Yesterday I linked to a couple of youtube videos, the creators of which were unable to appreciate the irony in Randy Newman’s songs. I now find myself having to admit that I’m not sure whether I can recognize irony when I see it. In this morning’s Times we read about the “trial” or “military hearing” of Majid Khan, an alleged something or other ( “Mr. Khan has not been charged with those offenses or any others”). Is the reporter trying to be even handed, is he tilting toward the government, or is he being ironic in a way that flies beneath my radar? Gentle reader, you be the judge.
First we learn that Mr. Khan is a highly suspicious person because, as a former long term resident of the United States, he was proficient in English, a skill that enhanced his value to Al Qaeda. Sure enough, he practically admitted that he could speak English:
His language skills were on full display in the transcript of the military hearing, held to determine whether he is being properly held as an enemy combatant.
Mr. Khan repeatedly demanded a lawyer. He complained about the conditions at Guantánamo — at one point deriding the detention camp for its flat basketballs and scolding officials for their “cheap branded, unscented deodorant soap.â€
Then we learn that Mr. Khan complained about the, shall we say, kangaroo nature of the court.
But his own actions are revealed to undermine his argument:
Mr. Khan also took advantage of procedures to have written statements introduced from witnesses, several of whom denied some important details of the government’s accusations.
Yes, that’s right. Mr. Khan took advantage of the procedures. Now who’s not playing fair? Who is he to complain?
And his allegations that he was tortured? Well, so far as the hearing is concerned they appear to be irrelevant, but in any case they were batted away by the very credible Pentagon spokesman who said that the United States does not “conduct or condone torture”, which we all know is true because 1) we are the good guys, and 2) we have defined the term torture to automatically exclude anything that we do while we are doing it.
Despite the fact that he wasn’t tortured (for, by definition, he couldn’t have been), and despite the fact that he took advantage of the court in so may ways:
Mr. Khan often returned to his view that he was facing unfair legal odds.
This is where my irony detector blew it’s fuse. Was the reporter pulling our collective legs or engaging in some subtle form of irony? Is Mr. Khan’s “view” truly just one way to look at a process which may, in fact, be eminently fair? Or, as I would submit, is there no other “view” a rational person could hold? In which case, why attribute the “view” to Mr. Khan, instead of just saying that the court is of the kangaroo variety. At some point the evidence is too overwhelming to play the on the one hand-on the other hand game, isn’t it?
Khan is not allowed a lawyer (except the one he has never met “because of government regulations”), he’s not actually charged with anything except, apparently, being a bad person, he’s not allowed to see the evidence, he’s not allowed to present witnesses, and if, after all that, he manages to eke out a result that the Pentagon doesn’t like (which apparently happens, though it’s hard to believe), the Pentagon can try again and again, as many times as it wants, until it gets a result that it likes.
So help me out here. Is this irony, or is it the usual media dodge of giving equal treatment to opposing viewpoints, even when one is obviously false?
