Stephen Colbert’s considerable command of humor, aided by innovations ideally suited to the rise of viral video and the collapse of barriers between high and low culture his show paralleled, made him his era’s face of liberalism. The sarcasm of his media persona was as fitting a popular symbol of the liberal doctrine in the 21st century as the egghead public-intellectual technocrat exemplified by John Kenneth Galbraith was in the twentieth. Whereas Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s famous statement encapsulating liberal historiography, “liberalism in America has ordinarily been the movement on the part of the other sections of society to restrain the power of the business community,” was buried hundreds of pages into a tome on Andrew Jackson, such historical assumptions of an era of failed laissez-faire had become such everybody-knows commonplaces that Colbert could conjure them up with a well-chosen image in seconds.

Unwilling to probe the package deals of red and blue politics, Colbert never treated free markets as anything but part of the Republican agenda; lurking behind the invisible hand was invariably the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Government would be tweaked, but its essence was always identified with its most benign functions like regulating local traffic. Radical left-baiting conservatives pointed admiringly to his ridicule of “extremists.” When they were not seen as embodying laissez-faire, Colbert gave public space without being dismissive to decentralist and genuinely anti-system views of the likes of Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader, and Douglas Rushkoff.

Even while his anti-intellectual, faux populist right-wing persona was an accurate burlesque, Colbert always veered into justifying those intellectuals whose abuse of power was a longtime target of Noam Chomsky and laughing at ordinary people. Chris Hedges noted that Colbert’s approach “ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money.”

Colbert stuck to mocking Bush-style Republicans long after their Democratic successors in executive office continued their policies. With a similar presidential turnover on the horizon, it is time for satire to return to being “anti-reactionary without being progressive” (in the non-complementary words of critic Kenneth Tynan), to the anarchic spirit of Mad magazine which was as gleefully eager to mock liberals as anyone else. Only then will the entire spectrum of establishment political mythology be revealed to be as laughable as Colbert’s puffed-up fiction.

Tal como lo diría amablemente cualquier adicto en recuperación, el primer paso es admitir el problema. El gobierno de Estados Unidos y los medios de comunicación estadounidenses (y, presumiblemente, el público estadounidense que los sigue) aún se niegan tercamente a hacerlo.

Noticia tras noticia vemos referencias al “interrogatorio mejorado” y las “tácticas brutales de interrogación”. Son eufemismos baratos. No hay una admisión franca del problema, sino un intento de parlotear para eludir el problema.

No se trata de “técnicas de interrogatorio mejoradas”. Tampoco estamos hablando de “tácticas brutales de interrogación”. El tema en cuestión es la tortura.

La tortura está claramente definida en la ley de Estados Unidos (18 US Code §2340): “[U]n acto cometido por una persona que actúe bajo apariencia de legalidad destinada específicamente a infligir dolor físico o mental, o sufrimiento severo (que no sea el dolor o sufrimiento incidentalmente causado por sanciones legítimas) a otra persona dentro de su custodia o control físico”.

La tortura está claramente definida en el derecho internacional (Convención de la ONU contra la Tortura): “[T]odo acto por el cual se inflija intencionadamente a una persona dolores o sufrimientos graves, ya sean físicos o mentales, con el fin de obtener de ella o de un tercero información o una confesión, de castigarla por un acto que haya cometido, o se sospeche que haya cometido, o de intimidar o coaccionar a esa persona o a otras, o por cualquier razón basada en cualquier tipo de discriminación, cuando dichos dolores o sufrimientos sean infligidos por un funcionario público u otra persona en el ejercicio de funciones públicas, a instigación suya, o con su consentimiento o aquiescencia”.

Estas declaraciones legales de los estados son informativas, pero realmente no las necesitamos para llegar a la conclusión de que las acciones descritas en el informe – el ahogamiento simulado, la privación del sueño y la infusión forzada de sustancias en el recto de las víctimas, por nombrar tres – constituyen hechos de tortura, solo de tortura y nada más que de tortura. No existe una definición razonable de la tortura a la que no se ajusten las acciones descritas.

De esa conclusión primaria debemos sacar una inevitable conclusión secundaria: Las personas involucradas en toda la cadena de mando que desemboca en la tortura, desde los operadores encargados de su aplicación directa hasta el presidente de los Estados Unidos, son criminales violentos y peligrosos, y serían reconocidos como tales en cualquier sociedad sana independientemente de si existiesen leyes codificadas para describir sus delitos.

