Home : Blogs : Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web : Ha Media's Marketing & Advertising Blog

We are America, and we F'ed Up!

The premise that the end justifies the means is a tricky one, philosophically speaking, as it can only be assessed in retrospect, and the victors tend to write history, or at least they used to. Now, with our ability to access information in real time, our history as it will be written is less predictable than it's ever been. So how will the first decade of the new century be looked at by the future generations?

we are america and we don't fucking torture

I read the torture memos. The question of legal defensibility aside, the idea that all we have to do is change the definition of a human being to something other than, something less than to be able to get away with what we did is a familiar one. The same one we employed with slaves; the one Hitler employed with Jews - the one where the ones in power acknowledge that people feel compassion for people and it takes a definition change to make acts of brutality committed by men against men seem palatable to both, the jailers and the population at large, the executioners and the onlookers.

our proud soldier in Iraq

Did it really need to take hundreds of pages of legalese to dance around the simple fact that what made the memos necessary in the first place was largely the need of a post-factum justification for having done something illegal and immoral on behalf of the people? One or two sentences would have sufficed: "we are America, and we can do whatever the fuck we please, with impunity. Oh yeah, and we DO NOT, under any circumstances, apologize for any of it."

At least that would have been honest, but few cowboys in business suits with Ivy League degrees have the balls to be honest any more. The debate over the virtues of the information we may have gotten via illegal means pales in comparison to the gaping hole between the beacon of light we were supposed to be and the caricature of freedom and democracy we've become.

I, for one, hang my head in shame and with humble apologies to anyone, no matter what ideology or circumstance who may have been wronged on my behalf. Anyone, who may have been humiliated. Anyone, who stood chained and shackled for seven and a half days in a diaper and without ability to sleep, to dream, to turn off the nightmare. The nightmare of America's ignoble reign.

Inna Hardison is the owner of Ha Media Group, a full service small kick-ass ad agency.
For all your printing needs, visit www.hamediashop.com and get great quality Postcards, Business Cards, Flyers and more at awesome prices. For pring and web design, see our design portfolio at www.teamhardison.com

Copyright (C) 2008, inna hardison. please, don't steal from the starving artists, it's illegal and well, just plain freakin' wrong!
:-)

cause i rock...

Posted by Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web on 04/24/2009 07:25 PM

Comments (46)

Politics in the ActiveRain Channel

rightwingers will have fun with this one, the variable laws of cowardice and fear, torture is wrong, a patriot drinks coffee

Post is included in group: This Doesn't Belong On Active Rain
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Dissent
Post is included in group: Dead Rainers Society
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics

46 Comments on We are America, and we F'ed Up!

APR

You have no reason to be ashamed, you're just another poos American, who's was brainwashed into being patriotic in school. I liked your comments, but tell us, did you vote for George W. Bush?

Terrorism, drug cartels, suicide bombers - it is dangerous world. We are probably soon to experience another drive to work listening on the radio as the story builds that another attack is taking place.

I don't know whether water boarding is necessary to fight the terror. I do know that the terror is still out there.

Richard

Gregg - might i suggest that you browse to my posts before the most recent election? It'll help you get properly introduced to where I stand. As for being brainwashed into patriotism, that happened in a whole other world, and well, i am a rebellious sort.

Inna, I've missed you and your wonderful insight!!! There has been much debate here about "torture." As you may guess I'm in the minority, against it. One of my biggest problems is that we tortured dozens, if not hundreds of innocent people at GITMO, whom have since been released. Are we now going to use torture in place of due process? The Military Commissions act pretty much took our right to the later away, as now the president, any president can deem anyone an enemy combatant, subject to torture. I too am ashamed of what we have done.

Sorry for hijacking, but Terry, your choice is actually is between be alive or be ashamed. If you would look at it this way, you could be less ashamed and more alert to the realities of the world.

Inna loves iberal talk, but then, she is a rebellious... often just for the sake of being a rebellious. The world need rebellious sorts as a reminder to the rest, that the rest should be reasonable people, meaning have brains and not only compassion.

APR

I feel very much like a part of who I am has been cut away. I was a child during the height of the cold war and many of my friends' parents were the seemingly unwelcome Viet Nam Veterans. Though these were the realities of the world situation when I was a child I could still rely on the fact that we, the United States, had a moral superiority and were somehow better that the torturous Soviets with their gulags. Today, I am not so sure that I can still claim the US has that moral superiority. Perhaps it was only a childhood fantasy anyway.

