by
Tom Engelhardt
Quotes of the
week:
"Congress lacks
authority … to set the terms and conditions under which the
president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to
control the conduct of operations during a war…Congress may no
more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate
enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct
troop movements on the battlefield. Accordingly, we would
construe [the law] to avoid this difficulty and conclude that it
does not apply to the president's detention and interrogation of
enemy combatants." (From a 56-page memo, "Detainee
Interrogation in the Global War on Terrorism" written by a legal
team for the Secretary of Defense on the eve of the Iraq War.)
"Congress shall have
the power … to declare war and make rules concerning captures on
land and water … to define offenses against the law of nations
[and] to make rules for the government and regulation of the
land and naval forces." (From the Constitution, David G.
Savage and Richard B. Schmitt,
Lawyers Ascribed Broad Power to Bush on Torture, the Los
Angeles Times)
"We need to have a
less-cramped view of what torture is and is not." (A
military official explaining the approach of the team writing
the above memo, Jess Bravin,
Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture, The
Wall Street Journal)
"It's a very cowboy
kind of affair." (Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, who controlled
the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib
prison, speaking of the actions of the CIA unit there, R.
Jeffrey Smith,
Soldier Described White House Interest, the Washington
Post)
Room 101
For his dystopia,
1984, his classic novel of totalitarianism, George Orwell
created "Room 101," an interrogation room where a prisoner's
deepest fears were to be realized and applied. Tier 1 in Iraq's
Abu Ghraib prison, as the now-infamous photos indicate, was the
Bush administration's Room 101 for the "Arab mind," and so the
crown jewel of its global interrogation facilities; just as
Guantanamo was the "crown jewel" of the prison camps in its
global Bermuda Triangle of injustice; just as the new appointed
"interim government" hidden within the ever-more fortified Green
Zone in Baghdad and led by a prime minister and former CIA asset
whose exile organization,
we learned this week, once set off car bombs in downtown
Baghdad, is now the crown jewel of "freedom and democracy" in
the Middle East. This is our "war against terrorism." Talk about
an Orwellian world.
As it happens, from the
heart of Abu Ghraib's interrogation rooms and the acts of, as
our President and other administration officials have repeatedly
said, "a few people" or even
"a few
hillbillies," the nature of, extent of, knowledge about, and
responsibility for such acts has been rapidly spreading outwards
across the imperium, upwards into the highest reaches of our
government, and backwards in time. We now know, for instance,
that, to the various acts of horror caught on camera in Abu
Graib, we must add murder (or rather numerous murders) in
Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and the use of electric shocks on
prisoners, as
the Marine Corps Times reported recently.
As for the acts we saw
in the photographs, they too have "spread" and knowledge of them
reaches ever higher: To take but two examples,
Nakedness is now reported to have been used as a tool of
humiliation not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and at
Guantanamo, as it was used in one of the earliest acts of
American inhumanity in the war against terrorism, the
interrogation of John Walker Lindh in Afghanistan back in 2001;
while the "technique" of menacing prisoners with dogs -- "an
apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's
field manual" -- has now been well documented at Abu Ghraib
by the Washington Post ("On Jan. 13, Spec. John Harold
Ketzer, a military intelligence interrogator, saw a dog team
corner two male prisoners against a wall, one prisoner hiding
behind the other and screaming, he later told investigators.
‘When I asked what was going on in the cell, the handler stated
that he was just scaring them, and that he and another of the
handlers was having a contest to see how many detainees they
could get to urinate on themselves…'"); but it was also
evidently employed at Guantanamo, according to the Wall
Street Journal.
In the meantime,
responsibility for such actions has moved inexorably upwards. We
know now that interest in information gleaned from
interrogations, ranging from that of John Walker Lindh
to those in Iraq was requested at the highest official
levels (not so surprising, since our offshore mini-gulag was a
pet project of top officials in this administration): "The head
of the interrogation center at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
told an Army investigator in February that he understood some of
the information being collected from prisoners there had been
requested by ‘White House staff,' according to an account of his
statement obtained by The Washington Post." Far more
specifically,
R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White of the Post reported this
Saturday that, despite his denials to Congress, in the fall of
2003, "Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military
officer in Iraq, borrowed heavily from a list of high-pressure
interrogation tactics used at the U.S. detention center in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and approved letting senior officials at a
Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed
sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and
water on detainees whenever they wished, according to newly
obtained documents."
In turn, thanks to
Jess Bravin and Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal, we
now know that in December 2002 Donald Rumsfeld approved a very
similar list of "interrogation techniques" right down to those
dogs for Guantanamo: "U.S. military interrogators at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, could put prisoners in ‘stress positions' for as long
as four hours, hood them and subject them to 20-hour-long
interrogations, ‘fear of dogs' and ‘mild non-injurious physical
contact,' according to [a] list of techniques Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld approved in December 2002." (The list was later
rejiggered not because of any qualms Rumsfeld had but due to
complaints from military officers about the severity of the
methods suggested. The present list of approved techniques
remains classified, but will undoubtedly soon be leaked to the
press.)
