The Continued Decline of the Apology
Jan. 17th, 2007 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenThis article contains most of what you already know. From what I understand, this guy thinks that these law firms are somehow playing a hidden agenda in offering pro bono services to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Could one of the lawyers on my f'list explain to me how defending--for free--people suspected of being terrorists and enemies of the United States would ever accomplish anything for a law firm? What goal, what press, what attention could they possibly garner through this move that would be positive? The best they get is the pat on the hand from the deans of law schools who see--rightly--that the public outing of these firms (again, weren't exactly publishing this connection, so what plans?) with a threat against their solvency by encouraging their clients to drop them is not only hateful, but thoroughly un-American.
I won't go into how absurd it is that this guy actively wanted retribution against firms representing detainees. For one, they're not even going to really get trials--the government has since declared they don't have a right to a trial at all, let alone a fair one. For two, my god! Habeus corpus is dead? We don't have a problem with this?
That stuff has been covered, and better. I'm more appalled and frustrated with this right now. The man who said "I think quite honestly when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists that hit their bottom line in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms" has come up with "I didn't mean exactly what you know I meant" for his apology.
Is...is he kidding?
He said, quite literally, that the detainees represented, without mitigating his remarks, were terrorists, drawing that thick line that Bush likes to draw--"with us or ag'in us!"--that anyone the government suspects is a terrorist, well, naturally, they must be a terrorist. And anyone who goes "they have the right to an attorney...right?" is automatically a terrorist supporter. At best, they're a noble idiot, confused by that whole Constitutional Rights thing (so passe!); at worst, they're the people killing babies in Iraq and they probably were responsible for 9/11.
Charles “Cully” Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said his criticism of the lawyers on a local radio program last week did not reflect his “core beliefs.”
“My comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo....”
You. Called. Them. Terrorists.
Exactly how could you have intended to leave a different impression? How did you manage to leave such a definite, awful awful awful one unintentionally? How the hell do you expect people to swallow your horseshit apology when you deny the words you said?
Thus do we arrive at the title of my post: the decline of the apology. There is a belief that if someone wrongs you, and you go to them, sincerely, and say the magic words, "I am sorry," that you may earn their forgiveness. That's all well and good a moral system as it carries with it the implication that you admit you have done wrong, you regret the pain or fear or loss you caused, and that you wish for forgiveness at the same time as you pledge to correct your behavior.
When you go before the people you've threatened with financial ruin and public shaming and tell them "Sorry, you misheard me," or "I was drunk, didn't know what I was saying," or "it's not really as bad as reported," you imply that they are at least partially at fault for your transgression. People get all self-righteous about the movie stars running around spouting off racial/ethnic epithets, but wait until the star-in-question apologizes, and then they get really ugly. Because we're told that forgiveness is divine, and that holding a grudge over a slur (which, you know, is really all being called "A FREEDOM-HATING MURDERER OF INNOCENTS" is) is bitter, petty, and wrong in and of itself. They apologized, didn't they? They want forgiveness, right?
But "sorry, there was a miscommunication" is not an apology. This man made his remarks in the starkest language possible--no "these law firms might find that their actions hurt their bottom line, if you follow me"--and did so in a public forum, where he spoke with authority and access, editorializing what he claims was a request for these names via the Freedom of Information Act (unsubstantiated at present), which is supposed to protect us from the very belief he espoused with his hate speech. He said, "I think X," and X is un-American, abusive, and--and this is the reason for the outburst, alas--unpopular idea right now (three years ago, he would have had Red America marching to burn down corporate offices for these firms). Now, he wants us to believe that just because we heard him say, in the exact words, "I think X," there was a problem with our hearing and/or his delivery. Perhaps he meant, "In a perfect world, where the goverment that employs assholes like me could get whatever it wants, X would be the case; as is, I can only hope for this to happen, and that's my two cents, but it's not going to, and I can't sanction it officially." That's quite different from "BOYCOTT ZOMG!"
Really, though "doesn't reflect his core values"? On any other case, then, we are to assume, lawyers working for free? Ayyyyyy, thumbs up Fonzie-style (loved, loved, loved how one of these firms is supposedly now representing Libby at his trial--yeah, they should totally get boycotted by him, see how well that goes for this jerk's dear leaders then). "I don't really believe that" is not an apology. That's an accusation--"You're putting words in my mouth!" No, you called people names, assaulted their integrity, accused them of conspiracy. The public just held up the mirror.
So, no, actually, we don't have to forgive him any more than anyone has to forgive, say, Mel Gibson or Michael Richards, or George Allen. Their apologies (with some more credit to Gibson, he's come farther along asking for forgiveness genuninely) were "meet me halfway, and let's just pretend it didn't happen?" non-apologies. But, so long as they put in that tone of "aww, shucks, I didn't mean it" and throw in the magic word "sorry," the people who don't and shouldn't have to forgive them are going to be forced to--because then they'll be the ones at fault, even though they received no apology, not even an explanation of why this dickhead felt the way he did about lawyers/the Jews/black people/Asian people/the homos. If you do not acknowledge that you, you alone, your actions, your words were wrong, not just unpopular or misrepresented, you do not get forgiveness you are not due.