Hi Inna,

Your statement is a powerful one: "The question of legal defensibility aside, the idea that all we have to do is change the definition of a human being to something other than, something less than to be able to get away with what we did is a familiar one. The same one we employed with slaves; the one Hitler employed with Jews - the one where the ones in power acknowledge that people feel compassion for people and it takes a definition change to make acts of brutality committed by men against men seem palatable to both, the jailers and the population at large, the executioners and the onlookers."

I don't mean to hijack your post either, but this really struck me. What if we were to apply your argument to the abortion debate?

Oh, and if you feel the need to personally apologize to the murderers of thousands of your countrymen, for the 'crime' of trying to prevent them from killing even more thousands, then...well, your sense of right and wrong just befuddles me.

Inna,

The end justifies the means, the past equals the future, and we make no apologies. We are regressing, maybe the cold war dictated our future....now we have fewer friends. Your insight is right on, maybe not popular, but true

Dick Beals

Jon, WE as a people have remained alive for over 200 years without torturing innocent people. I'd really hate to see someone in the government reading one of your emails and flagging it as subversive, hauling you away to wherever, torturing you, only to find you were innocent of any wrong doing. THAT is what the Military Commissions act has allowed. THAT is what they used to do in the Soviet Union. Torturing people does not keep us safe nor does it keep us alive, which BTW is going to come out soon in those all so important reports, both of them, that Darth Vader is requesting be declassified. I find it interesting that you and others here are always citing communism in one form or another, yet the past administration took away pretty much all our civil protections, much like the former communist countries did to their people, and you don't have a problem with that.

Richard Smith - an argument can always be made where it appears anything we do in the name of 'safety' is ok, so long as it keeps us safe. That's what got us into this mess, morally and legally speaking, in the first place. The reality is that the War on Terror is a) not winnable, not even definable, and b) we are employing the same tactics that we and the international community condemn as being in violation of human rights. Not very american of us.

Terry - hey, and good to feel missed, even if it is by the minority:-) I have an issue with us engaging in any activity that is blatantly illegal by our own laws, and in violation of the Geneva Convention, period. I don't think our act would be any less egregious if we didn't release anyone afterwards, or deemed everyone we tortured as guilty.

I think one of the things no one tends to talk about as an unforseen consequence of blatantly disregarding the Geneva Convention is that our soldiers overseas have lost the protection of fair treatment. I doubt those currently serving this country in uniform are proponents of what's transpired.

Jon Z. - you say to Terry that the choice is between be alive or be ashamed. How very limiting to the people who managed to follow the law, internal and international in previous conflicts... and pull through. So according to your line of thinking it's not only ok for us to be lawless, but indeed necessary in order to survive? So what, exactly, separates us from the bad guys?

I always thought that there was more to this country's promise than a few bucks and a retirement condo. It was mostly the ideals it was built on, and the premise that "all men are created equal' that was not to be then only applicable selectively, to "all US Men", or to all "Men who are with us".

PS: Rather cynical of you to assume that I wrote this only for the sake of argument.

Rich - good to see you here. Not much one can add to your eloquent, though sad commentary... I believe there is hope that we can reverse the damage that was done... Losing our conscience is too dreadful of an idea.

Patrick - you can't possibly be serious about applying the debate on torture to the abortion conversation, so I won't bother addressing that. As for my "need" to personally apologize, absolutely I feel the need to state that I do not believe in torture, nor do I want that to be perpetrated on ANYONE in my name. If you are ok with it, that's fine. I am not, and there is nothing WRONG with apologizing. Seems to be another one of those human gifts we've lost over the last 8 years.

Dick - hello! I think this is the first comment I've read from you where you actually stated your opinion:-) Thank you! And I don't think we are really in the minority here, at least I hope not.

Terry, it is always amazing to me when those who came here to escape totalitarian regimes of their birthplaces don't see the parrallels to their homelands in what has been done here the last decade. Maybe it would simply be too much of a shock for them to acknowledge that they didn't really escape.

Inna: Long time no see. Glad you are still here! Great response back at Richard Smith.

Inna

Just a few points for discussion

1) One of my main problems is that the pols showing all this outrage were silent when they knew it was happening and I hate hypocrites who thing they van have it both ways.

2) In theory I am against torture but I don't think waterboarding rises to that level. I have friends who were in past laws and things that went on would make waterboarding seem like high school pranks but people kept their mouths shut and no politician would ever think to use it to gain political points

3)I am shocked that the same people who turn their backs on the slaughter of 50 million innocent babies are so up in arms over grown men involved in very grown up activities.