La pregunta, por supuesto, es qué hacer al respecto. Las sugerencias convencionales van desde “nada” a “llevar a cabo unas cuantas audiencias del Senado y tener fe en que el problema desaparecerá”, o “nombrar a un fiscal especial para que sacrifique a algunos de los criminales menos conectados para que podamos seguir adelante con nuestras vidas”.

Incluso en los círculos más radicales se sugieren cosas como poner a los EE.UU. bajo la jurisdicción de la Corte Penal Internacional y llevar la banda criminal completa a La Haya para someterla a juicio.

El segundo paso en los programas de recuperación de adicciones de 12 pasos implica el reconocimiento de un “poder superior”. El segundo paso en cualquier programa de renuncia a la tortura es el reconocimiento de que el “poder superior” por ahora existente – el Estado – es en realidad el verdadero problema.

El Estado otorga poderes extremos a sus agentes, en especial sobre los presos y detenidos. Ese poder corrompe, habilitando a esos agentes para abusar y torturar, tal como lo observaron varios psicólogos sociales en el experimento de la prisión de Stanford.

La estructura del Estado también protege a sus agentes de la rendición de cuentas, envolviendo las discusiones sobre la violencia estatal con eufemismos, y transformando el debate de la tortura como delito en uno sobre la tortura como política. Por otra parte, el monopolio estatal sobre la ley otorga el poder de enjuiciamiento y sentencia al propio Estado. Los torturadores saben que es poco probable que se les someta a la justicia.

Si toleramos el Estado, toleramos la tortura. Y ya hace tiempo que es hora de que dejemos de tolerar a ambos.

Artículo original publicado por Thomas L. Knapp el 10 de diciembre de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

Come direbbe un tossicodipendente che cerca di uscire dal circolo, come prima cosa bisogna ammettere l’esistenza del problema. Governo e media americani, magari con la popolazione al seguito, ancora si rifiutano risolutamente di farlo.

Articolo dopo articolo, leggiamo di “interrogatori estremi” e “tattiche inquisitorie brutali”. Le parole ingannano. Non ammettono il problema. Cercano di girarci attorno.

Il soggetto non è “tecniche inquisitorie estreme”. Non stiamo parlando di “tattiche inquisitorie brutali”. Il soggetto in questione è: tortura.

Le leggi americane definiscono chiaramente il concetto di tortura (18 US Code §2340): “Azione commessa da una persona sotto pretesto legale e intesa ad infliggere forte sofferenza fisica o mentale (altro dal dolore o dalle sofferenze risultanti unicamente da sanzioni legittime, inerenti a tali sanzioni o da esse cagionate) ad altra persona affidata alla sua custodia o controllo.”

Le leggi internazionali (la convenzione Onu contro la tortura) definiscono la tortura altrettanto chiaramente: “[Q]ualsiasi atto mediante il quale sono intenzionalmente inflitti ad una persona dolore o sofferenze forti, fisiche o mentali, al fine segnatamente di ottenere da essa o da una terza persona informazioni o confessioni, di punirla per un atto che essa o una terza persona ha commesso o è sospettata aver commesso, di intimorirla o di far pressione su di lei o di intimorire o di far pressione su una terza persona, o per qualsiasi altro motivo fondato su qualsiasi forma di discriminazione, qualora tale dolore o sofferenze siano inflitte da un agente della funzione pubblica o da ogni altra persona che agisca a titolo ufficiale, o su sua istigazione, o con il suo consenso espresso o tacito.”

Queste descrizioni sono istruttive, ma non ne abbiamo bisogno per arrivare alla conclusione che gli atti descritti nel rapporto (waterboarding, privazione del sonno e l’introduzione a forza di sostanze nel retto delle vittime, tanto per citarne tre) rappresentano tortura, solo tortura e nient’altro che tortura. Non esiste una definizione razionale del termine tortura che non si adatti alle azioni descritte.

Da qui giungiamo inevitabilmente ad una seconda conclusione: Le persone coinvolte nei casi di tortura, dagli esecutori materiali, su su lungo la catena di comando, fino al presidente degli Stati Uniti, sono criminali violenti e pericolosi. Sarebbero riconosciuti come tali in una società sana, che esistano o meno leggi che dicono che le loro azioni sono crimini.

La domanda, ovviamente, è: cosa fare? La risposta degli opinionisti tradizionali varia da “nulla” a “audizioni in senato nella speranza che tutto si dissolva” fino a “nominate un giudice speciale e lasciate che sia lui a far fuori i criminali meno protetti così noi possiamo continuare come sempre”.

Anche le proposte più radicali non vanno oltre il deferimento degli Stati Uniti e la consegna di tutta la banda, dal primo all’ultimo, alla Corte Internazionale dell’Aia.

