The K.F. Stone Weekly

Don't Let the Light Go Out

  

   Writing a piece about torture with its attendant cast of thousands is as imponderable a task as writing an article about a Wimbledon match while it is still being played.  In the case of the tennis match, no sooner would one begin describing a 125-mile-an-hour service before a forehand volley, backhand return, lob, and overhand smash might occur.  Obviously, its one heck of a lot smarter to wait until the match has concluded before writing the story. In the case of the former -- torture -- about the time one finishes a paragraph or two, a new revelation, charge or declassified document becomes available, thus making what has just been written obsolete. 
  

   In the current unfolding story about torture -- which involves the Obama White House, the CIA, DOJ, OLC, DOD, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney," Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, et al -- one obviously cannot -- and must not -- wait until the story has concluded before committing it to print. It is far too critical and deserving of far more light than almost any other issue before the American public.  For the use of unlawful, immoral and inhuman forms of torture -- regardless of what "they" are doing and regardless of whether it is euphemistically referred to as "rendition" or "enhanced forms of interrogation" -- raises questions that are at the very heart of what defines the United States of America.

   Over the past week or more, we have begun asking a lot of questions, such as:

• "Who was responsible for Okaying the torture?" 
• "What if any acts of terror were averted as a result of the torture?"
  
• "When did the U.S. first begin using torture?"
  
• "Where were these interrogations carried out?"
  
• "Why did President Obama first state that no one will be prosecuted?    

    

   Despite the fact that we still have more questions than answers, it is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Bush Administration used the horror of 9/11 for their own purposes.  That day of unbelievable tragedy and pain became their rationale for legitimizing torture -- a kind of "any-port-in-a-storm" approach to national defense.  Before too long, the administration proclaimed that they had uncovered "evidence" of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and of the existence of WMD's in "al-Qaeda-backed" Iraq.  All of this, of course, provided the rationale for beginning that preemptive war -- a war which is now the longest in our history.

   Before the end of the Bush Administration, there was already evidence both the United States military and the C.I.A. were engaging in what at best were "questionable" -- at worst "illegal" -- forms of "enhanced interrogation."  During the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama attacked the Bush Administration for such acts, and proclaimed that once in office he would move swiftly to root them out.  Millions of voters were attracted to the Illinois senator because -- among other things -- he had an obvious moral center. 
  

   The disclosures occasioned by all the recently declassified documents have given birth to a myriad of debates.  As of this writing, it is unclear precisely what role or roles will be played by the House and Senate.  Which committee or committees will start issuing subpoenas?  On the House side, will it fall to Ike Skelton's Armed Services, Jane Harman's subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism risk Assessment or John Conyers' Judiciary to hold hearings?  Over in the Senate, will Carl Levin (Armed Services), Dianne Feinstein (Selected Committee on Intelligence), Joe Lieberman (Homeland Security) or Patrick Leahy (Judiciary) choose to pick up the gavel?  And once the subpoenas begin flying, who will seek immunity and who will simply refuse to testify, thus bringing about both a legal challenge and a constitutional showdown? 

   Indeed, will the White House seek to outflank Congress by appointing its own "Blue Ribbon Commission on Torture?"  Or, will Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi (both of whom appear to have had knowledge of what the Bush Administration was up to) name their own "Joint Special Investigation Committee?"  The possibilities are endless.

   President Obama's initial response to torture was crystal clear:

   The United States does not and will not engage in torture; the United States does not and will not violate international law.

   Period.

   But then came that gnawing, vexatious inconsistency:

   Neither those who carried out these illegal acts nor those who formulated the legal justification for them will be liable to future prosecution!  In the case of who actually performed the illegal acts, they were "only following orders" [This is hauntingly like the Nuremberg Defense, Befehl ist Befehl.]  In the case of those who dreamed up the legal justification for said acts -- members of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice -- all the president would say is that "we seek to look not backwards but forwards."