4)For someone I've never met and seldom agree with I think the world of you so forgive me for saying this but you use of profanity is not becoming, does nothing to advance your cause and is a bad example for so public an outlet

anyway good tohear from you again hope you're doing well

Inna - I never know what to comment on your blogs! You are so articulate... I am also sad & ashamed.

Scott - good to see you too, and, in a way, good to be back:-) Thanks for the compliments!!!

Hugh - good to see, and no agreement is ever necessary for me to say that:-) I will first address your last sentiment over my use of profanity:

both in the title of the post, and in the body - it was a direct reference to the now famous Shep Smith Fox outburst, that's all. In the sense of providing the context for my blog - it is relevant, IMHO:-)

As for your other points, you know I'll disagree, but you also know that I am not so naive as to assume I can (or would want to) convince you that you are wrong and I am right. I think waterboarding is torture. The good news (for humanity at large, and our soldiers more specifically) is that the International Community agrees with me, as do our internal laws., as well as at least one FOX commentator.

As for comparing torture and rendition to abortion (which last I checked is still legal in this country, as it is in most others), is quite a leap. It's also a whole other discussion for a whole other blog:-)

Hope all is well with you as well and thanks for stopping by. You know you are always welcome here.

Chris - just seeing your little sig on the bottom of you comment means an awful lot:-) Glad to know that you feel the same way, not that I would ever expect anything else:-)

Would any of you save your life to save your mate? Such a simple question with such far reaching unforeseen consequences and I can tell you my answer. YES

Ross - what exactly does your 'far-reaching' question have to do with this post? It would be so much easier to engage in a discussion if I had some idea of what you were talking about.:-)

Always enjoy your posts - it's like entering an alternative reality sometimes - I'm thinking - yeah that sounds logical but it's still not right. Good speakers and writers can do that.

Case in point - 'the reality is that the war on terrorism is not winnable, not even definable'. So your reality is that the US has met it's match at the hands of some 3rd world cleric hiding in a cave? Then maybe Obama is right with his apologist ways after all - if you can't beat 'em, prepare to join 'em. The war on terrorism is winnable, you just don't like the definition.

Gene, for now, i'll make this brief: not definable in this case would equal not winnable, and we have not defined what we are fighting, nor can it actually be defined. If you like, by all means, give me an actual definition of the 'enemy' in this war, and we can continue our discussion from there.

PS: I appreciate the unintended jab at 'good speakers and writers' and will take that as a compliment. :-)

Inna, interesting that some people here don't think waterboarding. especially 183 times in a month is torture. I wonder how they would hold up, and what they would think of it afterward? Its easy to deny something if you have never experienced it. After WWII we executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our troops. Back then it was considered torture, what has changed now?

Hugh, please come back I really miss you!

Gene, only in your dreams is Obama an apologist.

Hugh: Abortion is legal and torture is illegal. I know your feeling on abortion so I will not argue the point.

Chris: Great to see you too! Where have you been?

Thanks Scott, as long as I can still fog a mirror and abortion is legal somewhere in the world I,ll be taking my stand

I just want to know how all of my political posts end up with abortion in the commentary... Weird.

:-)

One note on waterboarding for anyone who is interested. Christopher Hitchens did an article on it for VF, for which he had subjected himself to this 'extreme interrogation technique". Look it up, it makes for some interesting first-person perspective reading. Take away the controlled environment, and I would imagine the effects would only intensify. I find it mind-boggling that the legal advisors drafting the memos ok'ing waterboarding relied on descriptions and effects of this method on military recruits, as if the circumstances for recruits and prisoners were even marginally related. It's like comparing target practice and a mob shootout.

APR

Inna - My dear, write more!

You like reaction, don't ya? Good debate here. Here's my take:

Profanity doesn't much bother me. Shocking, I know:) Constructive usage of such can prove very ripe in getting your point across.
I won't be the most "Popular" or "Liberal-Minded" guy in the world when I say, "I wouldn't take torture off the table." If it is illegal now and we did it anyway, we should probably pay for our sins. Eventually, we will. I'd prefer though to concentrate on the very difficult task on hand. Philosophically, I don't agree with torture. But with certain enemies of humanity, it may make sense. And it may not. If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't. I'm not above torture, if it rears its ugly head of necessity.
To expand on my second point, I'm a masochist at heart. For me, torture is watching MSNBC & FOX NEWS simultaneously. I do it regularly. How two different worlds can exist, boggles my feeble mind. These days, if I want journalism, I should probably just get rid of Cable T.V.

And Inna, America does fuck up. I do not think it is a sign of weakness to admit that. Besides, that's one of the natures of being human. American are human... at least most of us.

I love us, none the less.