Nei programmi di disintossicazione in dodici punti, il secondo punto consiste nel riconoscere un “potere superiore”. Il secondo punto di un programma di disintossicazione dalla tortura, il riconoscimento dello stato come “potere superiore” in terra, è in realtà il vero problema.

Lo stato accorda ai suoi rappresentanti un potere estremo, soprattutto sui carcerati e i prigionieri di guerra. Questo potere corrompe, permette ai rappresentanti dello stato di commettere abusi e torturare, come notato dagli psicosociologi nell’esperimento condotto nella prigione di Stanford.

Lo stato, inoltre, protegge i suoi uomini dalle accuse di responsabilità, nasconde la violenza di stato con eufemismi, devia il discorso dalla tortura come crimine alla tortura come politica. E poiché lo stato ha il monopolio della legge, tutto il processo penale è nelle sue mani. I torturatori sanno che difficilmente saranno processati.

Se tolleriamo lo stato, tolleriamo la tortura. È più che mai ora di smetterla di tollerare entrambi.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

As any recovering addict will helpfully inform you, the first step is admitting the problem. The US government and American media (and presumably following them, the America public) still resolutely refuse to do that.

In story after story, we see references to “enhanced interrogation” and “brutal interrogation tactics.” Those are weasel words. They’re not admissions of the problem, they’re attempts to talk around the problem.

We’re not talking about “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Nor are we discussing “brutal interrogation tactics.” The subject in question is torture.

Torture is clearly defined in US law (18 US Code §2340): “[A]n act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

Torture is clearly defined in international law (the UN Convention Against Torture): “[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

These summations in the laws of states are informative, but we don’t really need them to conclude that the actions described in the report — waterboarding, sleep deprivation and the forced infusion of substances into victims’ rectums, to name three — are torture, all torture and nothing but torture. There exists no reasonable definition of torture that the described actions don’t conform to.

From that primary conclusion we must inevitably draw a secondary conclusion: The persons involved in the torture, from the operators actually implementing it all the way up the chain of command to the president of the United States, are violent, dangerous criminals and would be recognized as such in any sane society, regardless of whether or not codified law existed to describe their offenses.

The question, of course, is what to do about it. “Mainstream” suggestions range from “nothing” to “hold some Senate hearings and hope it goes away” to “appoint a special prosecutor and let him throw some of the less well-connected criminals under the bus so we can get on with life.”

Even at the radical end of the spectrum, suggestions tend to run to things like putting the US under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and conducting a wholesale rendition of the gang, from top to bottom, to the Hague for trial.

The second step in 12-step addiction recovery programs involves recognizing a “higher power.” The second step in any torture recovery program is recognition that the existing temporal “higher power” — the state — is in fact the real problem.

The state bestows extreme power upon its agents, especially over prisoners and detainees. That power corrupts, enabling those agents to abuse and torture, as social psychologists observed in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The state’s structure also protects its agents from accountability, shrouding discussions of state violence in euphemism, turn the debate from torture as a crime to torture as policy. Furthermore, the state’s monopoly on law leaves prosecution and adjudication up to the state itself. Torturers know they’re unlikely to face justice.

If we tolerate the state, we tolerate torture. It’s time and past time we stopped tolerating either.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Prima Cosa, Ammettere le Torture
• Spanish, El primer paso es admitir la tortura

This criticism is made all the more easier when you are not present within the nation that is being governed. An outsider’s perspective, where only the bad news makes headlines, and only the tragedies live long in the memory. This is the position I find myself in currently with more news reaching us in the UK of the atrocious manner in which Obama and his administration continues to conduct business.

The hope that Obama was a bright new future for the American people faded almost as soon as he was inaugurated. His policies at home and abroad, no matter what he may say and feel personally, prove that he is only a continuation of a long line of puppets. Away from the bright lights of the oval office sit the real masters, and they have Obama dance a similar tune to that of the previous President.

The importance of this show cannot be overstated. The US is the world’s only superpower, as much as Russia would hate to admit it. With its position within the world, the US lays at the centre of a tangled web of international geo-politics and decisions. Phonecalls cannot be made in Germany without the US listening in, papers cannot be signed in the UK without its nod of approval, and rockets cannot be fired in Israel without the supply arriving from North America.

The US appears to be at the centre of most things. The doctrine of “follow the money” inevitably leads you back to those in and around the White House. It is because of the US’s global position, and because of its impact, that if real change is to be made in this world, it needs to begin within the United States.

The war crimes committed by Israel recently are simply another offence to add to the rap sheet of that criminal state. UN resolutions have been continuously broken, economic blockades have been put in place, human rights have been violated, and illegal settlements are springing up at an alarming rate.