   This was indeed a shocking conclusion, coming as it did from a president who spent the past 16 years as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Well, within the past 48 hours, the president did "clarify" his thinking, and state that the matter of future prosecution belongs not to the White House, but to the Department of Justice. Without question, this is the right way to go.

   To most thoughtful people, the issue of torture (and our response to it) is one of both legal and moral import.  For generations, we have been a nation of laws and not one of men and women.  For generations, we have been a beacon of light in a world that often languishes in darkness.  Our devotion, our commitment to what is lawful and humane has given both hope and direction to people living on seven continents.  But now it has been revealed that for a time, the United States of America has been operating not in the light but rather the shadows; that we have justified the use of illegal torture techniques by convincing ourselves that in order to assure security, we must become as diabolical as our enemies.

   Regrettably, there are those who persist in seeing torture as a primarily political issue.  Cheney, Gingrich and Rove -- among others -- say that those who are against "enhanced rendition" are weak, short-sighted cowards bent on giving aide and comfort to our enemies.  Talk shows and so-called "news" programs are rife with "experts" who proclaim that not only does torture work; it has kept us safe. I have been told to my face that "If water-boarding, sleep-deprivation or tearing out their fingernails saves even one American life, it is worth it."  I listened in on Rush Limbaugh the other day.  In the middle of a rant about "weak-kneed, lily-livered liberals," there was a slapping sound, followed by the "Mouth That Roared" sarcastically proclaiming, "I just slapped myself in the face.  Oh my, I've just been tortured!"

     I do hope that both those who did the actual torturing and those who created the legal justification for those acts will be prosecuted.  I don't care how high up the political food chain it goes . . . even if in the end it includes Democrats as well as Republicans. 

    This should be not a political issue.  It is definitely no laughing matter.  It is terribly serious and rests at the very heart of what has long made America a light unto the nations.

    Don't let the light go out. . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

A Letter to Norm Coleman

   Dear Senator Coleman:

   It's been less than 48 hours since a special three-judge panel issued a unanimous, unambiguous decision that the "overwhelming weight of evidence" proves that the race between you and Al Franken for the U.S. Senate was conducted "fairly, impartially, and accurately."  Moreover, they concluded that Franken's 312-vote margin means that he is "entitled to receive the certificate of election."

   In other words Senator it's time for you to look reality squarely in the punim and be a gentleman; time for you to step aside, admit defeat, congratulate Al Franken on his hard-fought victory, and permit him to take the oath of office.  And then you can go about the task of looking for a high-paying, high-profile job . . . perhaps replacing Michael Steele at the RNC?  

   In order for this to finally happen of course, your buddy and fellow Republican, Governor Tim Pawlenty will also have to face facts; for he's the fellow who by law must sign the certificate of election.  But alas, like you, Governor Pawlenty isn't ready to give up the ghost.  Like you, the governor doesn't seem to be worried or even concerned about the fact that Minnesotans have been minus a United States senator for 3 1/2 months.  And now, Texas Senator John Cornyn, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee has joined this orgy of stupidity in announcing that he is prepared to take the battle into Federal Court. 

   You don't seem too worried.  And neither does Governor Pawlenty.

   Ah, but he may start worrying pretty soon. For as you will recall Senator, Governor Pawlenty is up for reelection next year and is considering a presidential run in 2012.  Every extra day he delays signing that certificate makes him look less like a leader, and more like a partisan hack.  And while that may well score him points with hardcore Republicans, it is damaging him with everyone else.  OK Senator, Governor Pawlenty's political future isn't necessarily your concern.  But isn't what's best and most fair for the good folks of Minnesota? 

   There was a time not so long ago when that was the tune you were whistling.  Many of us remember that on election night -- when you appeared to be the winner by an eyelash -- you majestically warned that a recount would be extremely costly and expressed deep, honest concern about Minnesotans being denied full Senate representation.  At that point you sounded more like a statesman than a politician.  But now that the margin of victory -- slim though it may be --belongs to Al Franken, you are whistling a tune that sounds like it was composed by the Prendergast Ring.  Now its "Damn the cost . . . mitigate, litigate, abrogate!" 