What I'd want from this guy? "Yes, that's how I felt. The administration does not support my statements, but that's my personal opinion. I will not be allowed to exercise my blatantly anti-Constitutional beliefs in any way." He's still a symptom of an administration run amok with power madness, still a dickweed, but he's not an emotionally manipulative lying bastard who gets away with it. I didn't bother writing what his sincere apology would be because I've seen what he thinks is an apology, and I'm not having any of it. He does not even understand that he was wrong. He cannot ever apologize, truly, if this is the case. He's made his excuses, and now he wants people to forget. The best we can hope for is that he loses his job. However, seeing as a replacement would only learn from his lesson and be less overt about any hate-mongering anti-freedom/anti-rights speeches, that might not be as comforting as originally thought.
I won't go into how absurd it is that this guy actively wanted retribution against firms representing detainees. For one, they're not even going to really get trials--the government has since declared they don't have a right to a trial at all, let alone a fair one. For two, my god! Habeus corpus is dead? We don't have a problem with this?
That stuff has been covered, and better. I'm more appalled and frustrated with this right now. The man who said "I think quite honestly when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists that hit their bottom line in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms" has come up with "I didn't mean exactly what you know I meant" for his apology.
Is...is he kidding?
He said, quite literally, that the detainees represented, without mitigating his remarks, were terrorists, drawing that thick line that Bush likes to draw--"with us or ag'in us!"--that anyone the government suspects is a terrorist, well, naturally, they must be a terrorist. And anyone who goes "they have the right to an attorney...right?" is automatically a terrorist supporter. At best, they're a noble idiot, confused by that whole Constitutional Rights thing (so passe!); at worst, they're the people killing babies in Iraq and they probably were responsible for 9/11.
Charles “Cully” Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said his criticism of the lawyers on a local radio program last week did not reflect his “core beliefs.”
“My comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo....”
You. Called. Them. Terrorists.
Exactly how could you have intended to leave a different impression? How did you manage to leave such a definite, awful awful awful one unintentionally? How the hell do you expect people to swallow your horseshit apology when you deny the words you said?
Thus do we arrive at the title of my post: the decline of the apology. There is a belief that if someone wrongs you, and you go to them, sincerely, and say the magic words, "I am sorry," that you may earn their forgiveness. That's all well and good a moral system as it carries with it the implication that you admit you have done wrong, you regret the pain or fear or loss you caused, and that you wish for forgiveness at the same time as you pledge to correct your behavior.
When you go before the people you've threatened with financial ruin and public shaming and tell them "Sorry, you misheard me," or "I was drunk, didn't know what I was saying," or "it's not really as bad as reported," you imply that they are at least partially at fault for your transgression. People get all self-righteous about the movie stars running around spouting off racial/ethnic epithets, but wait until the star-in-question apologizes, and then they get really ugly. Because we're told that forgiveness is divine, and that holding a grudge over a slur (which, you know, is really all being called "A FREEDOM-HATING MURDERER OF INNOCENTS" is) is bitter, petty, and wrong in and of itself. They apologized, didn't they? They want forgiveness, right?
But "sorry, there was a miscommunication" is not an apology. This man made his remarks in the starkest language possible--no "these law firms might find that their actions hurt their bottom line, if you follow me"--and did so in a public forum, where he spoke with authority and access, editorializing what he claims was a request for these names via the Freedom of Information Act (unsubstantiated at present), which is supposed to protect us from the very belief he espoused with his hate speech. He said, "I think X," and X is un-American, abusive, and--and this is the reason for the outburst, alas--unpopular idea right now (three years ago, he would have had Red America marching to burn down corporate offices for these firms). Now, he wants us to believe that just because we heard him say, in the exact words, "I think X," there was a problem with our hearing and/or his delivery. Perhaps he meant, "In a perfect world, where the goverment that employs assholes like me could get whatever it wants, X would be the case; as is, I can only hope for this to happen, and that's my two cents, but it's not going to, and I can't sanction it officially." That's quite different from "BOYCOTT ZOMG!"
Really, though "doesn't reflect his core values"? On any other case, then, we are to assume, lawyers working for free? Ayyyyyy, thumbs up Fonzie-style (loved, loved, loved how one of these firms is supposedly now representing Libby at his trial--yeah, they should totally get boycotted by him, see how well that goes for this jerk's dear leaders then). "I don't really believe that" is not an apology. That's an accusation--"You're putting words in my mouth!" No, you called people names, assaulted their integrity, accused them of conspiracy. The public just held up the mirror.
