Falling From the High Ground
September 18th, 2006 | by Omnipotent Poobah |
For the past several years, talk about “moral values” has dominated what passes for political discourse in this country. The talk was of the 10 Commandments, Janet Jackson’s weirdly pierced nipple, and people stealing Christmas from the Christians. But there’s been a shift over the last six months or so. Now, with the exception of feeble venting over gay marriage, the moral values crusade has become noticeably quieter.
There are a variety of possible reasons for this. Perhaps with things not looking so good for their man the God Whisperer, they prefer not to rock the boat lest find their anointed one really can’t walk on water. Perhaps they’ve seen that caterwauling about issues like gay marriage not only doesn’t distract the country from more serious issues, it just serves to piss them off more. Maybe they’ve had an epiphany and decided to throw the money changers like Falwell, Robertson, et al out of the temple.
Scratch that last one. No such luck.
There’s another possible reason for the silence, and I think it deserves some thought. Perhaps the moralizers finally discovered the Apostle-in-Chief isn’t nearly as moral as he would have them believe. Consider this:
From its inception, the US has fancied itself different from the rest of the world. Founded on some of the most high-minded ideals the world has ever seen, we’ve tried mightily to hold to those values. Of course there’ve been failings, both major and minor, but that happens when real, fallible people are involved. The US may have sometimes had clay feet, but for the most part, the world admired us because we at least bothered to try and take the high road. As they used to say in the Iron Curtain era, “you don’t see people trying to escape from America.”
Since the Moralist-in-Chief took office, he’s spent much of his self-proclaimed political capital doing some strikingly amoral things. While carping on about faith-based initiatives, he entered a war with dubious justifications. Once the war started, he and his croaking chorus of toadies decided that gay marriage was a threat to democracy. Meanwhile, he tossed people into secret prisons, held them for years without trial, and tortured them to boot. When pushed on the issue he denied, obfuscated, or simply said, “We don’t do that. Never have. Never will.”
I’m glad he’s so certain, but his actions sound more like a visit to Lubyanka for a chat with the KGB man than a nation priding itself on taking the moral high ground. These types of actions have not only created a firestorm at home, but in the rest of the world as well.
Where the US once stood as a place the rest of the world aspired to, we’ve become a place that much of the world now loathes. Not without reason, they believe we are a greater threat than the countries we’ve proclaimed the Axis of Evil.
The response from moralistic crapweasels like Bishop Bush, Cardinal Condi, and Deacon Don is that it’s perfectly OK to try a prisoner and withhold information they need for a defense. “What’s the matter,” they ask? “If they’ve aren’t guilty they have nothing to worry about. After all, the US is different,” they say. “We’re fair and balanced. We’re not like viscous dictators like Saddam who imprisoned people without trial.”
And what you’re doing is different, how?
When it comes to torture, it’s much the same. “We don’t torture,” they loudly proclaim. “Uh, Uh. Nope. Not us. Wouldn’t hurt a fly. That’s why we think we don’t have to comply with those pesky Geneva conventions. We don’t do that stuff anyway. No need. We’re morally superior.”
“Don. Get out the waterboard, we got some “guests” coming over for a chat.”
Bush’s mammoth hubris is a head on collision with his countrymen and the rest of the world. He’s apparently tortured the last of the good will out of the world and now people in this country and others are beginning to fight back.
Several Senators recently proved Darwin’s theory by evolving embryonic backbones. They’re beginning to let George know that it isn’t OK to take the moral low ground while claiming victory on the high. Other countries are beginning to say, “What you’re doing is wrong. You’re behaving like a bully because you think none of us will fight back.”
But, guess what?
George asks for more NATO troops in Afghanistan and the answer was a resounding yawn. George has intimated that his Coalition of the Willing maybe isn’t up to the task and perhaps the UN might like to step in where only the most lunatic don’t fear to tread. His other neighbors on the planet aren’t exactly rushing to his aid.
So maybe that’s it. Maybe we’ve finally been taken down the low road far enough that even the self-righteous are troubled by what they see. Maybe they see themselves weighing whether the marriage of two loving people who happen to be of the same sex is more amoral than locking someone up and holding their head underwater until they fear they’ll drown.
Maybe they’ve finally realized something important about morality. Maybe they’ve finally realized they have less to fear from someone who simply wants to get married than from an evangelizing, moralizing oaf who managed to alienate an entire planet while trying to convince them of the morality of his cause.
If they have seen this, perhaps it isn’t too late for the country to take a few steps back from the cliff at the edge of the high ground and prove to the world that we are moral and that we aren’t just a herd of lemmings on a march to the sea.
Cross Posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
8 Responses to “Falling From the High Ground”
By Pat on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Might seem a little quiet but the pope has poked a stick in the eye of islam, this I suspect was the vaticans attempt to pick a fight and get the rapture moving along at a faster clip. Hold on its gonna be a wild ride.
By sumo on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Couldn’t agree more Poobie about our fearless leader…very insightful. I happen to be of the belief that not only was the pope poking around…he was trying to deliberately rebuke the religion of others…and he should know that is a big no no! I too think this is the beginning of something ugly.
