Search Results for 'torture'

Open Democracy’s retrospective and prospective look at the decade/s

Open Democracy has asked a range of its contributors to answer the following questions:

A volcanic decade in global politics ends amid deep unease about the world’s ability to rise to key 21st-century challenges. openDemocracy writers draw breath and look ahead by reflecting on three questions:

1) What was the most significant trend in the century’s first decade?

2) What do you most hope for, and most fear, about the decade to come?

3) What idea do you see fading and/or emerging in 2010 and beyond?

Their reflections and prognostications can be found here and here.

Reading through the responses, a number of common themes emerge. One is the rise of China and the end of a unipolar world (and in this context, it’s interesting to observe more evidence surfacing about the snubs Beijing has been giving Barack Obama). Associated with this theme is the end of the liberal optimism of the 1990s, the decline of effective peacekeeping and conflict resolution, and the rise of the anti-terror security state in the 2000s. Whatever the views of the ideologues of globalisation, it’s difficult not to conclude that the first decade of this century saw the state come back. While much could be written critical of the emergence of international human rights law and international co-ordination which was one of the important trends of the 90s, conversely urgent problems like climate change are insoluble without concerted world action (while the last years of the late decade showed that the global financial sector could be bailed out at all deliberate speed).

Here too, it might be germane to observe that the sort of authoritarian state led capitalism characteristic of the Chinese model has both its parallels and echoes in the West (as civil liberties decline and torture becomes an acceptable subject of public discourse) and that its rise challenges the 90s end of history/democratisation thesis that market activity brings civic virtue in its wake. For many of the writers, the 2000s were a somewhat dark decade, characterised by rising inequality. Notable is a focus on the practice of multinationals buying up huge swathes of agricultural land in developing countries (particularly in Africa); for instance the leasing of almost half Madagascar’s arable land by a South Korean corporation. This issue warrants more attention than it’s received. It’s in stark contrast with pronouncements such as the Millennium Goals, and symbolises the end of the discourse of development and the entrenchment of a core/periphery model in the global economy, aside from its obvious human and ecological implications.

There’s much to ponder here.

Interestingly, only a small number of contributors referred to the rise of social media and the dissemination of the internet as a key development of the 00s. That’s something I’ll take up presently in another post.

Open Bush torture memos thread

As I’m sure most of you know, last week the Obama administration released some memos written by staff in the Justice Department during the Bush administration, memos written for the CIA to provide legal cover for the use of harsh interrogation techniques that many people regard as clear examples of torture. Here’s takes on the news story from The Australian, BBC News, The Guardian and The Washington Post. Here’s editorial opinion from the NYT, the Boston Globe, the Financial Times and the Toronto Star.

No time to write a full post, so I’ll leave you with these paragraphs from Glen Greenwald as a jump-off point:

The most criticism-worthy act that Obama engaged in yesterday was to affirm and perpetuate what is the single most-destructive premise in our political culture: namely, that when high government officials get caught committing serious crimes, the responsible and constructive thing to do is demand immunity for them, while only those who are vindictive and divisive want political leaders to be held accountable for their crimes.

…[Obama expresses exactly] the mindset that has destroyed the rule of law in the U.S. and spawned massive criminality in our elite class. Accountability for crimes committed by political leaders (as opposed to ordinary Americans) is scorned as “retribution” and “laying blame for the past.” Those who believe that the rule of law should be applied to the powerful as well as to ordinary citizens are demonized as the “forces that divide us.” The bottomless corruption of immunizing political elites for serious crimes is glorified in the most Orwellian terms as “a time for reflection,” “moving forward,” and “coming together on behalf of our common future.”

Others argue that Obama has walked a line where he makes both sides half-happy and half-unhappy by revealing the memos but barring prosecution of those involved operationally. Your thoughts?

The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship

WikiLeaks is a public-interest website which makes leaked material freely available on the internet. In the past it has revealed information on psychological torture at Guantanamo Bay, a Pentagon analysis showing it is losing the war in Afghanistan, and insider trading at J P Morgan. At the moment its hosting leaked memos from Barclays Bank detailing the extent of their tax evasion – memos which have been suppressed by the UK High Court (ah, the joy of a free market in legal jurisdiction). In short, it does good work, exposing corruption and malfeasance in both the public and private sector and allowing those responsible to be held to account.

You may be wondering why I’m not linking to any of that material. The reason is that WikiLeaks is now on Australia’s internet blacklist. Last year they posted a copy of Denmark’s blacklist, revealing some unusual censorship choices (one of the blocked sites was a Dutch transport company), and this apparently meets the ACMA’s definition of prohibited online content. Australian websites linking to it could be fined $11,000 a day. The last thing censors can tolerate, it seems, is free and open discussion about censorship.

The Australian government is planning to turn its blacklist into a mandatory internet filter, similar to those used in such great democracies as Burma, Iran, and of course China. This provides an excellent reason why Australians should not let that happen.