So, no, actually, we don't have to forgive him any more than anyone has to forgive, say, Mel Gibson or Michael Richards, or George Allen. Their apologies (with some more credit to Gibson, he's come farther along asking for forgiveness genuninely) were "meet me halfway, and let's just pretend it didn't happen?" non-apologies. But, so long as they put in that tone of "aww, shucks, I didn't mean it" and throw in the magic word "sorry," the people who don't and shouldn't have to forgive them are going to be forced to--because then they'll be the ones at fault, even though they received no apology, not even an explanation of why this dickhead felt the way he did about lawyers/the Jews/black people/Asian people/the homos. If you do not acknowledge that you, you alone, your actions, your words were wrong, not just unpopular or misrepresented, you do not get forgiveness you are not due.
What I'd want from this guy? "Yes, that's how I felt. The administration does not support my statements, but that's my personal opinion. I will not be allowed to exercise my blatantly anti-Constitutional beliefs in any way." He's still a symptom of an administration run amok with power madness, still a dickweed, but he's not an emotionally manipulative lying bastard who gets away with it. I didn't bother writing what his sincere apology would be because I've seen what he thinks is an apology, and I'm not having any of it. He does not even understand that he was wrong. He cannot ever apologize, truly, if this is the case. He's made his excuses, and now he wants people to forget. The best we can hope for is that he loses his job. However, seeing as a replacement would only learn from his lesson and be less overt about any hate-mongering anti-freedom/anti-rights speeches, that might not be as comforting as originally thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-17 09:45 pm (UTC)He apologized because he was required to do so, the same way all the other figures you've mentioned apologized. Not because they do not still sincerely believe that they're right, but because some half-baked father-figure somewhere said, "Say you're sorry." But it's all lip service.
His real crime, these days, was his honesty -- he said what he thought, as opposed to a carefully crafted Message. Now, to get off timeout, he's got to Say He's Sorry. Nobody will actually believe he is, but that's the dance, you see. Which you know full well.
This country won't get better until we stop accepting apologies and start demanding sackings. Not for his thoughts, but for publicly revealing private information and engaging in unprofessional, blatantly retaliatory action. I'm just glad that we have at least a few red-state representatives who have enough political sense to lie that they don't like what he said...
eh, don't mind me, I'm just particularly cynical today.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-17 10:00 pm (UTC)Pessimistic as I am, I hope this is not true. I would hope we could still do public self-recrimination and apology and prove our sincerity. Perhaps not.
His real crime, these days, was his honesty -- he said what he thought, as opposed to a carefully crafted Message. Now, to get off timeout, he's got to Say He's Sorry. Nobody will actually believe he is, but that's the dance, you see. Which you know full well.
See, I think honesty was the problem; he wasn't honest about his apology or his statement of his beliefs. He was honest the first time around. If he doesn't think that was wrong, why apologize? Since he tried to apologize, it smells of someone making him. Since he utterly failed to actually apologize, it came off as insincere. If he had retracted his remarks entirely, realized what his wishes meant in the grand scheme (aka that no one the government doesn't like should enjoy the freedoms and rights of citizens as established by the Constittion), and been contrite, he might have been okay.
This country won't get better until we stop accepting apologies and start demanding sackings
Amen. We have to conquer the guilt of not accepting an apology-that-isn't or excuses masquerading as apologies, and start saying, "Either you admit you're wrong and stop that shit now, or we replace you" (hello, Democratic Congress).
I'm just glad that we have at least a few red-state representatives who have enough political sense to lie that they don't like what he said...
This isn't a comfort to me. I'd prefer them to be stupid enough to say they agree so we can expose them and oust them.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-17 10:29 pm (UTC)Oh! Yes, that's what I meant. I meant that original honesty was his offense, and the subsequent apology is just a punishment -- he's being made to say it (or, for all we know, he didn't say it at all, and the office published an apology on his behalf -- though if so, it probably would've been a tad more apologetic).
And, my gut is that he is absolutely 100% insincere. He does know that the logical extension of his beliefs is that only people who agree with him and are of the same class/race/creed/etc. as him should have constitutional rights; he just thinks that's ok. It's been a pretty marked streak in American patriotism/nationalism from the beginning (Alien and Sedition Acts) to the present, and it's not at all surprising that someone who grew up during the Cold War and in the Reagan era, and probably idealizing those Cold Warriors who "kept us safe from Communism, whatever the cost" might have such ideas (in my opinion, at least).
This isn't a comfort to me. I'd prefer them to be stupid enough to say they agree so we can expose them and oust them.
Hmm... agreed. However, the fact that they felt compelled to speak out indicates that the impunity of the Bush White House and the Republican party more generally is considered to be weakening. I like that idea, and also suspect that the Repubs generally aren't stupid enough to do this. It's also possible that most feel they've already fed their supporters enough red meat, but actively participating in the denunciation is a surprising admission of weakness from the generally-unified Republican party.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-18 01:02 am (UTC)However, the fact that they felt compelled to speak out indicates that the impunity of the Bush White House and the Republican party more generally is considered to be weakening.
Well, that, at least is reassuring. Nothing like cold water in the face after they've had their base goose-stepping to their war songs. Sorry, that was harsh, but yeah, I'm jaded and ugly about this these days.