Super Secret Locations

It’s performance review week at work. I can’t wait.

The White House decided this week to release previously classified information detailing the formulation of and the justification of enhanced interrogation techniques. Also known affectionately as “the Torture Memos.” The documents detail the evolution of U.S. interrogation policy under the previous administration and the extent of the mental and legal gymnastics former administration officials were forced to go through to justify actions that—at least in some cases—explicitly violated all manner of laws and treaties. As if that weren’t enough, they also indicated that when certain administration spokespersons claimed that practices like water-boarding were used only sparingly (I believe the statement was “only on three occasions”), they weren’t quite telling the truth. I suppose that determination could depend on how one chose to define “truth,” but there is a fair bit of distance between “only sparingly” and 266, the actual number of instances of water-boarding. I mean, they were only off by 263, but really, what are a couple hundred instances of torture between friends.

True to form, former vice president Dick Cheney sprang to his own defense claiming that all this talk of memos, lies and torture is moot because whatever techniques his administration utilized to extract information from suspects worked. They got valuable information that prevented attacks, so shut up and leave his administration alone and please don’t toss his sorry butt in prison for the rest of his life. Sounds reasonable on the surface, doesn’t it? Well, no, not really. This whole rationalization of using torture to extract information because it is effective is ridiculous, and frankly a little disturbing. It’s like listening to a man say, “Well of course I should be allowed to beat my wife! I beat my wife to keep her from cheating on me. Since I started beating the crap out of her (you know, breaking some ribs, blackening a few eyes, drowning her in the tub, that sort of thing) she hasn’t been cheating on me, so obviously beating her into submission is working and I should be allowed to continue doing it!”

For seven years Richard Cheney hid away in some super secret location somewhere, out of sight and almost out of mind. What do we have to do to get him to go back there? Civilized people do not torture other human beings—not because torture damages the tortured, but because it diminishes the torturer. It’s not about them, it never has been. This is about us, about who we are, what we stand for and what kind of civilization we want to be. Torture CANNOT be the official policy—the default position—of the United States government. There may be times in the heat of battle when people do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, or moments in which someone decides that torture is the only expedient way to extract the necessary information, but those MUST be the EXCEPTION, not the rule. And when those instances arise they must be treated seriously and fairly by the justice system to ensure that such actions have not been undertaken lightly. It’s one thing to have a jury of 12 peers decide certain actions were justified, it’s something else entirely for the government to sanction the use of procedures they would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law if used against its own citizens.

Last week, at a “tea party” in Texas, governor Rick Perry made the following statement: “We’ve got a great Union, there’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?” We’ll deal with the political implications of that in a minute. When called on what many interpreted as advocating secession from the Union, Perry claimed he was misinterpreted, saying, “…I said that we have a great Union and there’s no reason to dissolve it. I don’t remember the exact quote, but that’s (the essence of) what I said.” Um, yeah. Not exactly. Perry is only in his sixties. Selective memory shouldn’t have kicked in just yet.

I can’t believe we actually have to discuss this in 2009, but Texas DOES NOT have the right to secede from the United States. A brief history lesson. At the time Texas entered the Union it was an independent Republic. In 1845, Texas was admitted to the Union as the 28th state, and the treaty under which it did so gave the state certain privileges. (One of those privileges was that at some later date, Texas could invoke the right to split and become five states instead of one. However, in 1861, Texas seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States of America. The resulting Civil War and the deaths of 620,000 soldiers established that secession from the United States was illegal. To reinforce that fact, the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White in 1869 ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America. The court further held that the U.S. Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null.” When indulging his secessionist fantasies, Perry—and others like him—seem to be counting on the notion that invoking the clause in the original treaty to split Texas into five states, and that the prospect of granting Texas eight addition senators would so offend their sensibilities that Congress would expel them from the Union. Unfortunately for Rick, the civil War and Texas v. White make it pretty clear that neither he—nor the state of Texas—will be going anywhere soon. I thought we used to have a word for individuals who advocated secession. I believe it started with a “T.”

After passing General Motors as the world’s largest automaker early this year, Toyota has been supplanted by Volkswagen as the dominant global vehicle manufacturer. I guess it’s tough being on top.

Last week, as President Obama prepared to travel to Trinidad to attend the Summit of the Americas, Cuban president Raul Castro was seen on television making the emphatic statement that Cuba was ready to talk to the United States, and that “everything” was on the table. “Everything” reported included freedom of the press, political prisoners, free markets, the whole kit and caboodle. Today, former Cuban president Fidel Castro issued a statement claiming that his brother’s remarks had been misinterpreted. Do I detect some dissention in the ranks?

Earlier this week, Jamaican police stormed a Canadian airplane grounded at the Kingston airport and retook it from a single hijacker, who apparently wanted to go to Cuba. Two things about this story. First, Canadians get hijacked? Really? And second, what kind of an idiot wants to leave Jamaica for Cuba?

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has announced that he wants to be the standard bearer for “traditional marriage” in the state of New York. I guess he would know something about traditional marriages. He’s had three of them. But when the guy who kicked his wife and daughter out of the mayoral mansion so that he could move his girlfriend in starts touting the virtues of traditional marriage, there’s very little left for me to do. The jokes just write themselves.

In a sad story from south Florida this week, 16 horses died prior to a polo match, and five more passed away afterward on their way to receive treatment. Veterinarians suspect the horses were poisoned. Each horse was reported worth in excess of 100K, totaling monetary losses of over 2 million dollars. Follow the money.

On the lighter side of sports, the Detroit Lions debuted a new, “meaner” lion logo on Monday. Actually, someone just took an eraser and swiped it across the logo four times and charged them a million dollars. Meanwhile, 400 miles away in Washington D.C., baseballs’ Washington Nationals paid somebody a large sum of money to misspell the team name on their jerseys, then played a game on national television as the Washington “Natinals.” Not satisfied with just one PR disaster, the following day the team fined one of its players for returning to practice five minutes late from a charity event where he was signing autographs for children. The charity is now holding bake sale to raise money to help pay the player’s $15,000 fine. Strangely fitting that these stories took place in Detroit and Washington D.C., isn’t it? I suppose there is always the possibility that a meaner logo will improve team performance. It worked for the Arizona Cardinals.

Finally, could someone please explain this Susan Boyle phenomenon to me? Apparently, last week, in the British (original) version of American Idol, an unattractive, middle-aged, some might say “frumpy” woman took the stage to audition. All three judges—including professional curmudgeon Simon Cowell—and the entire audience was prepared to laugh her off the stage and all the way to whatever cave William Hung is currently living in. Until she opened her mouth to sing. Rumor is that she absolutely blew everyone away with her voice, becoming an overnight YouTube sensation with over 20 million views of her performance. People were stunned(?) and touched(?) by this story, gushing over it in columns and blogs and television interviews. But why? Because she’s unattractive? What exactly does that say about Western culture? What does it say about people that they were surprised that, as one person put it, “such a beautiful voice could come out of that face”? If she had looked like Charlize Theron or Carrie Underwood she would have been just another contestant trash talked and dismissed by Simon Cowell and his Idol lemmings. Are people really truly surprised that pretty people don’t have a monopoly on talent? WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?