US election: End of the Bush era

There’s been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks about whether today’s vote would signal the end of the Reagan era. That discussion had two interlinked referents – the combination of militarism and small government rhetoric (if not practice) which marked Reaganite governance and the enduring electoral pattern Reagan’s win in 1980 ushered in. It may well be that these predictions are on the money, though we’ll need a few more electoral cycles to be sure (and one very useful thing the Obama administration could do would be reform of the voting process, which might make a fair bit of difference in and of itself). Certainly the red state/blue state frozen electoral map has begun to shift – with the state level strength in the West for the Democrats now translating nationally and the South becoming more competitive (and as Cliff Shecter observes, the demographics in Texas and South Carolina are heading in the same direction):

In other words, Barack Obama and the Democrats are a national party now, while the GOP has become regionalised and fallen behind the times. What a difference a few years can make. It will now be up to Obama and other leading Democrats to solidify these gains through smart politics and smarter policy. So we can all breathe a bit easier, by putting the Bush years behind us forever.

What’s a little surprising is that in the midst of these debates, there’s been little discussion of the exact significance and dimensions of the repudiation of Bushism. As publius says at Obsidian Wings:

Any way you slice it, the 2008 election should be seen as a massive repudiation of the George W. Bush administration.

And not just in psephological terms, as the Republican right may have driven Hispanic voters away for a long time. Let’s make no mistake about it. The collision of neo-con Republicanism and reality has not been kind to the latter. Publius again:

…recent events have repeatedly proven the progressive “sphere” more correct than the conservative “sphere.” Progressives’ policy assumptions seem to jibe better with empirical reality than the fairy tale world inhabited by many in the conservative sphere. In short, in the laboratory of ideas, progressives are winning.

Continue reading ‘US election: End of the Bush era’

“we can’t take American assurances that they do not torture detainees at face value”

Story: British MPs raise torture concerns

So some politicians have finally noticed that when one group of people define torture so that it includes waterboarding and another group defines torture so that it excludes waterboarding, then the word torture itself becomes stripped of substance in terms of the debate over the ethical and humane treatment of prisoners (let alone which techniques are actually effective at intelligence-gathering).

Took them long enough.

Waterboarding Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens actually had himself waterboarded by the US Military to see whether it felt like torture to him. It did.

via Pharyngula, who has links to video.

Standard Operating Procedure

standard-operating-procedure-movie-poster-500w.jpg 

A few years ago, most of us were appalled by the infamous photos that emerged from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Seeing those photos again in Errol Morris’s exceptional documentary Standard Operating Procedure lets us know that time has rightly done nothing to diminish our negative reactions to those images.

However, Morris’s film seeks to give us the picture behind those pictures.

Continue reading ‘Standard Operating Procedure’

Guest post by Peter Murphy – Zimbabwe: Despotism or Democracy?

Peter Murphy from the Zimbabwe Information Centre writes:

Opening Remarks

This story of Zimbabwe and its political, economic and social turmoil is really a story about how women are trying to have their human right to a say in their society, about how the people want to help those millions who have HIV, about how the trade unions want to develop a prosperous, peaceful and just society, about how the professional classes want to create a way of governing that is straightforward, fair and works.

It is a story for the whole of Africa, and that is why all of Africa and in particular South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and Botswana are part of this story.

As I write the people of Zimbabwe are being called out to a one-horse election that they don’t want, because it has already been drowned in blood, violence and cheating.

Between the March 29 presidential and parliamentary elections and today, almost 100 activists from the Movement for Democratic Change have been murdered, often in the most terrible way, over 3,000 have been very badly injured through torture, and now about 100,000 have been internally displaced because their homes and property have been looted or completely destroyed.

Zimbabwe now faces a chaotic regime collapse, with perhaps a minimal role for the international community in the immediate crisis.

Continue reading ‘Guest post by Peter Murphy – Zimbabwe: Despotism or Democracy?’

Big Brother eats its own (princess): a cautionary tale of the S word

The Big Brother narrative takes yet another snarky turn. As Eye on Big Brother notes, all the glee on the panel show tonight (Big Mouth or whatever) was directed at the hapless Brigitte. The evictee’s privilege of doing something really nasty, not very well justified by the not so redeemed Saxon, was to take away her wardrobe and her makeup for the week indefinitely. This from part of the loathsome “Spa Mafia” whose idea of fun was hiding “Princess Sparkles” – her toy unicorn – as the first of their japes. I can’t help wondering if Brigitte’s failure to fulfil the FHM dream girl role of flirting with the boys – she’s too obviously occupied just being Brigitte (it’s a bit like Being There) – led to this particular nastiness. But as Eye observes, she’s quickly (and predictably) earned the ire of the other women in the House as well. Now Big Brother, in the form of the almighty narrative, piles on too.

And there’s another ethical conundrum here.

Continue reading ‘Big Brother eats its own (princess): a cautionary tale of the S word’

It’s a comic book world

The Cowboys and Indians language of evildoers and other Manichean simplicities beloved of George W. Bush once upon a time might have been compared to the moral verities of comic book super heroes. Except that the most interesting of the classic comics were always the ones where ethical decisions were taken in a gray zone, or where “good” and “evil” weren’t so clearcut and easily distinguishable. It’s interesting to observe that in a country where as even a recent report from the National Defence University observes, the media supinely served up a diet of propaganda, spin and lies, a lot of the truth telling is in the form of graphic novels.

