March 10, 2008 at 9:37 A.M. calls from 704-633-8373. NJ? Inserted "errors" and alterations of this essay must be expected at all times.
When I was in sixth grade, we were assigned an essay topic: "What America means to me?" I answered that question as an immigrant, hoping to become a citizen some day. Reared on Frank Capra films and stories of the American Revolution, I idolized the United States and the U.S. Constitution, both had something to do with freedom for everybody. I was an eager student of history, loving comic book biographies of America's patriots. I wanted to live in a society where people would not be frightened about what they could say, publicly, or who might be listening when they spoke of their values and ideas.
As I read these words, moments after witnessing hackers with access to government resources blocking my image at my MSN group and attacking my writings, again, I wonder what happened to the public legal and political culture in this democracy, also to the First Amendment. I still revere the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This "reverence" provoked laughter in an MSN discussion group not so long ago -- laughter from Americans! -- many of whom claimed to be New Jersey Democrats and, proudly, "relativists." Others saw nothing wrong with torture because we have to get "tough on terrorists." These people claimed to be Republicans. I am an independent. I am sure that there is nothing more patriotic than protest and struggle for civil rights.
As a child in Cuba, I was instructed by my family members to be careful about what I said at school concerning politics, to pretend to agree with everything that was said in my classroom about the government. People were arrested, shot -- including members of my family -- soldiers with guns wandered around the neighborhood. Political posters were everywhere. I detested all of this macho, military swaggering then. I still do today. I also hate militarism when we are guilty of this posturing. I am searching for Joy Gordon's book, Invisible War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010).
Unfortunately, new "errors" were inserted in this essay overnight. I will do my best to correct them. It is very fitting that this essay would be selected for such treatment. Please see "What is it like to be tortured?" Even after I make these corrections, "errors" may be reinserted, the process will be continuous. The goal is to maximize frustration and cause or enhance the effects of various psychological tortures that I have experienced. March 13, 2008 at 9:47 A.M. (See "U.S. Courts Must Not Condone Torture.")
Now I find that, in America -- this land that I love so much -- soldiers with guns are wandering around train stations, people are secretly tortured, arrested, detained without trials, government obstructs and suppresses speech by deliberately isolated, protesting, "tortured" individuals (who are citizens), like me, then lies about it. The tortures are rationalized because victims are deemed to be "unethical." Of course, sometimes the censorship and destruction of writings is based on the contents of the opinions expressed by dissidents. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")
I am told that this cruelty and illegality -- given only the form of legality, not its substance -- is "necessary to protect the American Constitution and way of life." I think that this is how we lose the American Constitution and way of life. Perhaps we have lost both already. The rule of law and freedom are fragile, always endangered things. Maybe we are no longer worthy of these blessings of liberty. I continue to hope that this is not so.
My freedom from torture and right to speak are also yours. Depriving me of humanity is to deny such respect and recognition to every person in America. Norman Mailer once said that democracy may be an un-natural form of government for persons. Maybe most people expect or need tyrany of some kind. This is a depressing thought.
One of the idiotic assumptions out there is that the Constitution only applies to citizens of the United States. Even lawyers have uttered this imbecility. In fact, any person on U.S. soil is entitled to basic Constitutional due process protections. This explains the reluctance of the government to try detainees within U.S. territory. It is also why people are detained outside the country or turned over to others ("rendition") who agree to do America's dirty work for a small fee. Miami's Cuban-American "operatives" for the Republican party perform a similar role within the nation.
If, let us say, a lawyer can be subjected to hypnosis, questioned for a weekend, then returned to his normal life and the authorities lie about what they have done, with impunity, then we no longer live in a free society. If these tactics are repeated secretly, for years, condoned by courts that are aware of these crimes, together with daily suppressions of speech and denials of truth to people -- denials of the truth of their own lives and the whereabouts of loved-ones -- then we are living under a regime exactly like what the framers of the American Constitution feared and fought against. Is this "torture-condoning society" the sort of country that you want for your children? ("Jaynee LaVecchia and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
"Democrats and human rights advocates criticized President George W. Bush's veto yesterday of a bill that would have banned the CIA from using simulated drowning and other coercive interrogation methods to gain information from suspected terrorists."
"Bush said such tactics have helped foil terrorist plots. His critics likened [them to] some methods of torture and said they sullied America's reputation around the world."
Deb Riechman, "Bush Vetos Anti-Torture Bill," Edmonton Sun, March 9, 2008 http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/03/09/pf-4952786.html
Rendition is among a handful of recent films making use of a grittier, hand-held camera approach that makes for a documentary feel to the cinematic text. Cast and crew are internationalized in a demonstration of global cooperation. The focus in this film is multiple and fragmented, as it is in life. All omniscient perspectives are eschewed. We are far from Frank Capra country in this movie. The most puzzling and ambiguous character is the Meryl Streep part.
Streep's State Department/C.I.A. "spook" is a Washington bureaucrat and functionary, a non-person, happily trashing the Constitution and (sincerely) unaware of what she has become or is responsible for ... crimes against humanity and the desecration of the American flag, the most complete betrayal of the men and women who have died for the country. In a bizarre reversal of the relationship envisioned by Jefferson and Adams concerning the priority of persons against the State, citizens and their questions are seen as minor irritants obstructing job performance for government officials, who walk away from citizens asking about disappeared loved-ones.
