I hope you guys caught the interview John Stewart did with former Governor Rod Blagojevich, because it was embarrassing and awkward in all the right ways. I know that Stewart isn't actually a journalist; indeed, as he points out quite regularly, he's a comedian. But watching him with Blagojevich reminded me how much contempt journalists should hold men Blagojevich in, but many politicians whose crimes involved, say, torturing U.S. citizens. Go watch it at Hulu, here.
For the first time in a long time, I've had the urge to watch a new episode of Law & Order. Glenzilla says:
The 20th season of Law & Order begins tonight on NBC with an episode examining -- and rather clearly advocating for -- prosecutions of Bush officials (especially DOJ lawyers) for authorizing torture. When I was asked to consider writing about this and interviewing the show's Executive Producer and lead writer, the former journalist and Emmy Award-winning René Balcer, I was very skeptical that doing so would be worthwhile -- for all the obvious reasons. But I then read the script for the episode and was genuinely impressed: although it is burdened by the requisite conventions of network drama, it's a far more sophisticated, knowledgeable and substantive discussion of accountability issues and torture than one typically hears on, say, cable news or Sunday morning talk shows. I actually recommend watching it, and hope that it receives substantial attention.
I spoke with Balcer yesterday for roughly 10 minutes about the episode, what prompted him to write it, and what he hopes to achieve. It can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below. Three specific aspects of the episode impressed me most: (1) its depiction of torture and those who authorized it is deliberately realistic, so it's crystal clear exactly which Bush officials they are indicting (it contains the infamous Yoo endorsement of presidential testicle-crushing); (2) it focuses on the deaths caused by the American torture regime, not merely some "water poured down three people's noses"; and, most of all: (3) it develops a plausible and thoughtful theory for how criminal liability could be imposed on the DOJ lawyers who authorized Bush's torture. If nothing else, this depiction of the brutality of America's torture and the need for accountability will likely reach at least some who haven't been previously exposed to such arguments, and provides a good counterweight to the standard depiction of torture in American entertainment as something employed by heroic protectors.
Intruiged? Go, read.
I remember watching an episode of Law & Order a few years back. It was shortly after I had written my sophomore research paper (in High School). I was writing about Henry Kissinger's role in the 9/11 coup of Chile's Allende. I was--an am now more than ever--convinced that Kissinger, not to mention Pinochet, are war criminals and should be put on trial for their crimes against both humanity and the Chilean people.
There was an episode of Law & Order that actually dealt with war crimes in Chile. It was one of the better treatment of the byzantine international legal issues around prosecuting war criminals. It ends with Jack McCoy, or whatever his name is, in front of the Supreme Court arguing that, though there is no technical court jurisdiction, there are some crimes that should fall into any jurisdiction.
A quick thought. We have here in the U.S. laws against torture. We tortured; we have jurisdiction, and yet we will not prosecute the heinous crimes our government committed.
And now for something lighthearted. An oh snap on the floor of the senate (via Ezra Klein):
|