Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005

I received an email from a reader earlier, among many other truly interesting and thoughtful responses, which said that the portrait of the Capitol Building was essentially the same for the Clinton inauguration. That fits; the traditions of the U.S. government tend to be fairly stable over the decades, and many things of a ceremonial and procedural nature are done by the book. Which book, I don't know, but it must all be written somewhere, maybe a collection of old diner placemats.

Yet symbols need to be interpreted in context. A Tarot card means one thing when surrounded by certain cards and something else when surrounded by others. The symbolism presented in this particular portrait is something that we interpret in the moment that the symbol appears.

Let's presume that the image and the ceremony are a symbol of the might and power of the United States of America. The context is what that might and power are being used for; in whose hands they are being placed; and the agenda about which we don't know -- or aren't looking at.

Besides making me nervous, the photo drew from me a moment of patriotism. I was a patriotic little kid. I was into politics at a rather tender age. July 4th was my favorite holiday because of its religious expression of patriotism. Around these years, my father and uncle would drag the family down to Winchester, Virginia to take part in the annual reenactment of the Civil War; we were on the side of the South, apparently -- the rebels. And the picture touched that little flame of nationalism that I carried with me long before John Lennon ever made his point in the song Imagine, which was the first time I had considered the idea that the notion of 'country' might be a little weird.

I take this photo in the context of what I've been reading the past four or five days. The Capitol Building is supposed to be a symbol of freedom and democracy, and yet as far as I can tell, the United States has become a dictatorship. I am aware that it may be offensive to some to say this, but I can't offer any apologies. Stolen elections. Patriot Acts. Illegal wars. Wartime atrocities.

One of the more poignant pieces of writing I have read recently (the link to which I cannot find at the moment) was an essay on truthout by Marjorie Cohn, an attorney and essayist. She took the basic facts of the torture scandal in Iraq, particularly the legal memoranda of Atty. Gen.-designate Alberto R. Gonzales, and spelled them out in a legal indictment for war crimes.

It is always clarifying to see illegal conduct put into legal terms; to see an alleged perpetrator named as such. I remember after a year or so of covering chemical scandals seeing the first paperwork referring to "Defendants Monsanto, General Electric and Westinghouse." It puts things in perspective. Apparently, the alleged crimes of Alberto Gonzales are, under current law, potentially punishable by penalty of death. I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances, but we need to be aware that this is the remedy prescribed by the laws which the attorney general is sworn to uphold.

Torture is a clear-cut case; the Geneva Convention, which describes the proper treatment of prisoners of war, and the associated enabling federal legislation, explicitly state what is and is not allowed. It is only the "color of law" -- that is, "if the government did it, it's okay" -- that makes these actions somehow acceptable in the current context -- plus a hell of a lot of Madison Avenue spin, a desensitized public, endless lies, and being told we're doing it all for God.

Soon after Marjorie's indictment was published, an article by Jonathan Schell appeared on truthout, called "What is Wrong with Torture." Schell is author of The Fate of the Earth, a book about ending nuclear proliferation. When I was in high school, reading The Fate of the Earth was one of the most deeply moving experiences I had ever had, in some way compelling me to a life of social activism and consciousness. It put the nuclear problem in absolutely vivid terms, beginning with the chapter, "A Republic of Insects and Grass" -- describing the hypothetical post-nuclear war world.

Just the title did me in. We now need one of our nation's brightest political scholars to explain that torture is wrong. Do you know what I mean?

The pictures aren't enough. They barely seem to provoke anger, much less outrage. What if the torture center were down the block from your house?

Schell writes:

Under the President served by Gonzales, torture has become endemic, and the lines of connection between the nominee's advice and those acts were clear and undeniable. In a memo to the President, Gonzales advised that the Geneva Conventions did not apply either to Al Qaeda or Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan. He opined that if the conventions were set aside by the President, any soldiers accused under the US War Crimes Act might defend themselves against the charges of having committed war crimes under US Code Section 2441 of American law. He wrote the President, "Your determination [that the Conventions didn't apply] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

In other words, his advice was to throw out international law so that torturers could escape the consequences of U.S. law. He solicited and participated in the preparation of a memo in the Justice Department that redefined torture only as the kind that might destroy bodily organs or kill the victim. That same memo stated that the President alone has the power to make rules for the treatment of prisoners, although the Constitution declares that "Congress shall have power to make rules concerning captures on land and water." He oversaw an interdepartmental discussion in which waterboarding and other forms of torture were condoned.

Read more here. http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105E.shtml

So, brothers and sisters, friends and countrymen, citizens of the galaxy: What the fuck are we going to do about this? That's what was bugging me about the photo of the Capitol Building.

Among many of my closest friends, there has been much discussion about how to frame these issues; how to raise the level of the discussion; how to keep the light around it all; how to avoid invoking darkness on the way to dealing with darkness; how, when you focus on politics, you get more politics. These are not easy problems to solve, and anyone who is willing to take these issues on has a lot to process, a lot to consider.

No matter what, though, these are issues of which people -- you and me -- need to be aware, and about which we need to have an opinion.