Palestinian resistance to this is often no more than throwing rocks at tanks and bulldozers as they roll through their towns and villages. The futility of that action is not just evident by the fact the rock causes no damage to the tank, but also that the tank is the wrong target.

Israeli action in Palestine is a direct result of decisions made above the White House. They say that the White House is the “highest office in the land”, but I can assure you there are many who look down upon on Obama. The real enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Israeli oppressor, but is in fact the people who support, fund and defend Israeli action. Attacking Israel is attacking the effect, and it is vital that you get to the cause.

With Gazan Twitter users sending advice to those Americans in Ferguson, it is this realisation that struck me. Though one is based in Palestine, fighting an Israeli oppressor, they both face the same enemy. Palestine’s struggle against Israel will never end in victory unless the people of the United States partake in a similar struggle against their own oppressors, the US government.

As disgusting as the events of Ferguson are, the real disgust should come in the knowledge that this is not an isolated incident. These scenes and these actions are relatively common on US soil, and each one further reinforces the fact that the US government views its own people as enemies.

Robert David Steele, a former marine and member of the CIA, recently presented a paper which was based on the findings from his latest book. He told the gathered audience “that all the major preconditions for revolution… were now present in the United States”. With everything in place, there needs only to be a spark to ignite the flames of revolution. A revolution which is long overdue, and much needed.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations declared that former colonies of the defeated powers “are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” These included the Arabs (and others) in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the Levant (today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel). Because they were not ready for independence and self-government, the covenant stated, their “well-being and development” should be “entrusted to advanced nations who … can best undertake this responsibility.”

In other words, the losers’ colonies would become the winners’ colonies. British and French politicians would judge when the Arabs (and Kurds) were fit to govern themselves. Until then, they would remain under the loving care of enlightened Europeans. On the few occasions when Arabs failed to appreciate their good fortune and resisted, their benefactors had to punish them with tough love in the form of aerial bombardment and other means of modern warfare. It was for the natives’ own good, of course.

Or that’s had the imperialists told it. Only a cynic could believe that their economic and political interests lay behind this neocolonialist system.

We might keep this history in mind as we view with increasing horror what is taking place in the newly declared Islamic State (formerly ISIL or ISIS) in large parts of British- and French-created Iraq and Syria.

No one can say how the Middle East would have turned out if the Western powers had butted out after the Great War and let the Arabs, Kurds, and others find their own way in the modern world. But treating the indigenous populations like children cannot have advanced the cause of peaceful civilization.

It’s no exaggeration to say that virtually every current problem in the region stems at least in part from the imperial double cross and carve-up that took place after the war. And the immediate results of the European betrayal were then exacerbated by further acts of intervention and neocolonialism, most recently: President George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War and embargo on Iraq; President Bill Clinton’s continued embargo and bombing of Iraq; President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and overthrow of the secular regime of Saddam Hussein (al-Qaeda, of which the Islamic State is an offshoot, was not in Iraq before this); President Barack Obama’s support (until recently) for the corrupt, autocratic Shi’ite government in Baghdad; and Obama’s throwing in with those seeking to oust secular Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which made that country a magnet for radical Sunni jihadis, the same who are now threatening genocide against Shi’ites, Christians, and Yazidis in Iraq. (Thus Obama’s policy is at war with itself.)

History alone does not tell us what, if anything, outside powers should do now; there’s no going back in time. But we can say that without foreign interference, even a violent evolution of the region might have been far less violent than it has been during the last century. At least, the violent factions would not be seeking revenge against Americans.

The rise of the brutal Islamic State, with its unspeakable violence against innocents, is an appalling but unsurprising outcome of the last 100 years, including seven decades of neocolonialist American intervention. This suggests that U.S. intervention at this stage will only come to grief by boosting anti-American jihadi recruitment and even encouraging the targeting of Americans at home. Wars never go as planned. After all this time, any so-called “humanitarian” intervention will be interpreted in imperialist terms — and should be.

The U.S. government must get out of Iraq (etc.). Intervention not only violates the rights of Americans; it is sure to exacerbate the violence in that pitiable region.

This reminder is unsurprising. Throughout Iraq’s history, western powers have always stood over its shoulders, issuing their own demands for their own purposes. Ever since its birth, Iraq has been a prime example of why foreign interventions almost always create more problems than they solve.

For instance, the current chaos in Iraq is a direct result of the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Going further back, Saddam Hussein’s crimes were aided by a US government that sold him chemical weapons, which he then infamously used against the Kurds. In fact, much of the nation’s ethnic tensions can be blamed on the arbitrary borders drawn by the British after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the First World War.

