MAVERICK
MAGAZINE 10
.The
Voice of American Poetic Arts
Humpty Dumpty's Explication:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master—that is all."
--Lewis Carroll
Two statistics from Harper's Magazine, May 2004:
Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by the Bush Administration's top officials since March 2002 : 237 [Committee on Government Reform (Washington, D.C.) ]
Percentage of these that contradicted, made selective use of, or mischaracterized existing government intelligence : 100
Wishes, Lies & Dreams
Way back in graduate school, I was tasked to write a midterm paper on the theme: Wishes, Lies & Dreams.
Essentially, my assignment was to trace out how the protagonists of three stories became victims of their own delusions and witnessed the destruction of their worlds as a result.
In the interests of connecting a few dots, permit me a brief digression.
It may come as a shock to some Americans, but, in many areas, particularly with respect to laws covering the environment, the nation of Mexico is arguably more progressive than America. At least, in many arenas, they have more comprehensive laws on their books than does America. Now, that doesn't mean those laws get enforced. Often they are used as leverage to extract bribes or "fines" against corporations who have no expectation or incentive to pollute any less or to change their practices in any meaningful way.
In the Summer of 1968 when Mexico hosted the nineteenth Summer Olympiad, the city boasted some of the cleanest air and bluest skies of any city in the world. Relatively few cars, easy parking and fairly minimal industrial presence.
Less than twenty years later, by the mid-1980's Mexico City was facing a vexing crisis over air pollution: Air quality so bad that whole flocks of birds were dropping out of the skies on a regular basis. Measurable air pollution regularly ran at rates double and triple those established by the government as "safe" or "acceptable." In the interest of public health, daily warnings were broadcast on T. V. and radio. The problem was undeniable, acute and persistent. Old people and children suffered the most, and some died. The government tried many fixes. That is, many fixes outside of strict enforcement of existing laws. Most actions had little or no effect. A few attempted solutions actually exacerbated the problem. One that comes to mind was the government's attempts to restrict cars entering the city by their license plate numbers: either odd or even depending to match the day of the month.
Mexicans just got more cars. The problem persisted. The citizens grew weary of air quality warnings and pollution alerts and days on end inside. When none of the schemes worked, the government hit upon a novel strategy to quiet their citizens: Lower the measurable standards for what triggers a "Pollution Alert" so that even though the city is still in violation of federal standards, there are no sounds of alarm. The air is still just as dirty, but T. V. and radio won't run alerts--the people are quieted--and that's the real problem for any politician anywhere isn't it: a vocal electorate.
About that same time in America, our own president, the recently deceased and generously eulogized Ronald Reagan, was attempting to solve the problem of questionable nutrition in children's school lunches by designating ketchup and relish as vegetables.
With Americans still reeling from Vietnam and Nixon's legacy of secrecy and mistrust, which included, among other criminal acts, the secret and illegal wars in Cambodia and Laos, Reagan's word play seemed like a seemingly innocuous shuffle.
But of course all of these actors danced on the same slippery-slope that leads to Bill Clinton's now famous utterance that the accuracy of his answer to questions about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."
The sad and sinister fact is that it's a very short distance from there to an environment where quaint terms like "enemy combatant" are invented to justify an atmosphere of "limited rights," both for American citizens and foreign nationals. It all depends on the tenor of the times and the benevolence or malevolence of our president.
Perhaps it's not so surprising then that in the current political environment, with the barest lip service paid to human rights, and the great weight of thought and rhetoric given to the creation of extreme legal arguments used to justify why the government need not follow its own laws or the Geneva Conventions, it hardly seems surprising that people get hurt, beaten, or killed in custody
Recently, confronted by the grim realities of photographs depicting alleged systematic cruelty and abuse at Abu Ghraib, George W. Bush declared himself to be "against torture." Well, duh! "Torture" is illegal, dummy. "Torture" is, by definition, not permissible within any civilized legal process, civilian or military. "Torture" is something other people do. But who actually tortures people? Israel doesn't "torture" prisoners. China doesn't "torture" prisoners. Russia doesn't "torture." Everything they do to prisoners is "legal" under their laws. Apparently only "terrorists" torture prisoners.
What George Bush won't volunteer, and what no one calling themselves a "reporter" seems willing to answer is: Did Bush order changes to what constitutes "legal" treatment of detainees so that practices considered "out of bounds" (i.e. torture) before 911 became, with the dictation of a memo, "lawful practice?" The answer seems to be: Yes, Bush either ordered or approved of changes governing standard interrogation practices so that interrogation practices which were previously disallowed as torture became accepted, if not standard practice at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Base. But there are no cameras at Guantanamo, and how many charges of abuse there have been given the weight of the photos from Abu Ghraib? And how much weight would have been given to claims of abuse from Abu Ghraib without photos documentation?
Never one to be outdone by Mexicans or even by legendary old Republicans, our current fearless leader's solution to the problem of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners has been to prohibit the use of the cameras that brought the abuse to light in the first place.
Take away the cameras that helped us to see this abuse in Iraq. Make the problem go away. Silence the whistle blowers and quiet the electorate. What is not seen does not exist.
Of course, if Bush were serious about being "against torture," he could issue cameras to every soldier with instructions to photograph and report any and all instances of abuse. But that would only bring more abuse to light, and who wants that? Not the White House. Not the Army. Not the interim Iraqi government.
Of course, it's not really about abuse, but about the appearance of abuse, or more specifically, the problems caused for the politicians by a vocal electorate who complain when they have to see pictures of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners on the evening news. As with the pollution in Mexico. For politicians, the problem isn't really the pollution, but the complaints about it, and the possibility that the voters might decide their opponent can make a better claim to silencing the complaints.
When the government's own estimates put the percentage of Iraqi people detained "by mistake" at seven in ten, it is not enough to claim to be "against torture," especially if what was once torture becomes, with a stroke of a pen, "law abiding" behavior. One must mandate and clearly define and train troops to use humane standards of treatment, detention and interrogation. These must include among other things: 1) A means for all prisoners to contest charges or detentions; 2) Transparency of process such that names, charges, and locations of individuals are known to both officials and to family in all but the most high level cases; 3) Access to suitable medical care.
To do less and expect that innocent (and even potentially guilty) people will escape harm and injustice becomes nothing more than wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that seeks to turn ketchup and relish into vegetables with the wave of a hand and some fast talk.
But it's about words, isn't it? About what the meaning of the word 'is' is...about the definition of words like "terror" and "torture," and "freedom" and "legal."
In a world where so much rests on a battle over words and their meanings...a battle waged 24/7 in the media, on T. V. and radio, in print, and on the internet, the real power to control the world lies in the ability to control words and images and their meanings. What will the future be like in America? Iraq? The world?
The answer will likely depend on which is to be the master, us or the words...the citizens or the people whom we choose to lead.
In Solidarity,
Jefferson Adams, Editor in Chief
Note:
1) As of this
writing, the CIA has ordered an immediate halt to all interrogations pending
a legal review of their practices by the US Justice Department.
2) The US Supreme court has ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that while US citizens
may be held without charge, they must be given a means to contest their designation
as "enemy combatants."
3) The US Supreme court in Rosul v. Bush has ruled that foreign nationals who
are being held as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Base and at other
US detention facilities must be given access to lawyers and to US courts as
a means to contest their designation as "enemy combatants," and thereby
the legality of their detentions.
Copyright © Jefferson Adams, 2004. All Rights Reserved.