The above can be traced
back farther yet. According to "documents, read to The [Los
Angeles] Times by two sources critical of how the government
handled the Lindh case,"
writes journalist Richard Serrano, "After American Taliban
recruit John Walker Lindh was captured in Afghanistan, the
office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instructed
military intelligence officers to ‘take the gloves off' in
interrogating him… In the early stages, his responses were
cabled to Washington hourly, the new documents show… What
happened to Lindh, who was stripped and humiliated by his
captors, foreshadowed the type of abuse documented in
photographs of American soldiers tormenting Iraqi prisoners at
Abu Ghraib."
This, of course, takes
us not only to the top of the administration, but back to the
brink of the -- if I dare put it this way -- Ur-moment in the
setting up of what would become our offshore mini-gulag, those
months right after the 9/11 attacks when the Bush administration
began to set their system in place on the fly and,
as Suzanne Goldenberg of the British Guardian reported
recently, on key issues without initially even consulting White
House or Pentagon lawyers.
"In one instance,
President George Bush's military order of November 13 2001,
which denies prisoner-of-war status to captives from
Afghanistan and allows their detention without charge or
access to a lawyer at Guantánamo, was issued without any
consultations with Pentagon lawyers, a former Pentagon
official said… The military order issued by Mr Bush in
November 2001 was the first such directive since the second
world war, and the administration's failure to seek the
Pentagon's advice on what would emerge as the entire system
of detention at Guantánamo surprised Pentagon officials."
Add it all up -- only
what's been revealed so far -- and you have a global system
of injustice and torture, purposely mounted in the moral and
legal darkness, beyond the reach or oversight of anyone but the
President, vice-president, secretary of defense and associated
officials, meant to extract information (and take revenge),
meant as in Kafka's fictional penal colony to write the sentence
these men had passed on the bodies of America's captives.
And talk about paper
trails! If you need any evidence of the combination of
arrogance, incompetence, and plain stupidity of the Bush
administration, it now sits unavoidably before our eyes. Didn't
they know anything about deniability? Didn't they know that you
can get so much done without committing anything to paper?
Didn't they know that you can signal what you want from the top
without issuing orders, making direct demands, or demanding
supporting opinions on paper?
Note two things here:
That almost all of the above, this whole little global shop of
horrors, is already documented -- quite literally in
papers pouring out of the bowels of this administration. These
documents are leaking daily from an administration that seems to
have split open along many angry rift lines. The
British Telegraph this week, writing of the leaking of a
legal document on torture to the Wall Street Journal
commented, for example:
"The leak appears to
be part of an extraordinary civil war in the Pentagon
between civilian officials and uniformed officers appalled
by what they have described as moves by political appointees
to shroud the war on terrorism in an ‘environment of legal
ambiguity'."
Some in the military,
the intelligence community, the State Department, administration
legal offices, and possibly even the Justice Department opposed
the creation of our mini-gulag and the kinds of interrogations
and conditions planned for it; some simply feared what the
illegality might do to them or their careers, including
evidently
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers who
fretted that he might become "a target for prosecution under
laws governing prisoner treatment"; some are undoubtedly
settling scores; others protecting tattered reputations; but
it's now close to open season on the administration from within.
Only today,
the Los Angeles Times reported that, in a nearly
unprecedented act in our country, 26 ex-military and senior
diplomatic officials, "several appointed to key positions by
Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plan
to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President
George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and
should be defeated in November." And retired officials almost
invariably are speaking for larger constituencies within the
government -- all those potential leakers and mutterers -- who
fear speaking out publicly themselves.
Addressing an Asian security conference
on the administration's "war on terror," Donald Rumsfeld
recently commented : "[T]he reality is that today we remain
closer to the beginning of this struggle than to its end." The
same might be said of the uncovering of responsibility for our
own global terror system. There will be so much more to learn.
Already, when it comes to Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the
Pentagon keeps heaping investigations on top of one another,
each subsequent one led by a figure with a higher rank and so
more capable of investigating responsibility at higher levels,
and I think it can be said with certainty that this will only
get worse -- worse probably than anything we now imagine. After
all, to take but the smallest of examples,
CBS news reports that "of the 20 U.S.-run jails in
[Afghanistan], the Red Cross has only been allowed to visit one
in Kabul. Now one in Kandahar is being opened." Imagine what's
been happening at those other 18.