Obama assures us that he “will not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq,” acknowledging that “there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.” Yet as his actions show, what counts as a solution will be determined by terms laid down by him and the government he represents.

Even if he keeps his word and does not issue another full-scale invasion, he still presumes the right to dictate Iraq’s future. Iraq is still the property of the United States.

A second unspoken message has been the disregard for whatever human life happens to be in the way of operations carried out by the United States military. Obama is right to condemn the truly horrifying crimes committed by ISIL in the harshest terms possible. Even so, this is not an excuse for his administration to begin slaughtering innocents on its own through the inevitable collateral damage.

No matter how precisely “targeted” these strikes really are, completely innocent people will be a part of the body count. Of course, those deaths come as a regretted, unintentional, undesired side-effect of the strikes, which are aimed at ISIL combatants. However, because modern warfare is such that these deaths will not be of an insubstantial number, and because they can be predicted to happen with near certainty, it is not overstating things to say that this is still murder.

Just as the news of continued American hegemony is no shock, no one should be surprised to learn that the United States government will incinerate innocents in large numbers without impunity. While asserting its claim to strike wherever it wants whenever it wants, the United States government has killed over 2,400 people in the past five years alone with its drone program.

There is another thing that Obama opted not to say, but can be heard loud and clear from his actions, of which the American people should take special note. No matter what commendable values you think a politician holds, you can count on power to push them elsewhere.

The United States government’s long campaign of chaos in Iraq has been a thoroughly bi-partisan project. Under Democrat John F. Kennedy, the CIA took actions to overthrow unfriendly leaders. Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush sold Saddam Hussein the weapons he would use against his own people, before Bush invaded the country in the First Gulf War. Democrat Bill Clinton spent the 90s starving children with sanctions, dropping bombs, and officially changing United States’s Iraq policy to one of regime change.

In 2003, Republican George Walker Bush actualized that policy, by initiating the Second Gulf War. As Americans grew to hate that war more and more, two Democratic Presidential candidates in a row ran campaigns that heavily capitalized off calls for peace.

Now those candidates are in positions to actually decide U.S. policy in Iraq: John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Barack Obama as President. With that power, they have decided to send in military personnel, drop bombs, and maintain American dominance.

Having heard all this, the American people must start to make a statement of their own. They must refuse to fight.

Knowing that the United States military will be used for aggression and domination, no matter who controls it, they must refuse to join. Moreover, they must do all they can to work toward the day when Presidents and Secretaries of State are deprived of the voice they need to make their threats and stake their claims.

Curiously, along with the usual “more and faster, please!” screams from the likes of Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, another current of pro-war advocacy has bubbled up: They claim a “Responsibility To Protect,” spun as a debt incurred from the 2003 Iraq invasion and its fallout.

The train of thought is that the U.S.’s (continued) involvement in Iraq is owed because the emergence of sectarian warfare is, after all, the fault of the US post-Saddam. The arrogantly militaristic Can Do spirit at use here is clear enough already, but this also inherently comes with a rather clipped understanding of basic history. The story of western interference in Iraq does not start with the falsehoods of the “W” Bush Administration. In fact, the modern nation of Iraq itself was stitched together originally as a protectorate under the British, from pieces of the Ottoman Empire broken up after World War One. After the passing of the torch of hegemony from Britain to the U.S., one of the first things the U.S. government did in Iraq was back a coup by the Baathists — including one Saddam Hussein — in 1963. Later on, the CIA would aid Saddam’s regime in chemical weapons attacks.

Turning on the US’s own creation in the ’90s brought more war, sanctions that clearly hit Iraqi civilians much harder than anyone in the regime, and then the invasion and subsequent installation of yet another western client government.

Looking back at the “debt” rationale for new intervention in light of the full record of the past, the naive nature of it is blinding. Following it to the letter effectively places a debt going back nearly a hundred years. However, the currency being proposed for exchange is not the profuse apology & restitution that would take place on the level of non-state individuals, but bombs, missiles, and manipulation. That these make up the initial damage reveals the “offer” of supposed benevolent empire to be a sick joke. What is owed to the Iraq people by the U.S. government, after all this time of bloodshed and lies, is admission of guilt, followed by an exit from the world stage, head held low in shame.

In a nod to recent history, the beginning strikes in this ongoing chapter of empire were launched from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. Without the end of U.S. hegemony, attainable only via the end of the state itself, news viewers may be greeted in 2044 by headlines about President Sasha Obama launching airstrikes on Iraq from the USS John Ellis Bush.