Pining for the blowjob dodge

Do you remember a few years back, the howling and hand-wringing that accompanied Bill Clinton's evasive phraseology, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? Bill had gotten legal advice that “sexual relations” meant intercourse, so could later claim that he hadn't lied about only getting a blowjob. They caught him, a master communicator, the man who had frustratingly out-messaged them for years, out-communicating himself. He lied, whether the legal advice would stand or not. (It didn't.) They pounced. There was so much posturing about what a weak, morally bankrupt leader would use narrow, legalistic dodges to avoid the substance of the truth. There was even more posturing about plain talk, and about restoring dignity to the White House. I've thought of the blowjob deception frequently over the last six years. Not because I regard Clinton as a dick for thinking with his pecker (of course he was), and not because I think he was an idiot to let down his family and the nation by lying about it (of course he was). No, I've thought about the blowjob deception because I yearn for a time when that seemed important, and for a time when Republicans thought narrow, legalistic dodges were for un-manly, slippery liberals. Perhaps you've heard President Bush asserting that he does not condone torture, and that the United States acts in accordance with the law. Nevermind that his administration has re-interpreted both domestic statutes and international treaties to allow for treatment of prisoners unacceptable to previous administrations (including his father's). Nevermind that we have set up a chain of CIA prisons abroad to allow the type of interrogation expressly prohibited in the United States. Nevermind that his Vice President, representing the White House, has actively opposed legislation to ban torture. Nevermind the bald hypocrisy nestled in a fog of “Who, me?” rhetoric. Let's focus for a moment on what America means. That could be a long essay, so, for the sake of brevity, let's stipulate the ideals ensconced in the Pledge of Allegiance. That should be acceptable to the rightward leaning; the American right has been keen on the Pledge for a long time. They focus on the “under God” part. Just now, however, I'm thinking of the last line, which reads “With liberty and justice for all.” I think this encapsulates what many of us have in mind when we think about the ideal of American political values. We could equally take something from the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. To my mind, however, both of those documents are just longer, eloquent expositions on the same theme expressed in that one line of the Pledge. When we talk about exporting freedom and democracy – the current Administration's cause celebre – I assume, similarly, we are saying the entire world should share in the bounties of liberty and justice. So, I'm not being ironic when I say that I'm confused by the United States Government's view of when it is and isn't acceptable to inflict “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” on prisoners. Here it is, in short: the various laws and treaties covering this sort of thing -- from the United States Constitution to the US-ratified Convention Against Torture -- don't apply to foreign detainees. In other words, you can't do it in the United States, and certainly not to US citizens. You can, however, do it to foreigners on foreign soil: Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo, say, or at a CIA “black site” prison. It is okay to do it to them. It is not okay to do it to us. Here's the source of my confusion: How can we even pretend to be exporting freedom and justice when our policy is to extend neither one to non-Americans? Us: we get freedom and justice. Them: they get as much as we feel like giving them. And sometimes that's not so much. This can only go one of two ways. Either we call this the bullshit it is, and take torture back out of our repertoire, or we can watch as the us/them line comes closer and closer to us. This administration, and the neo-conservative right, more broadly, is fond of accusing those who discredit it of being “with the terrorists,” or of “hating America”. You're either with us, or you're one of them. Remember: It's okay to do it to “them”. I vividly recall us all, right and left together, agreeing Saddam was evil. One of our favorite, most concrete proof points: he tortured his enemies. As John McCain says, “It's not about who they are. It's about who we are.” So, this is about whether we choose to be like Saddam or different from him. He used torture as a tactic, and we vilified him for it. I think we were right. To close, here's a small thought experiment. It's World War II. The Nazis are found out to be torturing and occasionally killing Jews. They demonstrate, however, that they are only doing it to non-Germans, and only in other countries. How much does that raise the morality of their actions? None at all? Thought so. Hey, George: What's the legal wangle on “Love thy neighbor as thyself”? * * * For deeper analysis, see the article "Who They Are", from last Friday's Slate.