The Political Chase

Are We Governed by Sociopaths?

For years I and countless others have questioned the motives and logic behind the nefarious activities of George Bush and his administration. Most Americans, and the entire world for that matter, have learned at varying points that no matter how much we openly disagree with the president, nor how reprehensible and unconscionable the majority deem his actions to be, George Bush could care less and rebukes change in any form. Few would hesitate to question his mental state. Many could easily argue George Bush is a sociopath.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the past, George Bush says he has not nor will not allow torture, however the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage has revealed evidence to the contrary.

Top military lawyers have told senators that President Bush’s new rules for CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists could allow abuses that violate the Geneva Conventions, according to Senate and military officials.

The Judge Advocates General of all branches of the military told the senators [Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and a representative for John McCain] that a July 20 executive order establishing rules for the treatment of CIA prisoners appeared to be carefully worded to allow humiliating or degrading interrogation techniques when the interrogators’ objective is to protect national security rather than to satisfy sadistic impulses. (Emphasis added.)

The JAGs cited language in the executive order in which Bush said CIA interrogators may not use “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual.” As an example, it lists “sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation.”

Among lawyers, “for the purpose” language is often used to mean that a person must specifically intend to do something, such as causing humiliation, in order to violate a statute. The JAGs said Bush’s wording appears to make it legal for interrogators to undertake that same abusive action if they had some other motive, such as gaining information.

The JAGs are not alone in their opinion.

Two former Reagan administration officials, Robert S. Turner and P.X. Kelley…[criticized] Bush’s order as a violation of the Geneva Conventions that could endanger captured US soldiers by eroding respect for the treaty. Among their criticisms, they also singled out the “for the purpose” wording.

“As long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not ‘done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual’ — even if that is an inevitable consequence — the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in ‘willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse,’ ” the two wrote.

Now, if the president truly intended to not allow torture, he would simply correct the language in the executive order. But, if his original intent was to have slick wording provide a back door for torturing he would reject the claims, which is precisely what the administration did.

Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, yesterday rejected that interpretation of the order. In an e-mail, he said the order “simply requires AN intent to humiliate and degrade the individual” — for any reason — before an interrogator’s conduct would be considered a war crime. He said this standard was consistent with how international war crimes tribunals have interpreted the treaty.

But in an interview yesterday, [Robert] Turner, who is now a University of Virginia law professor, said the Justice Department was “playing games,” and called its explanation “a con.” He said “the only reasonable interpretation of that language is that if your purpose in doing this is not to humiliate and degrade the guy, then that clause doesn’t apply.”

The solution is anything but complex. What possible reason could the Bush administration give to not support removing the slightest possibility of ambiguity? Refusing to change the language is ample evidence of intent and not doing so defies all social norms.

So, here again the opportunity presents itself to question George Bush’s behavior and unfortunately his behavior and characteristics are frighteningly the same as those of a sociopath. Dick Cheney fits the mold as well.

First, what is a sociopath? The term sociopath is most often used in public discourse as a replacement for what mental health professionals define as antisocial personality disorder.

The DSM-IV definition for antisocial personality disorder:

“Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

According to the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) this is the profile or “summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.” I find item 15 to be particularly applicable.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other related qualities:

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.

Pentagon Creates Surge ‘War Room’ to Battle Press after ‘Petraeus Report’

The Pentagon is preparing to wage its own media war to support the Bush administration’s September troop surge report (formerly known as the Petraeus Report). The campaign war room, officially referred to as the Iraq Communications Desk, will be a 24-hours-per-day, seven-days-per-week operation that will “pump out data from Baghdad.

Of course, the Pentagon denies it will be a propaganda machine, instead the Pentagon describe is a “high priority effort to distribute Defense Department information on Iraq.” They see it as a “smarter way of doing business” with an an object to ?create a central clearinghouse of information so we can pull in all that is coming out of Baghdad and Iraq and have it come into one point, so we can better be able to share it with people who are interested.?

It sounds much more like FOX News on steroids.

Isn’t it a bit suspect that now after almost five years of failure after failure, the Pentagon decides it needs to undertake a massive effort to keep the public informed about what’s going on in Iraq?

They can call it what the want, but it’s another White House Iraq Group.