There’s an absolutely fascinating article on this – sharp social satire in graphic novel form – in Print magazine.

Popular culture doing the work of critique the media doesn’t do.

Continue reading ‘It’s a comic book world’

War – what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing, answers Tony Judt, writing in the New York Review of Books.

Judt, a conservative historian, but an excellent one, looks at the way the horrors of the 20th century – rather than being viewed as stark lessons are increasingly seen as a treasure trove to be mined to construct the materials of postmodern morality plays. In an interesting twist on the American exceptionalism thesis, he makes a powerful point about the absence of war from the territory of the continental United States has led to a dangerous militarisation of society and politics, while in Europe after World War Two, the devastation total war brought both to the “winners” and the losers led to a will to conduct political affairs non-violently, and the sorts of ethical postures and institutions now derided by the angry voices of American Empire.

As a consequence, the United States today is the only advanced democracy where public figures glorify and exalt the military, a sentiment familiar in Europe before 1945 but quite unknown today. Politicians in the US surround themselves with the symbols and trappings of armed prowess; even in 2008 American commentators excoriate allies that hesitate to engage in armed conflict. I believe it is this contrasting recollection of war and its impact, rather than any structural difference between the US and otherwise comparable countries, which accounts for their dissimilar responses to international challenges today. Indeed, the complacent neoconservative claim that war and conflict are things Americans understand—in contrast to naive Europeans with their pacifistic fantasies —seems to me exactly wrong: it is Europeans (along with Asians and Africans) who understand war all too well. Most Americans have been fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance.

Continue reading ‘War – what is it good for?’

Liberal finger pointing over Gold Coast disaster

From today’s Crikey email:

The official Liberal line about the merger you have when you’re not having a merger was that it was necessary to delay even the establishment of an “eminent persons group” until after the Brisbane and Gold Coast elections on Saturday. Eminent persons, along with all other Liberals, were presumably too busy campaigning for Campbell Newman.

It’s now becoming clear just what sort of a furphy this postponement was.

The colour of the cat that’s been let out of this particular bag is easily discernible from the pronouncements frontbencher George Brandis has been making about the Borg’s dream of a “United Conservative Party”. Brandis isn’t alone, of course, in putting a favourable spin on Campbell Newman’s landslide win in Brisbane, but he is just about alone in trying to spin the Libs’ awful performance in their first local government outing on the Gold Coast.

Members of the existing dis-united Liberal Party have reacted predictably to the Gold Coast disaster. Continue reading ‘Liberal finger pointing over Gold Coast disaster’

The continuing Bushite erosion of rights and liberties

Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, op-eds for the New York Times:

My policy as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo was that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence.

Unfortunately, I was overruled on the question, and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue — efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing. While some high-level military and civilian officials have rightly expressed indignation on the issue, the current state can be described generally as indifference and inaction.

The general indifference and inaction on the question of whether torture is acceptable is starkly contrasted with the frenzied flapping of those who are spreading FUD about how the extension of the Protect America Act has expired:
Continue reading ‘The continuing Bushite erosion of rights and liberties’

Announcing the Agincourt Award for the Longest Bow

Gentle readers, I beseech you to consider the following five seemingly unrelated phenomena:

  1. The Ishmael Beah alleged sort-of hoax (or is it?)
  2. The fourth estate’s duty to be skeptical and seek the truth
  3. Margaret Mead’s 1920s anthropological research in the South Pacific
  4. The ‘sexual revolution’ of the Baby Boomers
  5. The conservative moral imperative to bring pregnant women back to the kitchen, which is their rightful place in the natural order of the universe where they belong, which is true, and which everybody knows and secretly believes to be true if only they would search their hearts and admit it. We also secretly know that homosexuality is unnatural, that sex is dirty and shameful and wrong and should only be between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and you know you’d all be much happier if you just did it with the lights off in the missionary position.

If you think these things have nothing to do with each other, well, you’d be right.

But that didn’t stop Simon Caterson from making an heroic effort to draw them all together in this marvellous piece of post-facto sophistry that has earnt him the first nomination in LP’s inaugural Agincourt Awards for the Longest Bow in Journalism.

Continue reading ‘Announcing the Agincourt Award for the Longest Bow’

United Conservative Party

From today’s Crikey:

Queensland opposition leader Jeff Seeney has brought on a leadership spill today, after revelations that he had lost the support of his deputy, Fiona Simpson, and a bout of head counting by former Nats leader Lawrence Springborg. But yesterday, Seeney announced that the state National and Liberal parties will disappear, being folded into a new “United Conservative Party?, billed by the Nats as not an amalgamation but “A New Party with one plan, one leader and one voice?.

Confused? The voters will be.

Continue reading ‘United Conservative Party’