A world of
tortured definitions
Here's what's clear. In
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the "tough guys" of Bush's world
promptly battened down the hatches and began preparing for the
war, and warfare state, of their dreams. Using the analogy of
the almost four-decade-long Cold War, which was their lifetime
experience (and with movie images of World War II dancing in
their heads), they announced that we were in a global war not
against any state (though they were already itching to hit
Saddam's Iraq), but against "terrorism" itself, an amorphous
force -- actually, of course, a tactic employed by scattered
bands of Islamic fanatics (some initially funded by men in this
administration back when we were fighting the Soviets by proxy
in Afghanistan). This new "war," they announced with a certain
élan and self-satisfaction would, like the previous cold one,
last decades if not a lifetime. With Americans in shock and
fearful, they then began planning a no-holds-barred, bring-‘em-on
style of warfare filled with acts of pitiless, unilateral
vengeance to be launched by the most powerful state on the
planet in the way of which nothing should get.
This was a war to be
fought, to use a common Cold War catchphrase, "in the shadows,"
and the shadows would soon enough include a global imprisonment
system that stretched from holding cells on aircraft carriers to
facilities in Afghanistan to Saddam's old prisons to Guantanamo
to military brigs in the United States and unnamed jails in
"friendly" foreign countries. In those shadows, beyond the eyes
of anyone, they had every intention of employing the sort of
tactics that they imagined would break the back of terrorism.
These acts of "information extraction" would be torture --
terror, that is -- by another name or no name at all.
Looking back, it's
curious how much of this was a war of words, a redefinitional
journey involving linguistic and legalistic contortions of the
most remarkable sorts. The first of these contorted definitions
was of "war" itself. We did not actually declare war. After all,
who was war to be declared against? We were simply defined as
being "at war." And from this, a series of other definitions
followed. Perhaps the most important had to do with the people
captured in this "war."
It might seem apparent
that, having declared yourself at war, the people you thereafter
captured might indeed be prisoners of war. But this presented a
problem since the rights of POWs were so clearly defined
internationally in treaties signed by the U.S. government. So
the administration simply redefined those captured in this
redefined war as "unlawful combatants" or "illegal combatants."
This and other terms used for them came out of a new Devil's
dictionary; for once we had defined them thusly, they could then
enter our offshore world of imprisonment -- at least in the
minds of Bush administration officials – as the sorts of
captives to whom a whole new series of definitions could be
applied.
The third definitional
problem was where to hold these prisoners, so that the holding
itself (without charge or trial, potentially to eternity) could
not be challenged either by the prisoners themselves through any
legal representation or through the courts of our own country.
The administration needed a place where it could publicly
practice its new definitional privacy – and that turned out to
be our military base at Guantanamo, which was redefined for the
purposes of the moment as under "Cuban sovereignty," though this
was obviously a brazen fiction. But even this wasn't
satisfactory for them. Guantanamo, off-limits as it was, still
turned out to be far too "public" for what they planned to do to
their "highest value" captives and so, for them, they developed
a special, CIA-run system of imprisonment that stepped beyond
definition itself. As Human Rights Watch puts it in
an invaluable
recent report on our global torture system:
"Among the most
disturbing cases, perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history, are
the detainees who have simply been ‘disappeared.' Perhaps
out of concern that Guantánamo will eventually be monitored
by the U.S. courts, certainly to ensure even greater
secrecy, the Bush administration does not appear to hold its
most sensitive and high-profile detainees there. Terrorism
suspects like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused architect of
the September 11 attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a close aide of
Osama bin Laden, are detained by the United States instead
in ‘undisclosed locations,' presumably outside the United
States, with no access to the ICRC, no notification to
families, no oversight of any sort of their treatment, and
in most cases no acknowledgement that they are even being
held. Human Rights Watch has pieced together information on
13 such detainees, apprehended in places such as Pakistan,
Indonesia, Thailand, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates,
who have ‘disappeared' in U.S. custody."
At the same time, the
administration was attempting to redefine presidential power in
such a way that the once normal Congressional and court checks
and balances of an American republic no longer applied. In his
power as commander-in-chief (again note that all other
redefinitions were based on the redefinition of "war"), the
President was, in various legal briefs meant for the highest
officials in this administration, pronounced to be beyond any
control by Congress or the courts in his acts. (See the initial
quote above.)
Finally, having
redefined the nature of war, the powers of the president, the
nature of captivity, and the places of imprisonment, it was the
most natural thing in the world to redefine "information
extraction" within such a system so that neither international
treaties like the Geneva Conventions, nor congressionally passed
laws, nor the Constitution itself was applicable to them. In
this sense, from the earliest days after the 9/11 attacks, the
Bush administration was focused on, above all else, setting up a
global torture system by another name.