Sardi - time has been hard to come by as of late, so writing is a luxury I can rarely afford...for now:-)

I don't care so much for a reactio ( unless it's something surprising, shocking or funny), but I do like to spark a debate, when the subject merits one.

Good to know profanity doesn't bother you - I am pretty sure the entirety of AR knows it...and I am with you - sometimes it's quite necessary. In any event, I'll take the word itself over any of its euphemisms any day, and especially on Sunday.

As for your points on torture - so far it appears that it, torture, doesn't work. At least that's what we are learning from the CIA powers that be. As a sidenote, philosophically speaking of course, I think we lose the right to the protections afforded our military by the Geneva Conventions if we blatantly disregard them, regardless of the post-factum rewrites of our own laws. If we make torture legal now, it would still be wrong for us to engage in it in International Theater.

I think some of us here are simply having a hard time acknowledging just how global and small the world has become. Our actions are spat out in zeros and ones across the globe in mili-seconds, and few things can be truly burried anymore. Lastly, I am not above shooting the enemy, but I am still above torturing one. I hope that as a nation we are above barbarism.

As for you and cable - you are nuts, my friend. Watching either network alone should be torture enough, but to do both simulteneously requires lots of good beer weed or something tripple digit proof.

Finally, I love us too, Sardi. There is no weakness in apologizing, imho, but I do doubt our inherent humanity at times. I think we have lost a bit of that:-)

Hi Scott! I've been working a lot. I'm still here, just not very visible. : )

Inna, it seems that every blog "we" post morphs into an anti-abortion tirade. Not sure why, but it has happened to me on several occassions recently. I would think that those who are doing the "morphing" could kinda like, maybe post their own anti-abortion blog, instead of hi-jacking ours. Maybe, just maybe they're trying to draw us out!

Chris - same here, darn it. I miss splashing in the rain, but who has the time... Maybe soon there'll be more time to play:-)

Terry - I guess whenever issues of morality are addressed it stands to reason that the discussion will veer off to other subjects. I don't really have an issue with that so long as the discussion remains somewhat relevant to the subject of a particular blog. To be frank, i must be losing my mojo or something, but there are a few comments here now for the first time that make no sense to me whatsoever. Maybe I am just getting old:-)

You're not getting old Inna, those comments don't make any sense. I too don't mind comments that bring in another subject, as long as its releveant to the topic. But I've had a few blogs that just went into outer space, never to be seen again, taken over by anti-abortion rants.

My dear Terry - Gene here thinks my reality is "alternative" in nature, and its been pretty common knowledge that I am, indeed, from a different planet, so no wonder my blogs escape the boundaries of common sense and logic continuums.:-)

APR

It seems I may have been the first in this thread to bring up the abortion debate, so I'll try to clarify what made me bring it up. Specifically, the statement ""The question of legal defensibility aside, the idea that all we have to do is change the definition of a human being to something other than, something less than to be able to get away with what we did is a familiar one. The same one we employed with slaves..." got me to thinking that that is really the only way anybody could defend abortion.

We speak of a human fetus as if it is no more than a parasite. Less than human. Just as the slave was defined as less than human. To me, that seems like a pretty clear analogy.

If you are indeed referring to my comment (comment #7) "What if we were to apply your argument to the abortion debate?" as a rant or a tirade, I don't think most people would agree with your opinion of what a rant or a tirade is.

APR

Patrick - I did not refer to anything you said or anyone else, for that matter, on this particular blog as a rant or a tirade. Please, double check the sources before posting comments like this.

As for the subject at hand of what constitutes life - I think it is assinine to compare a fetus to a grown human being. I understand that you are basing your definition on your interpretation of the Bible, but for as long as this country's laws are not bound by those in the Good Book, there is really not much room for such comparisons. As an additional sidenote to all of you guys who seem to be convinced that having an abortion is akin to going to a freaking spa and getting a facial - I have yet to meet anyone who was looking forward to having an abortion. Nobody is out to murder babies, as you put it. I will say this, however: if we were not so set on teaching abstinence only in our highschools (yep, that's what I have here in Florida), and actually treated our young people as adults when it comes to sex ed, instances of abortion would go down. It is a last resort, but because even the conversation about protection and responsible sex is something the right wing nuts would rather the young people didn't engage in, a whole bunch of kids end up pregnant.

Lastly, the day a fetus can get life insurance and a social security card will legally become the day that it can be considered a fully functional human being, worthy of saving or torturing, depending on the argument you'd like to have.

PS: In nature mothers will devour their young if they know they cannot afford to feed them in most mammals; for some, the males will do the same. No animal kills for sport or tortures but us. That's the fundamental difference between barbarism and civilization.