   There was a time long ago when you would have picked up a bullhorn and raged against what you are currently doing.  Once upon a time in the late '60s and early '70s, you stood foursquarely on the side of "the people."  Back when you were student body president at Hofstra, you protested the war in Vietnam, took over the administration building, railed against the inherent unfairness of "the system," and vowed to knock the "entrenched elites" down a peg or two.  Heck, you were even a roadie with "Ten Years After" and spent your 20th birthday with them up at Woodstock. [You know something Senator? We were born just four days apart.  And while you were celebrating your 20th up in Bethel at Woodstock, I was observing mine at Tanglewood attending the Berkshire Festival.  As much as I may have enjoyed "I'm Going Home," or "Suite Judy Blue Eyes," I really preferred Beethoven's Ninth.]  Yours has been a most circuitous route, filled with plenty of formers: Former student radical; Former liberal Democrat, and now, Former United States Senator.

   Senator, you and your attorneys claim that the sole motivation in drawing the election out is "to ensure no Minnesota voter gets left behind."  It sounds noble Senator, but instead, what you and your people are really doing is leaving the entire state of Minnesota behind. 

   Senator, you have been quoted as saying that during this long ordeal, "I have had more dinners at home with my wife than I ever have before," and that now you put on t'fillin ever morning and say the traditional morning prayers in order to ". . . bind myself to God every morning because its in his hands."  I know that since you stopped receiving your Senate salary, you have been working part time for the Republican Jewish Coalition. These are all things for which you should be grateful; to a certain extent, you are on a path taking you back to your roots.  Hopefully you will continue on that path back to the old-time student activist who would have been aghast at the former Senator's obdurateness.  If I were you Senator, I would let Governor Pawlenty, Senator Cornyn and the rest of your friends in the Republican Party know that you want them to cease and desist; that the time has come to act like a mentsch and gracefully bow out.  You know Senator, ever since 1978, your about-to-become former Senate seat has been occupied by mentschen -- by good, warm-hearted people: first Rudy Boschewitz, next the late Paul Wellstone, and then you.  Never before in American history has one Jewish senator been replaced by another and then yet another.  Once you finally do the right thing and give up the ghost, your seat will go to Al Franken, a fourth lahntsman and a Harvard grad to boot. And who would have ever thought that it would happen in Minnesota of all places?  Ah, there's the beauty of America for you! 

   Senator, do the right thing. Bind that t'fillin strap just a bit tighter.  Let it remind you that you are indeed made of bigger stuff. 

   The people of Minnesota will thank you.

   The people of the United States will thank you.

   History will thank you.

   Be good to yourself,

  Kurt F. Stone

 

   PS: I must admit to having a personal reason (beyond what is written above) for hoping you will bring an end to this nonsense: Without closure, I cannot finish my biographic piece on either you or Al Franken for the next edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill, to be published by Rowman & Littlefield. 

 (Now how's that for a shameless plug . . . ? 

 ©2009 Kurt F. Stone      

  

     

The Clean Deal

  

   Once upon a time long ago, a wealthy land baron summoned three overseers to meet with him in his study.  Eyes twinkling with caprice, the baron issued a challenge:

   Gentlemen: I am going to pose three questions . . . questions whose answers, quite frankly, I do not know.  Whichever of you gives what I consider the best answers will be permitted a share in the profits of this estate for the rest of his life.  What do you say? 

   Two of the men quickly agreed, figuring they had everything to gain -- and nothing to lose -- by playing along with their master's game.  The third man, a rather simple soul, wasn't quite so sure, but not wishing to seem less of a person than his fellows, also agreed.

