Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Noam Chomsky: The Torture Memos and Historical Amnesia


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,867 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:16 AM

http://www.thenation...0090601/chomsky

The torture memos released by the White House elicited shock, indignation and surprise. The shock and indignation are understandable. The surprise, less so.

For one thing, even without inquiry, it was reasonable to suppose that Guantánamo was a torture chamber. Why else send prisoners where they would be beyond the reach of the law--a place, incidentally, that Washington is using in violation of a treaty forced on Cuba at the point of a gun? Security reasons were, of course, alleged, but they remain hard to take seriously. The same expectations held for the Bush administration's "black sites," or secret prisons, and for extraordinary rendition, and they were fulfilled.

More importantly, torture has been routinely practiced from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and continued to be used as the imperial ventures of the "infant empire"--as George Washington called the new republic--extended to the Philippines, Haiti and elsewhere. Keep in mind as well that torture was the least of the many crimes of aggression, terror, subversion and economic strangulation that have darkened US history, much as in the case of other great powers.

There is still much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information--the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective, then it may be justified. By the same argument, when Nicaragua captured US pilot Eugene Hasenfuss in 1986, after shooting down his plane delivering aid to US-supported Contra forces, they should not have tried him, found him guilty and then sent him back to the US, as they did. Instead, they should have applied the CIA torture paradigm to try to extract information about other terrorist atrocities being planned and implemented in Washington, no small matter for a tiny, impoverished country under terrorist attack by the global superpower.

By the same standards, if the Nicaraguans had been able to capture the chief terrorism coordinator, John Negroponte, then US ambassador in Honduras (later appointed as the first Director of National Intelligence, essentially counterterrorism czar, without eliciting a murmur), they should have done the same. Cuba would have been justified in acting similarly, had the Castro government been able to lay hands on the Kennedy brothers. There is no need to bring up what their victims should have done to Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan and other leading terrorist commanders, whose exploits leave Al Qaeda in the dust, and who doubtless had ample information that could have prevented further "ticking bomb" attacks.

Such considerations never seem to arise in public discussion

The inspirational phrase "city on a hill" was coined by John Winthrop in 1630, borrowing from the Gospels, and outlining the glorious future of a new nation "ordained by God." One year earlier his Massachusetts Bay Colony created its Great Seal. It depicted an Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth. On that scroll are the words "Come over and help us." The British colonists were thus pictured as benevolent humanists, responding to the pleas of the miserable natives to be rescued from their bitter pagan fate.

The Great Seal is, in fact, a graphic representation of "the idea of America," from its birth. It should be exhumed from the depths of the psyche and displayed on the walls of every classroom. It should certainly appear in the background of all of the Kim Il-Sung-style worship of that savage murderer and torturer Ronald Reagan, who blissfully described himself as the leader of a "shining city on the hill," while orchestrating some of the more ghastly crimes of his years in office, notoriously in Central America but elsewhere as well.

The Great Seal was an early proclamation of "humanitarian intervention," to use the currently fashionable phrase. As has commonly been the case since, the "humanitarian intervention" led to a catastrophe for the alleged beneficiaries. The first Secretary of War, General Henry Knox, described "the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union" by means "more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru."



#2 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,867 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:22 AM

ahahahaha oh my god

The 9/11 attack was doubtless unique in many respects. One is where the guns were pointing: typically it is in the opposite direction. In fact, it was the first attack of any consequence on the national territory of the United States since the British burned down Washington in 1814.

Another unique feature was the scale of terror perpetrated by a non-state actor.

Horrifying as it was, however, it could have been worse. Suppose that the perpetrators had bombed the White House, killed the president and established a vicious military dictatorship that killed 50,000 to 100,000 people and tortured 700,000, set up a huge international terror center that carried out assassinations and helped impose comparable military dictatorships elsewhere, and implemented economic doctrines that so radically dismantled the economy that the state had to virtually take it over a few years later.