MAY

Let's see... we subject military comatants to the same things that our own service members endure that take SERE training and we call it torture.

I think that we did more damage to this country by explicitly telling our enemies that they are not going to be hurt or suffer serious mental anguish as a result of enhanced interrogation.

Feel free to hang your head in shame. Unlike Americans that have been captured by these same extremists, you still have your head to hang. And maybe you should read this.

If we have an attack that could have been thwarted, perhaps you will volunteer to tell the parents or children of the people that died that they should take comfort in the fact that nobody was slapped...

MAY

Lane - we 'subject' our military to these techniques to train them to resist if and when those in the world who do not follow Article 3 of the Geneva Convention choose to torture our soldiers. That's is the only reason our military personnel is put through these methods. I would guess that their experience if very different from that of an actual detainee - given the circumstances. Our soldiers understand full well what is going to happen, why and they also know that no one is actually trying to kill them or even hurt them. There really is no comparisson...

As for your last paragraph, whenever one claims that the end justifies the means, democracy dies. I want my country to follow the laws, not rewrite them at our convenience and retroactively so that no-one important gets hurt. See, I am a freak in so much as I firmly believe that "all men were created equal" applies indeed to all men, not just Americans.

MAY

Have you read the "torture memos"? Did you notice that they couldn't actually hurt anyone? Releasing the memos actually made the interogation techniques useless because NOW terrorist know that they can't actually be harmed.

The only thing that was allowed was to SCARE them.

Sorry, but if I have to scare somebody to save my kids, I'm going to. I bet you would too.

Now, looking back on your statement

I would guess that their experience if very different from that of an actual detainee - given the circumstances. Our soldiers understand full well what is going to happen, why and they also know that no one is actually trying to kill them or even hurt them. There really is no comparisson...

The only difference is that the soldiers are told that they won't be hurt, and the detainees aren't. So, in the case of the detainees, you call it torture...

So, I guess you would define torture as scaring someone?

Lane - I already mentioned in this blog that I did, indeed, read the memos. The crap about 'not hurting them' by way of diluting the ugly and naked truth, by way of softening the blow of a blatantly ILLEGAL systematic abuse of prisoners. We once executed foreign soldiers for waterboarding our military - remember? We did so because they engaged in TORTURE. These post-factum legal opinions were written to safe-guard the guilty from prosecution, that's all. I hope you are wise enough to know that.

We engaged in what our own courtrooms would define as not only torture but 'cruel and unusual punishment', Lane, and all that without any trials. It's not about scaring someone or saving my kids or yours, for that matter. It's about Americans acting against the best ideals of this country, and doing so in a very public arena. It's about us abrogating any sense of moral authority we have aquired post-WWII.

Lastly, terrorists or anyone else for that matter have always knows that Americans DON'T TORTURE, Lane, so what exactly did we give up to them?

If you want to live your life based on the premise that the end justifies the means, be my guest. To me, that's not who we are as a people. We are better than that. And not amount of violation of one's rights will ever make us safe - it will always backfire. Historically, it always has.

The homosexuals or the a-religious will not make this empire collapse, Lane - us turning into barbarians will. The memos did nothing but justify American barbarism. Cowardice, bred of fear, has been woven into our national character. The way I see it, - they've won, Lane. The 9.11 mission accomplished.

JUL

You know, my grandfather was a POW in Germany for two years during WWII. I shutter to think what more he would have endured if captured in today's environment now that we have taken the gloves off ourselves. I find it endlessly hypocritical that certain factions within our populace will jump on the nearest flagpole and loudly exclaim their support and love of our troops to the heavens, only to tolerate actions by their own government that would put those very same soldiers at greater risk. Talk to me all you want about the vital information that is gleaned from prisoners who will tell you that their great grandmothers were involved in terroristic activities if it means you stop drowning them (torture as a means of illiciting truth is a hopelessly flawed construct), but what of the men and women in harm's way who answer for those actions? When we engage in such measures ourselves, it's our soldiers who pay. If the very wrongness of torture does not sway one's opinion on the matter, then at the very least, it should be abhorrent that we have opened our soldiers up to severe reciprocity.

So you support your troops? Really?

My dear Paul - in the end, it really is that simple... The treatment of prisoners of war rule, established for the very reason of protecting those who are the enemy of their captors. The consequences of us crossing lines of basic humanity (never mind the international convention) will be felt by those whom the neo-cons send off to fight their battles, real or imagined.

Yep, they support their troops, in every deed and misdeed, just not by their own blood.

Where've you been, Paul! You are so missed!!!

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?