   The baron congratulated the three for taking him up on his challenge.  Then, holding up a finger, the baron said:

   I'm glad you have all agreed.  And by the way, I forgot to mention one tiny detail: the two, whose answers are in my estimation, not best, will forthwith be banished from this estate.

   The three were no longer quite so enthusiastic.  Then the baron continued.

   Here are the three questions:

           What is the fastest thing in the world?

            What is the biggest thing in the world?

            What is the best thing in the world?

   Two of the men -- he who had charge of the estate's forests and he who oversaw its fisheries -- looked knowingly at each another and nodded silently.  Then, the overseer of forests asked their master:

  Would you permit the two of us to go in on one set of answers?  Could we then both reap the reward?

  The baron thought for a moment, then agreed.  He then asked them for their answers.

   The fastest thing in the world is my lord's Arabian stallion.  The biggest thing in the world is my lord's heart.  And without question, the best thing in the world is being permitted to work for my lord . . .

  The baron, being a man highly addicted to flattery nodded and smiled broadly.

   You have provided three marvelous answers. It will indeed be next to impossible to improve upon them.  I could easily proclaim the two of you the winners right now, but in all fairness, we must permit the stable-master to give us his answers.  What say you?

   The simple man, sweating profusely, stammered . . .

   I . . . I . . . really don't know what the fastest thing in the world is . . . unless . . . unless it's an idea.  And as for the biggest thing in the world, could it possibly be the world itself?  And as for the . . .

  But the baron stopped him before he could give the third answer.  Jumping up from his throne-like chair, he grasped the stable-master in a bear hug and said,

   Even before you give voice to the third answer, I declare you to be the winner.  For indeed, what in the world could be larger than the world itself . . .?

   At this point, let us leave the story for a few moments and consider the implications of the stable-master's answer. . .

   Imagine if instead of asking what the "biggest thing in the world" might be, the question were "What is the most important issue in the world?" There is certainly no end of possible answers:

• War and Peace.
• Hunger
• Nuclear Disarmament.
• The Global Economy.
• Terrorism.
• Gender Equality.
• Saving Rain Forests.

   And on and on.  If we take a tip from the stable-master's response that "The biggest thing in the world is the world itself," then perhaps the most important issue in the world is the planet itself.  In other words: global warming.  For let's face facts; without a healthy sustainable planet -- a planet over which we were granted both dominion and stewardship -- nothing else matters.  Over the past generation or so, scientists from around the globe have been amassing a welter of data on what's been going on with Mother Earth -- from the warming of its seas and the growth of greenhouse gasses to the disappearance of essential rain forests and the extinction of plants and animals. 

   On February 2, 2007, a United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a global warming trend was "unequivocal" and that human activity had "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the past half century.  The group's previous report -- issued six years earlier -- had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.  The addition of that single word "VERY" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases has played a central role in raising the average temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900.  It also added new momentum to a debate that is far, far less centered on whether or not we humans are largely responsible for this incredibly dangerous trend, to one far, far more centered on what we can do about it.

   There are studies without number that prove the dire fact of global warming.  There are innumerable papers on what we can do to reverse the process before it is too late.  There are international organizations making prize money available for those who come up with innovations in energy usage.  There are already plans for the so-called "Clean Deal" -- an international program that will link the creation of renewable sources of energy with smart economics.  Windmills, solar panels, electric-powered vehicles, new methods of construction -- all these require new industrial concerns that will employ millions of people who will eventually be earning well by doing good. 

   And yet, there are voices out there -- loud, disparaging, well-funded megawatt voices -- continually proclaiming that the entire issue of global warming is a liberal hoax.  One can hear these voices daily on the Fox News Network, or through a new website called ClimateDepot.com.  Created by Marc Moreno, former spokesman for Oklahoma Senator (and global warming naysayer) James M. Imhofe, "ClimateDepot.com" will be -- in Moreno's words -- a "one-stop shop" for anyone following climate change.  For years Moreno, a ceaseless purveyor of the dissenting view that climate change is a hoax, was best known for compiling reports naming hundreds of "scientists" whose work, he says, undermines the consensus on global warming. In many cases, those he listed as scientists possessed virtually no scientific credentials.  

