Fig leaves and Flag pins

This one'll be quick. It's just an observation, really, about what stories and issues get discussed. Fairly recently, a story broke concerning discussions in the White House regarding the use of what they like to call "enhanced interrogation techniques", but us regular folks would tend to look on as torture. Most of what one reads or hears on the news regarding this issue is basically just: well, here's what was discussed.

In the past few years, the issue of what techniques can be used and by whom has come up, briefly, in the Detainee Treatment Act (the passing of which produced an immediate signing statement from Bush) and the Military Commissions Act, but what seems to have happened is that with each subsequent reconsideration and fine-tuning and adjustment, the simple declarative the the President made on this subject, "We do not torture,", actually means that his administration has refrained from calling it that, and he doesn't like the way it sounds when you put it that way. There has been some discussion of the Yoo torture memo, which basically stated that the executive powers of the president in wartime overrode any act of Congress or any treaty. But my thing is--





All this paper looks like a fig leaf for naked moral wrongness. Arguments can be made that torture isn't effective, it can lead to reciprocity, it's not a good "hearts and minds" strategy to pick people up off the street, screw with them mentally and bodily, and then...

Well, let's address "what then?" What if the detainee knew nothing? Wasn't guilty of anything? Then it was a pointless exercise, with the added benefit of having sent a wrecked person back to their family to serve as an example of America's "resolve to fight the war of terror." Or something like that. It just seems wrong.

But let's talk about something just a little lighter--the 2008 Presidential Campaign. I saw bits of the Pennsylvania debate last night, and am a bit disgusted, the way apparently a lot of people were. Senator Clinton's mistaken recall regarding her Bosnia trip, Rev. Wright's patriotism, and other issues that didn't really have a lot to do with what these candidates meant to do while in office, were brought up. I might have asked about signing statements, human rights, habeas corpus and stuff like that, but nobody asks me these things.

But I think the thing that annoyed me most was the "flag pin" question. Prior to 9/11, I simply do not recall there being any conspicuous flag pin usage among politicians. I have nothing against the flag, myself. But I just don't get why this is important. We have a war in Iraq. Discussion of a war with Iran. A looming recession. A president who may be the Worst President Ever. The reputation of the US worldwide has taken a hit. It would seem that it would take a person who really cares about this country to want to take all that on. But the flag pin--that's an issue.

But I guess flag pins are just a little way to say you love your country. If someone has one on, you can just really tell that they feel good about America. We should make sure more people wear them.



That's better.

(Man, am I not running for office anytime soon, or what?)