons was made to go away, and confusion over what peaches had to do with it.) During the Reagan years, I was in high school. I understood at the time that Reagan was 'bad,' but it was more a gut feeling than anything; although somehow I did grasp that Carter got screwed regarding the hostage release (as far as I know, I was the only kid at my school to request to stay inside at lunch to watch the inauguration and hostage release on TV).

By the time I got to college, it was Gulf War I. I knew enough to feel conflicted about the war, but it seemed (at the time, I know better now) that it was a quick war, not too many casualties, basically a win for us (meaning the U.S), so no harm-no foul. I loathed Bush the First because I considered him just a continuation of the Reagan era, but overall, at the time, his presidency seemed just boring and unremarkable. (To my enduring shame, I didn't even bother to vote in 2000, because I *just couldn't imagine* that anyone would want the Son of Bush in the White House - that's how much I disliked Poppy. I honestly thought a Gore win was guaranteed. I'll never make that mistake again.) And of course, during the Clinton years there was the Lewinsky idiocy, which to me just seemed, at the time, to be a pain in the ass, but not much more.

I guess the point of all this biographical information is to say, compared with those who lived through WWI, or the Great Depression, or WWII, or Vietnam, I haven't witnessed many really big, bad events in my lifetime, prior to 9-11 and the subsequent insanity. So I'm having trouble discerning how bad the Military Commissions Act really is, compared to other bad things I've pseudo-witnessed in my lifetime (and also, compared to events that happened before I was born). I guess what I'm asking is, how worried should I *really* be about this thing?

Is it worse than the internment of Japanese and other citizens during WWII?
Is it worse than the Red Scare and the McCarthy era?
Is it worse than Jim Crow and the abuses of Civil Rights workers in the 60's?
Is it worse than Vietnam?
Is it worse than Watergate?

These were all gigantic issues that damaged or shamed our country, but ultimately the nation recovered and moved on - at least, that's how it seems. Yesterday, however, between following the threads here and watching the actual final vote on C-Span, I felt like I was witnessing some huge good vs. evil battle. When the final vote was cast, I felt crushed and deeply discouraged, even though the outcome was no surprise to me.

I do understand the implications of this legislation, and what it could be used for. But I also understand, I think, that this law is very unconstitutional, and will probably be overturned, either by the SCOTUS or by Democrats if they take back Congress. (I know, this assumes that SCOTUS can be trusted and/or that a win by the Dems in Congress is likely enough to make it worth speculating about.)

Yesterday I wrote in my blog that passage of the Military Commissions Act would constitute a black day for America. Today, I'm wondering, how black is it really? Any perspective on this would be welcome.

Thanks! :)

[TygrBright]

1. "Is it worse than...?" Yes.

I lived through a good deal of those. It's worse. In none of those cases did our government make an official statement that it is okay to cause acute physical agony to human beings. In most of those cases various forms of agony were a foreseeable by-product of government attempts to achieve specious security goals, but in none of those cases did the government effectually say "We will go ahead and inflict massive physical pain and agony to individual human beings in utter disregard of their dignity and rights in order to achieve specious security goals."

We have officially, as a nation, jumped the shark. I am no longer certain that I can find any reservoir of patriotism or even loyalty to a nation that has declared that torture is justifiable.

I am still having a hard time reconciling the America I grew up in and loved and have now lost with the pervasive evil that is overwhelming our continent and damaging the whole planet.

There is no cynic so embittered as a disillusioned idealist.

sorrowfully,
Bright

[RoseMead]

5. I know exactly what you mean

"I am still having a hard time reconciling the America I grew up in and loved and have now lost with the pervasive evil that is overwhelming our continent and damaging the whole planet."

I feel this way too, except that the more I learn about the history of our country, the more I think that the America I grew up in was a sham, too.

I do agree that this legislation effectively means we've switched from saying certain things are unacceptable (but still doing them secretly, nonetheless) to saying that those things are now acceptable. And I agree that America and Americans should never think that torture and the violation of detainees rights (or anyone's rights) is acceptable.


"There is no cynic so embittered as a disillusioned idealist."

Ain't that the truth! I had no idea how much of an idealst I was until Bush was "elected," and I'm sad to say, I'm pretty seriously embittered at this point.

[Armstead]

2. It's a throwback to the bad old days -- A U Turn

I'm in my mid 50's. Vietnam happened gradually, and then it became intractable. It dominated life for a decade.

This torture bill will not likely change America overnight. But it is a throwback to the bad old days. It reverses the drive to challenge and restrain uncontested power by the Executive branch and the excesses of the military and intelligence establishment.

