I can't hear you! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:16:53 +0100

Dave Winer points at an interview with Professor Jonathan Turley who is a constitutional law expert both academically and as a practioner. He was talking about the Bush administration and their atttempts to ongoing redefine torture which, given the scandals so far, appear to be an attempt to avoid future consequences for acts committed already

If we make any effort at all to try to redefine it [the Geneva convention], or to tweak it, or to amplify it the world will see that as our effort to try to lawyer the Geneva convention, to try to create some type of loophole or excuse for our conduct.

The administration for years has conspicuously attempted to get things like waterboarding approved as non-torture. Waterboarding is defined as torture around the world. There is a strong suspicion that we have indeed been engaged in torture. Remember, some of these people [those held in secret CIA prisons outside the US] were captured when the WhiteHouse had signed a memo that defined non-torture as anything short of organ failure. They believed that as long as they didn't cause organ failure or death they were not engaged in torture.

If we're ready to embrace immoral means; If that's how we're going to fight this war then we have lost and no-one will come to our aid. We will be alone. And that's what happens when you become, in the view of many, an enemy to the rule of law.

I often wonder how people in the US who support the administration can believe the administrations line about taking democracy (even at the point of a cluster bomb) to the middle east in the face of the seemingly obvious criminal acts of the government in running secret prisons, mass illegal wiretapping operations, torture, etc..?

My suspicion is that the discomfort they feel if they have to take responsibility* for allowing this to happen triggers a big dose of cognitive dissonance which allows them to distance themselves and reject the torture evidence as false. Maybe they even believe it's all fabricated because "a good Christian man like President Bush wouldn't do that."

I suspect there is also a groupthink effect due to the extreme polarization of American politics. This reflexive "You're with us or you're against us" mentality doesn't leave much room to hold contradictory views or think independently.

The end results seems to be a collective shriek of "I can't hear you! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!"

I am also drawn to wonder how much culpability I should feel for the actions of the British government either directly, or indirectly in supporting the US? I have publically opposed - from day 1 - everything that has been done militarily in my name. I've called publically for Bush and Blair to at least answer to a war crimes tribunal. I've written many letters to both my MP's and I campaign for a Libertarian approach to government. Beyond this all I can see think of is taking to the streets with a pitch-fork.

Curiouser and Curiouser! on groupthink

I can't hear you! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!