   "ClimateDepot.com" is mostly underwritten by the "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow," a Washington-based nonprofit that advocates free-market solutions to environmental issues.  It in turn is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes best known for his efforts to  have President Bill Clinton impeached. 

   So how could all of these "scientists" and "weather forecasters" possibly proclaim that far from going though a warming trend, the earth is actually cooling down?  What is on their political plate?  God only knows. And speaking of God, Chris Allen, weather director of WBKO in Kentucky is one of those loudly proclaiming global warming to be a hoax.  On his web site, Mr. Allen has written that his major objection to the idea of human-influenced climate change is that "it completely takes God out of the picture."  One presumes that Mr. Allen is also a fan of Intelligent Design.

   Regardless of what Moreno, Scaife, Allen or their "scientific" minions say, global warming is both critical and very real.  It far outweighs every other issue under the sun, for as the stable-master told the baron, "The biggest thing on earth is the earth."

   By the way, when the baron finally got around to asking the stable-master that third question -- namely, "What's the best thing in the world" -- the gentleman looked him in the eye, smiled, and said:

   The best thing in the world is a good night's sleep.

   I agree.  And of course, part of getting a good night's sleep is being reasonably free of worry.  Once the voices and energies of all those working to create a Clean Deal begin realizing success, we will all get that good night's sleep.

   Truly, the best thing in the world is intimately tied in to the biggest thing in the world . . .

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

       

  

  

 

  

Of Spaghetti Trees and Ann Coulter

  

   Omnipresent though it may be, no one really knows the precise origin of April Fool's Day.  It is, to say the least, obscure. 

   One creaky old theory holds that "April Fool's" was first celebrated  in 1582, the  year the Julian Calendar was replaced by the Gregorian (1582).  The day of merriment was supposedly meant to poke fun  at any and all who began their planting season the first of April instead of the first of May, as had been the custom for the preceding 15 centuries. 

   I don't know.  Sounds pretty lame to me.

  Then there are those who are convinced that "April Fools" referred to all those Frenchmen who continued observing New Years on the first day of April, rather than the first of January, as ordained by King Charles IX back in 1564.

  Maybe . . .

  One of my favorite theories -- though of course 100% unprovable -- comes from an April 1789 newspaper article from some long-forgotten British journalist, in which he claimed that "April Fools" went back all the way to the time of Noah!  "The day had its origin," he claimed, "in God's sending the raven off too early, before the flood waters had had a chance to recede."  According to this theory, God had commanded the raven's "early journey" on the first day of the Hebrew month of Nisan -- roughly April -- thereby making an "April Fool" out of old man Noah.

  Wheee!

   Most everyone has a favorite "April Fool's Day" joke or prank.  Two of my favorites are the following:

•    A couple of years ago, Burger King ran an ad in USA Today saying that as of that day (April 1) they were going to be stocking and selling "Whoppers for left-handed people."  Talk about "Have It Your Way!"  Not only did customers order the "new" burgers; some specifically requested the "old" right-handed kind.
  

•    Back in 1985, George Plimpton wrote an article in Sports Illustrated about a New York Mets' prospect named Sidd Finch, who could throw 168 MPH with pinpoint accuracy.  This phenom, known as "Barefoot" Sidd[hartha] Finch, had learned to pitch in a Buddhist monastery. The article's sub-title, gave away Plimpton's gag: "He's a pitcher, part yogi and part recluse.  Impressively liberated from our opulent life-style."  [H-A-P-P-Y  A-P-R-I-L  F-O-O-L-S]

• The one I remember best from my childhood involves the fabled "Spaghetti Tree."  Back on April 1, 1957, the television program Panorama ran a famous hoax showing the Swiss harvesting spaghetti from trees!  On the program it was claimed that the dread "spaghetti weevil" had finally been eradicated.  I remember asking my dad if we could plant our very own spaghetti tree. I thought that would be just about the best thing in the world.  Imagine that!  Spaghetti any time you wanted it just by going out into the backyard and plucking it from a tree!  (Yes, I know it sounds completely dense, but I was only 8 years old at the time, and so perhaps I can be forgiven for not picking up on Panorama's April Fool's prank.)