That would indeed have been far worse than September 11, 2001. And it happened in Salvador Allende's Chile in what Latin Americans often call "the first 9/11" in 1973.
(The numbers above were changed to per-capita US equivalents, a realistic way of measuring crimes.) Responsibility for the military coup against Allende can be traced straight back to Washington. Accordingly, the otherwise quite appropriate analogy is out of consciousness here in the US, while the facts are consigned to the "abuse of reality" that the naive call "history.



#3 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:24 AM

Fiz, what color is the sky in your world?

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:31 AM

What parts do you particularly think are wrong, or is it just the exaggerated style that pisses you off?

#5 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:42 AM

What parts do you particularly think are wrong, or is it just the exaggerated style that pisses you off?


I've just never seen anyone attack his own country's military the way Fiz does. If this was 1945 I'd call him Tokyo Rose.

#6 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 10:47 AM

He does that to get the mindless drones that think the USA is always right to just, for once, think MAYBE somebody else has a right to disagree with the policies of our country.

Sometimes those other countries are wrong, IMO, but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to disagree. Or even hate our guts.

It DOES NOT give them the right to attack us and not expect counterattack.

My interpretation.

#7 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:08 AM

I've just never seen anyone attack his own country's military the way Fiz does. If this was 1945 I'd call him Tokyo Rose.


I fail to see how this is attacking the military. All these decisions were made by politicians.

Anyways, unless you can see and understand all the relevant information no matter how inconvienient it seems to your prejudices, you will never rise above the intellectual level of an Htar or G5. I know you are better than that.

#8 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,448 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:30 AM

I love my country.

#9 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:43 AM

I fail to see how this is attacking the military. All these decisions were made by politicians.

Anyways, unless you can see and understand all the relevant information no matter how inconvienient it seems to your prejudices, you will never rise above the intellectual level of an Htar or G5. I know you are better than that.


Look at my avatar.

#10 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:47 AM

dont want to.

#11 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,721 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:57 AM

can you post some comments from Noam on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?

#12 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,867 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 12:06 PM

can you post some comments from Noam on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?


"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." -- Noam Chomsky, in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent," 1993.

i'd ask you to provide specific examples, but we both know you won't, and we both know you're arguing in bad faith.

for any interested, the chomsky as a khmer rouge apologist is brought up by anyone that wants to discredit him to people they're confident won't look any farther into the matter, making it a pretty obvious bad faith argument. during the seventies, chomsky spoke a lot about the media misinterpretation of the wars in southeast asia, of which there were many. turns out the propaganda in one place, cambodia, was correct, and once all the facts came out he quickly recanted, as pstall would be able to see if he knew anything about the man beyond what he could read on resist.net

#13 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 12:11 PM

dont want to.


Look at it!

#14 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,721 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 20 May 2009 - 12:12 PM

"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth." -- Noam Chomsky, in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent," 1993.

i'd ask you to provide specific examples, but we both know you won't, and we both know you're arguing in bad faith.

for any interested, the chomsky as a khmer rouge apologist is brought up by anyone that wants to discredit him to people they're confident won't look any farther into the matter, making it a pretty obvious bad faith argument. during the seventies, chomsky spoke a lot about the media misinterpretation of the wars in southeast asia, of which there were many. turns out the propaganda in one place, cambodia, was correct, and once all the facts came out he quickly recanted, as pstall would be able to see if he knew anything about the man beyond what he could read on resist.net


Predictable.
And YOU interjected discrediting. If your boy is legit and has been consistent nothing to worry about.
And as usual, you already have made up your mind on these topics.
Your like the 82 yr old sitting in his Depends while watching Matlock who NEVER EVER loses an arguement because he won't allow the discussion to take place.
You basically sealed my argument with your jump to conclusion comment.

#15 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,867 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 12:14 PM

well pstall im familiar with your brand of poo posting and decided to head that off at the pass.

if you want to paint this as a victory for yourself, then go ahead.

this thread isn't about your fascination with me, or how butthurt you are i ignored and your thread your pm invitation to hang out so take your tantrum elsewhere.

Edited by Fiz, 20 May 2009 - 12:18 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.