The latest issue of the New Yorker devotes several pages to profiling Joel Surnow -- Hollywood winger, friend of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and, most notably, producer of the hit TV series on counter-terrorism, "24". As is well known, the show has become popular and notorious for frequently depicting interrogations under torture of terror suspects, by steely eyed hero Jack Bauer (played by actor Kiefer Sutherland).
A mangled version of this diary appeared yesterday, and I quickly removed it, although not before the alert xxdr zombiexx had most graciously commented on my having missed his recent post here: my bad. vyan has also diaried the New Yorker article, most informatively.
I still believe the topic is live, and worthy of more discussion , as it poses the question: Whither the heart and soul of America?
The show is said to be popular in the military, which has created considerable anxiety among high brass that it may actually promote rough interrogations -- amounting to war crimes -- by soldiers in the field. For example, as recently reported (Feb. 9) in The NY Daily News,
The grossly graphic torture scenes in Fox's highly rated series "24" are encouraging abuses in Iraq, a brigadier general and three top military and FBI interrogators claim.
The larger issue in my mind, is what effect the regularization of torture is having on the American psyche and national character, and how it will play out in the future. While it is common, and I believe somewhat justified, for progressives to view the Right Wing advocacy of torture as a case of authoritarian lust gratified by torture as pornography (imagine Rush slavering over his wide screen), it is nonetheless true that so called liberal beacons such as Alan Dershowitz have argued that torture could be justified in some circumstances, and a legal document could issue called a "torture warrant." I try to keep a dignified tone when writing of serious matters, but double WTF? Somehow, I believe that people have got the idea that this stuff would happen only to foreigners unlucky enough to be caught in an Afghan sweep and landed in Guantanomo; but on mature reflection, can anyone doubt that suspected enemies of the state would include US citizens?
Further: can anyone believe that the bureaucratic structure (not to mention the physical plant and equipment) for legalized torture would be instituted and then never used? This does not parallel the case of nuclear weapons policy, with its mottos of ‘no first use’ and ‘mutually assured destruction.” And once the seal was broken, why would the application of torture not become routine in criminal cases, say involving large drug sales? Can anyone doubt that people of color would at first be disproportionately the victims?
Now I am no politician, though I hear it makes strange bedfellows, in which spirit I am ready to announce common cause with the libertarian wingnuts who argue that the regularization of torture by “24” is paving the way persecution of paramilitary religious cultists by some left wing government of the future, presumably Hilary-led.
And speaking of Hilary, how widely is it known that she has endorsed the use of torture to interrogate terrorist suspects under the hypothetical “ticking time bomb” scenario? (the mega-favorite of torture apologists) – that is, a situation in which it is supposed that a nuclear weapon is about to detonate downtown in a major city, unless the putative bomber can be timely made to spill its whereabouts (along with his guts, presumably.) Though widely recognized by intelligence professionals as a fantasy , the ticking time bomb is a plot staple of “24.”
My personal view is that any Democratic candidate for presdient, in order to be credible to the progressive community, must renounce the use of torture absolutely. This follows (in my mind) from the oath to uphold the Constitution. It seems on the face of it quite clear that the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination disallows the use of torture to interrogate US citizens; I would argue that the 4th Amendment clause, guaranteeing “the right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures” can also be parsed as a prohibition of interrogation by torture. (Parenthetically, I would say it also quite plainly enshrines that bete noir of Scaly-a, the Constitutional Right to Privacy.)
Where I may differ from my progressive compatriots is in the assertion that these rights apply, by extension, and without exception, to non-citizens of the US, who are held in US custody, or find themselves in any way under US power or authority, by means, legal or extra-legal. Two points: first it is our duty as humans to extend these protections, which have historically enjoyed, to all; second, if we take seriously the title “Beacon of Liberty” we cannot do otherwise.
Returning to the premise of faux torture as entertainment: despite the doubts of Town Stall columnist Hugh Hewitt, we are experiencing a coarsening and regression of popular sensibility. Historically, torture was accepted for millennia. From medieval times, through the Renaissance, and into the so called ‘Enlightenment’, executions of unimaginable barbarity were routinely carried out in public, for the entertainment (if not edification) of the masses.
However much we may wish for those days to be gone, we have now reached the point where the willingness (some would say an active desire) to sanction torture stems directly from the Oval Office.
The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques.
This was hardly big news when it happened, back in '02, although it should have been.
So where is the outrage? Glued to the screen of "24"? Let us hope not.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.