Torturing the Pharisees and Scribes

Church Groups Getting Ready for the Election:

Evangelical Christians in the United States, by an overwhelming margin, support George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in this election which means they support their policies which include torture.  They can’t hide from this: evangelical Christians support the use of torture to deal with terrorism.

I think every conservative, evangelical, Hillary-bashing congregation should dedicate at least one Sunday this fall to an in depth discussion of how Jesus would torture the Pharisees if he really, really needed some information from them. Suppose they were holding Mary and Peter hostage somewhere.  Or or the Holy Grail.

So, how would Jesus torture?  Cattle prods? Water-boarding? Sleep-deprivation and beatings? What would Jesus do? The results could be collected into a position paper and presented to George Bush at one of those frequent prayer breakfasts or other meetings

Conservatives love emergencies. That’s when they get to take control. If you let them. They thrive on fear– because they assume that others are prepared to do to us what they are prepared to do to others.

The question Al Qaeda has to ask itself is, “where is America’s oil”.

The answer: right below your feet.

 

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali

And again, a conviction for terrorist activities, without any terror or activities.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested for thought crimes in Saudi Arabia. We know what he was thinking– they tortured him to find out. Then they sent him to the U.S. where a federal court jury failed to stand up and shout, “screw you, George Bush, we still have some respect for freedom and the constitution here!”.

[added May 2008]

Nah, they didn’t. They said, by golly, only a guilty man would confess to terrorist activities while being tortured by the Saudis! Lock him up!

The FBI participated in the inquisition in Saudi Arabia– which is strange, because the FBI is responsible for domestic law enforcement. But what the hell– nowadays any government official seems entitled to go around the world and torture people, with the help of the Loyal Bush Clan, the Saudis.

Who you gonna call?  The FBI?


The Wiki Entry

 

Who Wants to Torture? Me! Me! Who’s Next?

“in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism”

The amendment they are talking about was attached to a $400 billion military spending bill by the Senate. The Senate– hey, hey!– voted 90-9 in favor of this amendment. The amendment bars the U.S. from the use of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” of any detainee.

That’s all. The least you would expect, you would think, from a Christian nation. But we are not a Christian nation. We countenance a president and vice-president who beg Congress to please, oh please, please, please, please, don’t stop us from using “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment in the war against terror…

Because, how else will we know if we’re better than them?


NY Times Story.

Police State

The disparity between rhetoric and reality is now a yawning chasm. America never ceases, for a second, to rhapsodize about freedom and liberty and justice and the American Way. And then, without the slightest inkling of opposition or dissent, casually renews the Patriot Act, making it legal for the government to spy on whoever it wants whenever it wants with impunity, tap your phones, read your mail, or search your home– without even having to tell you that you are under suspicion, without even having to tell a judge.

Nobody knows which way Judge Roberts is going to vote on abortion or environmental regulations (well, actually, we do): this guy has already ruled in favor of the government’s right to hold people prisoner for as long as they like simply by designating them “prisoners of war”.

And Americans run the flag up the pole and salute and sing their anthems, completely unconcerned.

And the police continue to flog the illusion that these police state provisions have helped them catch terrorists. They don’t have a single real terrorist (just a gaggle of impulsive youths who were entrapped) to show for it, but that hasn’t even slowed them down: we need to spy on people to keep America safe.

When this measure was introduced, it included “sunset provisions”, which everyone happily pronounced would ensure that this glaring intrusion on everyone’s civil rights would expire in four years. Just as I always expected, the Republicans are now trying to make those provisions permanent. That is ghastly. That is just maybe the most outrageous act by an outrageous congress. And the Democrats, petrified of being portrayed as intelligent and wise, are rolling over like sheep.

[Last minute correction: most Democrats voted against the bill. That’s actually interesting, because the perception used to be that you could not win re-election if your opponent could accuse you of a lack of enthusiasm for bombing or killing or suppressing civil liberties.]


Why hasn’t a single prominent politician dared to stand up and announce he will oppose government use of torture against prisoners, no matter what the charges? (Actually, John McCain and some other senators have.) Do people really think that that is unpalatable?

I suspect that if, say, John Edwards, made it a prominent feature of a campaign (an early start on 2008), it would set off all kinds of alarms in the White House. Right now, Bush can nudge, nudge, wink, wink, declare that of course he’s opposed to torture, while allowing his staff and officials to carry it out. But if someone prominent were to make it an issue, I have a feeling that Karl Rove would issue immediate instructions: no more torture. It just don’t look good defending it in public, or answering reporters questions — “Mr. Edwards says that he would fire any official involved in any kind of torture– would you, Mr. Bush?”

Then go ahead, George, make a joke about it.


Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He deserves the medal of freedom but, of course, he’ll never get one.


In fairness, the Senate’s version of the same bill is considerably less draconian. But it’s rather pathetic that anyone would see this version as “enlightened”. We’ll allow the rack, but not the red-hot pokers to our civil liberties.

Added October 5: Judge Roberts, in his hearings before the Senate, declared that the President has the power to order the torture of prisoners, if Congress was “supportive”.

That’s a strange reading. Why would a Supreme Court Justice care if Congress was “supportive” of an unconstitutional act?

Judge Roberts, should the President arrest witches? If Congress is “supportive”…

What Mr. Roberts has really said is that torture is “constitutional” (since a mere Act of Congress could allow it).  I would not be alone in vehemently asserting that it is NOT.

President Torturer

From the Washington Post, July 15, 2005:

But the Pentagon working group’s 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that “in order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.”

Do Americans read any of their own news? What do they think about this stuff? The man they elected to the highest office in the land is an admitted torturer. No, he didn’t personally kick or beat these prisoners, or take their clothes away, at Abu Gharib or Guantanamo, or put women’s underwear on their heads, or make “use of military working dogs” — whatever the hell that means. He is simply in charge of it. He has authorized it. He has approved it. His representatives have begged the Supreme Court to let him do it. Let me, let me, let me use a cattle prod on someone’s genitals. Please.

There is nothing complicated here. There is nothing convoluted or difficult to understand about the situation. Mr. Bush belongs to a political party that claims that they are the ones standing up for “values”, for principles, for accountability and integrity. And they torture people. And they don’t deny it. That is the ultimate expression of the real moral values in this political environment, of the men who claim to be more godly than John Kerry: we want to torture people.

The only thing more depressing than this, is the fact that in the next election, I doubt very much that the Democrats will run someone who will make a point of saying “I won’t allow any torture”. No, no, no– that would make the candidate appear to be a wuss. Then the Republican candidate will say, “I represent the party that will torture people. I will beat up and kill people on your behalf.  I am willing to be your killer and torturer. Vote for me.”

Of course not. He will say that he is opposed to gay marriage and that he supports education and motherhood and apple pie.

And he’ll probably win.

But wait– doesn’t that mean that he is our man. He is doing our will. WE torture people?

Yes.

Television: “24”

Okay, this show is supposed to take place in real-time, over a 24-hour period. Kiefer Sutherland plays Jack something, some kind of anti-terrorist squad leader. A black presidential candidate in Los Angeles on the eve of the primary is allegedly the target of an assassination plot. Off we go.

Is the black senator Republican or Democrat? Unlike “West Wing”, “24” doesn’t have the guts to risk alienating the other 50%, so we have the ludicrous scenario of politicians who never once talk about any politics. Even more ludicrous is the idea of a black Senator. That is science fiction.

We find out that Jack turned in some of his own people for bribery. That’s why some of his own staff don’t like him. This firmly establishes one of the most prevalent and ludicrous precepts of American public mythology: only an annoying and self-righteous individual can ever effect any good in society. Teams suck. Cooperation is bad. Collaboration doesn’t work.

He is called in by his boss because one of their agents in some foreign country found out about the assassination plot.

First problem. This is real time, right? So Jack’s daughter, Kimberly, says good night at about 1 minute into the first hour. About four minutes later, Jack and his wife Teri discover that Kimberly is missing. (She snuck out with friend Janet York to see some guys.) They logically assume that she ran out, but less than five minutes later Jack is already calling her former boyfriend to ask if she is there.

She travels fast, this girl.

Kimberly tells the guy, Rick, that her father is dead. (He’s not, yet.)

Hand-held camera. This is an affectation, not a style. It’s like mannerism, and exaggeration of technique for it’s own sake. It’s stupid. Do they hire incompetent camera men for this effect? Or do they train their camera men to wobble and wiggle with the camera?

At 12 minutes in, Jack is phoning a friend at the police department to ask if he could do Jack a favor and keep an eye out for his daughter. And the reasonable cop says, what, are you nuts? She’s been missing for 10 minutes! Of course not. He says, I’ll get right on it. Your daughter has been missing for ten minutes and I’ll drop what I’m doing and start prowling Los Angeles to see if I can find her.  Because I have nothing else to do at the moment.

Coincidentally, Jack’s commanding officer, ___ discovers that someone inside “the agency” may be involved in the plot. Rather, he discovers that he’d like to have Jack investigate the question at that particular moment.

