PBS's Torturing Democracy

Two important documentaries that should not be missed this weekend: Torturing Democracy and Soldiers of Conscience. If there's only time for one, Torturing is much more pressing, and brilliantly done (Journalistically impeccable, it was produced by the National Security Archive). It's amazing that in a video like this, which illustrates, definitively, that torture as an official policy was instituted by high-ranking members of the Bush Administration, Reagan Era foreign policy machinators like Richard Armitage are some of the good guys. It's equally amazing that if the supposed "War on Terror" is really about finding actionable intelligence that the government might use to prevent further attacks, this in-depth documentary becomes even more frightening.



Yes, it is getting harder to believe that the goal really is purely about intelligence-gathering, considering that specialists dispassionately agree that torture yields no dependable, actionable intelligence whatsoever (In fact, it's generous to only say it impedes intelligence efforts, notwithstanding the loss of moral leadership and suasion, international cooperation, founding principles, etc.). However, from our current political dystopic* reality we have learned that a few scalps are needed from time-to-time for short-term, politically expedient reasons. The long-term aim and effect of this is perpetuating the arbitrary, secretive and unaccountable power for power's sake ethos that has become standard operating procedure for the purveyors of the unitary executive. Be afraid, be very afraid, indeed.



As a long aside: There was what appears to be an attempt to bury the documentary's airing until the day after Bush leaves office. Democrats like Sen Jay Rockefeller and others of "The Gang of Eight"-----Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, etc.----have a lot to be embarrassed about as well, since they acquiesced to these "enhanced" methods. But Rockefeller, in particular, appears highly suspect in blocking the documentary from airing at PBS's Washington affiliate, WETA, in notable contradistinction to 65% of other affiliates, and every other major market like New York and L.A. Why, keeping in mind they approached PBS over a year ago with this documentary? From the Daily Beast:

The program manager for WETA also told the producers that the station simply had “no free time" until early next year [“no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009”—the day after Bush leaves office]. It’s worth noting that WETA’s CEO is Sharon Percy Rockefeller. She is the daughter of one senator and the wife of another—Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller. While neither Rockefeller nor Congressional oversight play any role in the documentary, there can be little doubt but that it raises painful questions for him. As public demands for accountability over torture policy rise, both Administration critics and defenders point to the role of the “Gang of Eight”—of which Rockefeller was one of the most prominent members. According to the Administration, they were briefed in detail about torture policies and acquiesced. Rockefeller handwrote a letter of protest after one briefing concerning the Administration’s broad-based surveillance program and locked a copy in his safe—but there is no suggestion he did anything comparable when torture was the issue. If the next Administration opts to fully air the dark secrets surrounding the Bush Administration torture policies—as many now anticipate—Rockefeller may well have reason to be concerned about what will come out.

In addition, documents only alluded to by Jane Meyer of New Yorker Magazine in her ground-breaking book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, are laid out for us in this indicting documentary.



The politicization of PBS is nothing new, like last year when the administration "proposed to cut it 50% for 2009, 56% for 2010" and "eliminate public funding for PBS altogether in 2011" in response to the rather even-handed program, Bush's War. But, if one is interested more in this latest manifestation of government politicization of the public airwaves, international human rights lawyer and writer, Scott Horton, is interviewed about it here.



*The first use of the word "dystopia" as John Stuart Mill meant it when addressing Parliament in 1863 is more apt for our current dilemma than a mere Huxley or Orwellian antonym for "utopia." About Utopians, he said:

It is, perhaps, too complimentary to call them Utopians, they ought rather to be called dystopians, or caco-topians. What is commonly called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favor is too bad to be practicable.

That what our leadership appears "to favor is too bad to be practicable" is at this point a possibly fatal understatement.



Update: Here WETA caves.