By SteveIL on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
These people were captured on the battlefield and not in uniform. Even George Washington knew what to do with these types; he hanged them (John Andre). Just like any other prisoners captured in a time of war, they don’t get to go home to kill more of our people. And not being in any kind of uniform, they are not soldiers protected by the Geneva Convention.
And as far as evidence, are you actually willing to give terrorists (not suspected terrorists, but real captured terrorists), responsible for killing 3,000 people in NYC and Washington D.C., and who were never born in this country or have ever lived here, the rights found within the Constitution? Are you on crack or just insane? When did the Constitution extend beyond the borders in this method before?
By the way, I notice that when our soldiers are captured on the battlefield (either in Afghanistan or Iraq), they are tortured and killed; no trial, no nothing. Then their bodies are strewn across Al Jazeera. Anything to say about that? How about some concern about our people’s rights?
By Omnipotent Poobah on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Steve,
I appreciate you so eloquently making my case for me. What allows the US to take the high ground is that, until recently, we played by the rules. We didn’t torture. We didn’t imprison without benefit of a trial. It may be true they aren’t covered by the Geneva Conventions (although that case hasn’t be tried yet), but you take the high ground by trating captives humanely.
No one said anything about letting anyone go home to kill people. I simply said they should have a trial. The trial is what determines if they are guilty Until then, they aren’t “real captured terrorists” but suspected terrorists. If they are truly guilty, I trust the legal system to convict them and punish them appropriately. And I don’t mena they should get a slap on the wrist either.
But your last paragraph is the kicker. You’re correct in saying that all these countries act the way we are trying to and that is precisely my point. If you sink to their level, and it seems you’re willing to, then you are no better than them.
I’m guessing that crack or insanity is involved in this exchange, but I don’t think I’m the one afflicted.
By SteveIL on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
I meant to post as SteveIL as there is another Steve.
To your points.
Based on what I’ve heard, the Hamdan decision gave the terrorists Geneva protections so that they couldn’t be tortured. Yet, the actual definition of what is “torture” hasn’t been defined by the Geneva Conventions or US law (through the Congress; the latest bill regarding terrorist trials doesn’t define it either, and that is what Bush wants them to do). And remember, hundreds of captives at Gitmo have been released and the ones there are those that are going to undergo war crimes trials. As far as them being imprisoned forever, remember WWII. If Germany and Japan hadn’t surrendered, we were keeping their captured soldiers imprisoned, trial or no. The fact that those two nations surrendered meant their people could go home.
Give them a trial. What kind? A civil trial? A court martial? A tribunal? Can the defendents look at all of the evidence, even the classified stuff? And if the government refuses to provide this, does that mean the charges must be dismissed and the terrorists released? That means that a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind and someone who is not a US citizen (or legal alien) nor ever lived in the US, will walk free after killing 3000 innocent people. How humane we are, releasing those who kill our people because we extend constitutional protections over someone who only wants to kill us and doesn’t care about the Constitution. We would be humane. And stupid.
For the record, I’m for giving them a trial through a military tribunal that would follow a procedure that provides jurisprudence without sacrificing national security. Fairly try them, fairly convict them, and fairly execute them.
This paragraph is a hoot:
Really? I don’t think so. What they do is torture our people, like gouging our people’s eyes out. Like putting burning cigarettes on our people. Like cutting our people’s private parts off. Like beheading our people and mutilating the bodies. I don’t see the US doing that as a matter of policy or defined within the law. And any of our people that do that are arrested and tried, because it is not a matter of policy and is against the law. Since terrorists don’t follow any law, they don’t have a problem with it. So, I don’t see where I or the government is sinking to the level of the terrorists. If you do, then you are on crack or insane, or both.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
SteveIL,
The current definition prohibits “outrages against human dignity”.
Bush wants that to be “offends the conscience”.
Now, could you explain how the former is dangerously unclear, but the latter is much more easily understood and better defined? Because it doesn’t seem any clearer to me.
By Omnipotent Poobah on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Steve, My Angry Little Friend.
Clearly we disagree and that’s OK with me. That’s what a free country is about. I think you’re full of shit, but I support your freedom to squat and squeeze out anything you want. By the way, that’s one of the guarantees I’m sure you’ll agree is an important one for people on the high moral ground such as yourself.
I’ve found arguing things with people who insist on calling me a lunatic or crack addled usually doesn’t get me anywhere and I’m getting older and have less patience with humoring them without chasing them down and beating them with a metaphorical stick. Life is simply too short.
So, I don’t concede any of these points to you and I’m just chosing to spend my time talking to someone who is capable of listening. Clearly, you’re not my man.
But some advice, you really should see someone about that fear of psychosis and crack that you have. It’s not healthy.
By SteveIL on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Paul, it’s not clear to me either, it is political double-speak on Bush’s part. If that was from his speech at the UN today, I didn’t hear it or read a transcript.
Poobah, when you use phrases like “Bishop Bush”, “Cardinal Condi”, and “Deacon Don”, without a valid reference (and don’t give me that “the US is turning into a theocracy” crap), and without any condemnation of real theocracies (you know, like Iran, those that execute female rape victims for adultery and homosexuals…for being homosexuals), then your post and arguments might have more merit than I give them.