District Director Mason is supposed to brief Jack about something. Jack finds out he’s lying, so he shoots him with a tranquilizer dart. I’m not kidding. Nina helps Jack because obviously she’s sexy and is in love with him. Jack relates that when some evil person named Phillip D’Arcee’ or something was “taken down”, $200,000 disappeared. He suspects Mason took it. Convention number 2: evil people never come from Indiana or Iowa or Kansas. They come from France.

Nina approaches Tony to hack into a bank account in Spain for Jack. Tony doesn’t like Jack, especially because he likes Nina and she is perversely in love with Jack.

Jack approaches Jamie and asks her if she can hack into all the passwords associated with a telephone number. She says, “if you have a warrant”. Jack doesn’t but in American television mythology all the heroic men break the rules all the time and, unlike the FBI or CIA, never for bad reasons and they never inadvertently invade the privacy of innocent people or cause sure-convictions to be thrown out because they violated the suspects’ rights.

In television land, these men are never wrong. We nod approvingly. Can’t let the law and civil rights get in the way of stopping crime, by golly. Here, “24” embraces the lamest, most boring television cliché.

Jamie is a genius because she has invented a way of jumping a signal through the phone lines onto a computer hard drive and then de-encrypting a user’s password. She doesn’t say, “maybe I can”, or “sometimes I can”, or “it depends on what kind of security they have and what kind of operating system and how they stored their passwords”. No, she can just do it. She does brain surgery as a hobby, on the side.

As it turns out, Jack wants the passwords because they belong to his daughter. She is out of the house for 27 minutes and her parents are already, successfully, breaking into her private e-mail.

The Presidential candidate, Palmer, takes a call from “Maureen”, a television reporter, after midnight. Do you think Presidential candidates– senators– take calls directly from someone identified as a reporter after midnight? It turns out the reporter has a juicy allegation to report– but Senator Palmer is not told this before he agrees to answer the phone. This is another example of how 24 doesn’t really achieve the look and feel of reality.

Kimberly checks her cell phone and sees that her mother has left five messages. She tells her friends, having not had sex yet with Rick, that she intends to go home. I can guess what’s coming. She is now being established as a “good” girl. She didn’t have sex. She is sensitive to her mother’s feelings. She is suddenly more prudent than she has been all evening, and even shows reluctance to accept a ride with the guys home. I smell victimization coming up, big time. We would be less sympathetic to her if she had sex with the boy, like her friend Janet did.  That would prepare the viewer for a dire fate: she deserved it.

The French photographer, Martin, and Andy try to join the mile-high club. Andy says why don’t we get together in LA. He says he’s going to be very busy. Upon leaving the bathroom, Andy says, “see ya” even though they sit beside each other and are likely to get reacquainted fairly soon.

Jack confronts Mason over the missing $200,000. Tony has traced the money to Mason’s account. Jack uses this information to blackmail Mason into telling him the source of the information about the hit on Senator Palmer. Unfortunately, since Jack has no way of verifying this information, it’s a little ridiculous for him to assume that Mason has given him accurate information.

Insanely, Jack asks Nina to “cover” for him. We are given to understand that an anti-terrorism squad, responding to a threat on a presidential candidate’s life, can spare a leading member for a while? And he can be “covered” for by a sympathetic co-worker? Well, after all, he hasn’t seen his daughter for 35 minutes now.

Meanwhile– everything in this show is “meanwhile”– Andy has planted a bomb, blown an escape hatch, and exited the 747. Now we know why she said “see yah”. A bomb she leaves behind blows it up. Tony alerts Jack: a 747 just exploded. In real life, I suspect that initial reports would be “a 747 disappeared”, and then, “a 747 crashed”, and then, after a few hours at least, “police suspect an explosion of some kind” or “some witnesses reported seeing a fireball” or something. A few days later: “police now suspect that a bomb may have exploded on board the 747”. But 24 is economical with it’s time: in just minutes, Tony is reporting to Jack that a 747 has crashed and we already know the cause.

I’m griping, sure. 24 is fairly compelling as drama because the principal characters are somewhat interesting and the story has laid out a large number of hooks: the lost daughter gone astray, the possibly corrupt senator, the senator’s suspicious wife, the honest cop, the crooked cop. Geez, now that I list them all– how many cliché’s exactly does it take to do “ground-breaking” drama?

All the makers of the show have to do is get you to care enough about these people to sit through 20 minutes of obscene commercials and tune in next week.


The most fun part of shows like this, and movies like “Gran Torino”, is the fantasy of having it both ways. You can be as stupid and rude and violent as you want, and within the fantasy of the show, you will still be loved.


[Update 2022-07-28]   I was way too generous here — I was afraid of hurting the feelings of some people I knew who were enamored of the show.  “24” really was pure dreck, and fascist to boot (by which I mean that it glorified violent, illegal police tactics, including torture).