We are told that: "Torture has saved lives." Has it? Since 9/11 close to a million people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as elsewhere with no end in sight to various military campaigns directly related to post-9/11 efforts against terrorism. War with Iran is actually contemplated in some circles in D.C. Iran is a country with close to a million men under arms and near to developing nuclear weapons, or so we are told. North Korea may have the best small army in the world and actually has such weapons. A possible war with North Korea is also discussed and is reported to be "on the drawing board." The U.S. is associated throughout the world with psychological torture and physical torments of persons who are not charged or tried for any crimes, often detained erroneously, held for years and damaged for life. (See "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
A person in N.J., who commits no crime, is subjected to horrible psychological tortures, then is ignored on a daily basis by the authorities in the most corrupt and mafia-saturated jurisdiction in the country because his protests make him "unethical." There must be many others similarly treated in other parts of the country and elsewhere in the Garden State. All of this is clearly illegal, despite the bandaids provided by hastily drafted and ill-considered legislation, so-called "Patriot Acts" and "Homefront Security" laws adopted in the aftermath of 9/11. America is in danger of becoming an affront to human dignity and the vision of our Constitution. Who are we today? Why are Americans not more disturbed by these developments? Ignorance?
Further alterations of words in this essay serves to illustrate what I mean by pointless cruelty. This simple and poignant story concerns an Egyptian resident of the U.S., seized by the authorities upon reentering the country, based on flawed intelligence, criminally treated and tortured by American allies (who are detested by persons in the countries where these criminals operate, thanks to U.S. aid).
Persons are detained in such countries normally at the request of U.S. officials, officials who remain serenely unapologetic and unconcerned about horror and atrocity, especially when opportunities arise to wear evening clothes to a nice party. (See "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey," also "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
What quality is missing from the Meryl Streep character? Why is she not an admirable human being? Spiritual necrosis? Autism? ("What is law?")
The Egyptian torturer in this film -- who deserved an Oscar nomination -- is a clone for the thugs employed by Batista for the same purpose in Cuba during the fifties, with the same cooperation of American C.I.A. and State Department officials. Similar goons are found in many Latin American countries and are employed, once they leave office, by American corporations doing business in those countries, whose rivers and forests are often destroyed in the search for resources to exploit. People want American investment and they still connect with American culture in cinema. They do not want their environments destroyed, however, or to be robbed of their resources, nor to be tortured, secretly, by criminals acting as enforcers for U.S. officials. Does this surprise you? Would you want such things in your country? Recent events in Honduras, Pakistan, as well as in many other countries illustrate much of what I am saying in this essay.
Staring at a man being tortured, Jake Gyllenhaal's character, the C.I.A. agent, seems baffled by what is taking place and who he has become. During a phone conversation with Meryl Streep's more senior agent, he explains: "This is my first torture." Is there a lack of affect, a deadness in a person that accounts for the reality that is not seen by these people in their Pentagon offices? How would you define this blindness? Or is it a kind of deafness? How is it possible for you to insert "errors" in my essays? Do you envy them that much? Are you frightened by what I am saying about America? Or yourself, perhaps?
I attended an American Law School, graduated and received my J.D., passed a bar examination, practised law for years. I never saw a course in "torture." I do not recall "secrecy operations" as a feature of my legal studies. My study of legal ethics suggests that commission of crimes and criminal cover ups by ethics officials are "unethical" practices. I now live in a Twilight Zone-like reality in which none of this seems to be true any longer, except that nobody will say anything one way or the other, nor will anyone respond to requests for information, even if they are shouted from the rooftops of the Internet. Meanwhile, we are told that psychological torments and "waterboarding remain in the CIA's toolkit." Is this comforting for you? Do you feel safer? I don't. (See "The Torture of Persons.")
People who are legal residents in the U.S. "disappear." University professors who are foreign-born and speak out against these atrocities are fired and may be detained or deported. Lawyers who are subjected to torture and experimentation, for displaying the intended effects of these psychological tortures, are labeled "unethical" and disbarred, then denied the truth about their lives in violation of state laws. The pain and bewilderment that I describe can be seen in Ms. Witherspoon's hauntingly beautiful and delicate features as she seeks answers from her elected officials, receiving nothing in terms of a meaningful response from those officials. "We are looking into it." "Someone will get back to you." Politicians are "for all the people."
"There is a special reason for the United States, among all countries, to choose adherence to the no-torture 'taboo' (and to behave as if it really means it, which would mean, among other things, the end of 'rendering' suspects to torture-friendly countries). One might well believe in a 'contagion effect.' If the United States is widely believed to accept torture as a proper means of fighting the war against terrorism, then why should any other country refrain? The United States is, for better and, most definitely, for worse, the 'new Rome,' the giant colossus bestriding the world and claiming, as well, to speak in behalf of good against evil. Part of the responsibility attached to being such a colossus may be the need to accept certain harms that lesser countries will not accept."
Civilization, freedom, equality and the rule of law come with a willingness to accept some risk. We must live with the danger that 'open societies' are more vulnerable than closed ones, while remaining a free people, served by and not serving our governors. ("Errors" were just inserted and corrected in this essay.)
"Our very size and power may require that we limit our responses in a way that might not be true of smaller countries more 'existentially' threatened by their enemies than the United States has yet been. ..."
This principle would make Cuba's security measures mild by comparison with us.
"... There is no way to avoid the moral difficulties generated by the possibility of torture. We are staring into an abyss, and no one can escape the necessity of a response."
Sanford Levinson, "Contemplating Torture: An Introduction," in Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 38.