  
   But what about Ann Coulter?  She's 47, and an Ivy League graduate with a law degree from Michigan.  How could she be so incredibly, stupidly gullible as to fall for an obvious April Fool's joke; and then, not realizing that it is an April Fool's riff, get indignant, shirty and spouting off like Mt. Vesuvius?

   Here's the April Fool's Day gag that got her so incredibly exorcised:

    Whaaa?  How's that Ann Coulter?

   Yes indeed, this is the one.  You see, Ms. Coulter read -- or had brought to her attention -- a piece in the April 1 edition of Car and Driver that claimed that President Obama had ordered General Motors and Chrysler to cease their participation in NASCAR because it was an "unnecessary expenditure."  Get it?  "If the Feds are going to be putting so many billions into keeping GM and Chrysler afloat, they may as well tell what they can and cannot do.  Right?"

   Wrong!  It's an April Fool's Day joke. . . to everyone but Ms. Coulter.  

 In a USA Today article, Larry Marshak noted that Car and Driver later pulled the fake story (which estimated savings of $250 million between the two auto manufacturers  by not participating), and apologized for "going too far."  Marshak quoted Car and Driver officials saying that their magazine "has a proud tradition of irreverent editorials, and we amplify that each year with our April's Fool Day joke." 

    For her part Ms. Coulter took the article not as an April Fool's joke, but as a deadly serious fact to which she felt compelled to angrily respond:

  "If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an 'unnecessary expenditure,' isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan 'jihads' also an 'unnecessary expenditure?"

   Coulter's -- and other conservative's -- outrage was so palpable and heated, that the folks at Car and Driver felt compelled to run a second version of the article which in large caps informed readers "THIS IS A JOKE.  LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE":

 

  

   Ms. Coulter entitled her April 1 column responding to the Car and Driver ad, "Why is Rick Wagoner Fired and Nancy Pelosi Still Working?" (Note: Rick Wagoner is the GM CEO who was told to step down, which got a lot of press.  What didn't get much press is the fact that he walked away with a $20.2 million retirement package.) In her column, "Coultergeist" started swinging for the fences, bashing all those who, in her estimation, should have been fired instead of Mr. Wagoner: "Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education."  She questioned why "all the former Weathermen like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Mark Rudd" weren't fired by their universities. (Rudd by the way, who came to prominence during the Columbia University anti-war riots more than 40 years ago, used to teach mathematics at Central New Mexico Community College. Bernadine Dohrn has been teaching law at Northwestern for the past 18 years.  Bill Ayers is Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois.) Ms. Coulter then took off after Princeton University Bioethics Professor Peter Singer, whom she claims "believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the dead gave consent when still alive."

   And this is even before Ms. Coulter got into her jag about public schools "forc[ing] students to follow Muslim rituals . . . etc."  When I first read this, I said to myself :

   "Ah, this article has got to be her idea of an April Fool's Day joke!  She couldn't mean what she writes.  No one could be that . . . well, that 'ya know . . . full of it!"  

   But I'm afraid I gave Ms. Coulter too much credit.  From the nearly 1,400 comments her readers appended to the article, they all found what she had to say -- or write -- educative, enlightening and enthralling. 

   In other words, this wasn't any April Fool's Day column.  She really didn't get the Car and Driver joke.  She really does have such inane, hostile notions.

   Between you and me, I've had it.  No more thoughts about Ann Coulter.

   I'm going out back and water the old spaghetti tree. . .

   

©2009 Kurt F. Stone