It's also part of the drip, drip,drip effect. This is basically a matter of having taken 2 steps forward in Constitutional protections since the 70's, but now taking taking 3 steps backwards, in terms of civil liberties and Executive Authoritarianism.

It is zlso horrible symbolism. Although the US has never been lily-white in its behavior, this is the first time in recent hostory that torture is now officially condoned and endorsed as a policy.

As a result of Vietnam and other bad moves by the US (such as support for the fascist Chilean regime) and the abuses by Nixon, there was a movement in the 70's to impose protections against the excesses of the US foreign policy and the excesses of the military and intelligence establishment. There were also limits placed on presidential power.

Those were generally accepted on a bi-partisan basis (i.e. including moderate Republicans) for a little while. Then Reagan and the right wing started to stretch the envelope again (such as Iran Contra) to roll back or undermine those restraints.

It's no accident that this administratioin has been doing this, becauze it is filled with veterans of the Nixon and Reagan eras.

[RoseMead]

6. "It's no accident that this administratioin has been doing this,

becauze it is filled with veterans of the Nixon and Reagan eras."

You know, from the minute I realized how far back some in the current administration go, I started to wonder why more folks who remembered the Nixon era didn't seem more worried about those people.

[Armstead]

8. Many have been...But they have also been ignored

The very idea that John negraponte should be our ambadassor to Iraq should have been vigorously fought, in light of his record in Latin America during Iran Contra days.

There are so many others who were either convicted or disgraced in the past, who have now been returned to positions of power.

But the media and the Beltway Establishment overlooked their colorful pasts, and rubber stamped their appointments.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Great question!

How Black is it?

I'm 62 years old and lived through many of the things you mentioned. Is this bit of legislation "worse" than any of the examples? In my opinion, no. It is just one more on the list of misdeeds, corruption, and hypocrisy of a nation that (falsely) advertises itself as a beacon of liberty and democracy.

That the SCOTUS and/or Democrats MAY overturn this abomination is irrelevant to those being held, tortured (er, "robustly interrogated"), and dehumanized.

Just as the Japanese internees, the people hauled in front of HUAC, the murder of those under Jim Crow, the millions murdered in Vietnam, had no voice in the laws and policies decided by politicians here, so now do the "detainees" have no voice in the "compromises" and laws passed to abuse them.

If there is any "good" to come out of this, it is that the whole world now sees this nation for what it really is. A predatory, and decadent, rogue state that is willing to kill, maim, imprison, and torture to maintain it's material wealth.

We have become the "Good Germans" of the 21st century. Willing to deny or take responsibility for the actions of our "leaders". The ones we elected, who either institute such laws, or fail to oppose them.

[Hamlette]

4. no, this is not the "worst thing ever" in our history

and you fail to list some other historical outrages. . .

during WWI it was illegal to say anything bad about the US government. The government rounded up union leaders and activists for saying bad things about the government. Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The US Supreme court originally upheld the law but later found it unconstitutional.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war, a huge black mark on his reputation thoughtout history.

Alien and sedition act under Adams was worse (see WWI above)

McCarthy might look mild on paper but in practice it was terrifying. Much worse. He took national figures, actors and artists, and effectively put them on trial. It made the news and had the effect of frightening eveyone (kinda like terror?) LBJ was majority leader in the senate, wanted to stop him but was powerless because any politician who criticized him immediately became a commie to McCarthy and "put on trial". Finally, Johnson figured if he televised McCarthy's hearings, Americans, who overwhelmingly supported McCarthy, would see what a nut job he was. Joe also made the mistake of going after the army, accusing people in the military as being disloyal commies. The confluence of those two things pissed off Americans and ended it all.

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong it is to compare this to slavery or even jim crow laws. Not. Even. Close.

Watergate, is not comparable. It was political corruption, this is grandstanding.

What is going on here is the American people don't get it. And they won't get it in the abstract. Just like they didn't get any of the other outrageous. It's gonna take an act or actions and they need to by "on TV". The confluence this time will take the government acting on this rotten bill and some proof (preferable pictures) of someone abused under it. Until that happens, I recommend we keep working to get Bush out of office or limit his power and stop whipping outselves into a frenzy.

As for the retroactive "pardon" of Bush for war crimes in the bill? Sometimes it is better to friggin' move on. Yeah, I want them held accountable but not as badly as I want my country back, back to a place where we all care about each other and are moving forward honorably in the world.

[RoseMead]

7. Well, I wasn't looking to make a comprehensive list

:) You are correct: I've studied WWI quite a bit, and the examples you give from that era are good examples of other horrible things America has done in the name of national security.