Congress: The Name of In-Action

Tonight I'm going to see "Hamlet" in Central Park. It is the consummate actor's play, and as you may know, I am an actor. My fascination with the play is endless; I always learn and enjoy while watching it, even on the amateur level.

It is the question of "action," around which the play revolves, that draws me in every time. Rash action, thoughtful action, INaction and the consequences that result from each of these. It is no accident that the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy ends with the words "the name of action."

While the speech has been interpreted many ways, it always made the most sense to me that Hamlet discovers--through sophisticated reasoning--that the question is really "to do or not to do." He's not contemplating suicide, but he IS wondering if he should bother doing anything at all. It is my belief that Hamlet here decides that he must take action, otherwise he is already dead.

Why am I going on about this?

Take a look at the video of Nadler, Conyers et al. provided on this blog by Jill Howell, wherein our Representatives question Yoo and Addington about the infamous 2002 torture memo, written to give legal cover to those who willfully violated U.S. laws and the Geneva Conventions set against torture.

Time after time, questions are met with evasions. It gets ugly, frankly. In my opinion, the evasions amount to Contempt of Congress. But even if they don't, shouldn't the Representatives asking these questions remind these men that they could be held in contempt?

The members of the Subcomittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, under the Chairmanship of Jerrold Nadler of New York's 8th CD, have put on a show. They will say, "Well, we tried." Few, perhaps, will argue with them.

But I will. And so, I think, would Hamlet.

Preferring posturing to action, the Subcommittee's "native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er." Its "enterprises of great pith and moment...lose the name of action." In the face of "The oppressor's wrong...the law's delay [and] the insolence of office," Congress appears to be already dead.

Oh, sure, there are some signs of life. John Conyers especially seemed angry and incensed, but ultimately he resigns himself to the charade. He is content, finally, with playing Polonius. Mr. Nadler looks entertained, amused even, by the shenanigans of Yoo and Addington. He may be satisfied with an afternoon's polite entertainment, but I am not. Knowing that he will do nothing to hold this administration truly accountable, once and for all, by supporting impeachment hearings, I find his smile to be insufferable.

I am not the least bit amused by a Justice Department/White House joint cover-up of torture. I'm not smiling.

I'm ready for action.

Power to the People,

Adam

PS: No need to remind me that Hamlet winds up dead by the end of the play. I'm very aware of the risks that certain kinds of action carry. See what's happening to Wexler since he's co-sponsored Kucinich's AoI's. Then write him and thank him for the risk he's taking, if you haven't already.