Much of this has
recently become clearer as a series of internal documents
produced by White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department
lawyers have leaked out in recent weeks. To offer a Vietnam
analogy, you might say that in the Vietnam era, The Pentagon
Papers, that revelatory secret study ordered up by Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara and slipped to the New York Times
by one brave whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, were the private,
confessional equivalent of liberal guilt over the war; in the
Bush era, these unbelievable lawyers' memos, some also ordered
up in the privacy of the administration by the present Secretary
of Defense, are the neocon equivalent of a (legalistic) guilty
conscience. They are, in some perverse fashion, deeply
confessional documents, and in the future, they will read that
way.
There were two parallel
struggles here: One was to establish the war they wanted to
fight and this they largely did before they turned to the
lawyers; the other was to clear the decks legally for it. This
week – even while Ronald Reagan ruled --
Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal produced a
hard-hitting piece based on one of these leaked documents that
began a process not likely to go away soon. He led off:
"Bush administration
lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound
by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who
might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be
prosecuted by the Justice Department. The advice was part of
a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with
conventional methods they weren't getting enough information
from prisoners… at its core is an exceptional argument that
because nothing is more important than ‘obtaining
intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of
American citizens,' normal strictures on torture might not
apply. The president, despite domestic and international
laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as
commander in chief to approve almost any physical or
psychological actions during interrogation, up to and
including torture, the report argued."
As Bravin reported:
"The report was
compiled by a working group appointed by the Defense
Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Air
Force General Counsel Mary Walker headed the group, which
comprised top civilian and uniformed lawyers from each
military branch and consulted with the Justice Department,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency
and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President
Bush has ever seen the report. A military lawyer who helped
prepare the report said that political appointees heading
the working group sought to assign to the president
virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to
assert ‘presidential power at its absolute apex.'"
Though the report has
now been much quoted, it should be read in full. Its flavor can
hardly be grasped in tidbits. It may, in fact, be one of the
most tortured "legal" pieces ever written -- certainly ever
written in a democracy -- on the subject of redefining acts of
inhumanity and torture as something other than acts of
inhumanity and torture. (If your computer can handle pdf files,
you can click here to find
it.) In it, Orwell's "doublethink" meets the lawyers and judges
of Kafka's The Trial head on, revealing a dark landscape
of legalistic legerdemain.
The report had two main
purposes, as best I understand it -- to place presidential power
(in the form of the powers of the commander-in-chief to
prosecute war) outside any legal boundaries whatsoever, thus
removing from George Bush and his subordinates of any
responsibility for acts he may have ordered committed; and to
redefine torture so narrowly that it becomes the definitional
property of the torturer.
It's worth spending a
little time with some of this document just to get a feel for
it. The lawyer-authors, for instance, expend much effort acting
as if they were part of a panel for a new edition of some
dictionary ("The word 'profound' has a number of meanings, all
of which convey a significant depth. Webster's New International
Dictionary 1977 [2nd ed. 1935 defines profound as...]") and,
where necessary, they don't hesitate to take up the role of
psychiatrist either. "We likewise think," they write at one
point, considering what might disrupt "profoundly the senses or
personality" and so be considered torture, "that the onset of
obsessive-compulsive disorder behaviors would rise to this
level... Moreover, we think that pushing someone to the brink of
suicide [which could be evidenced by acts of self-mutilation],
would be a sufficient disruption of the personality to
constitute a 'profound disruption.'")
Their purpose in each
case is to narrow drastically some previous legal definition of
torture. They spend much time, for instance, considering how to
define various parts of the well-accepted phrase
"severe physical or mental pain or suffering," always
emphasizing the word "severe" and then defining it in the most
severe possible way:
"In order to prove
'severe mental pain or suffering,' the statute requires
proof of 'prolonged mental harm' that was caused by or
resulted from one of four enumerated acts... [T]he
development of a mental disorder such as posttraumatic
stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or
even chronic depression... might satisfy the prolonged harm
requirement... [I]f a defendant [interrogator] has a good
faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged
mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his
actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that
he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying
professional literature, consulting with experts, or
reviewing evidence gained from past experience... Because
the presence of good faith would negate the specific intent
element of torture, good faith may be a complete defense to
such a charge."
In other words, the
harm to a prisoner from what might ordinarily be considered acts
of inhumanity and torture must be "severe" indeed -- proof of
that severity could even take several months to develop -- and
in addition it would have to be proved that the interrogator
actually meant to create a state of, say, posttraumatic
stress disorder. In other words, the act of torture is not, in
fact, torture if the intent to torture is not there -- and,
since it's a matter of "good faith," the only person who could
affirm that torture had taken place would, in essence, be the
torturer.
But even that's not
enough. According to this administration's best legal minds,
even knowing in a general sense what ill results might come from
your acts does not necessarily make you a torturer, not if you
did not mean to cause such results. What must be proven
is "specific intent to cause pain," a phrase they then spend
much space redefining. They write:
"As a theoretical
matter, therefore, knowledge alone that a particular result
is certain to occur does not constitute specific intent...
if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the
requisite specific intent... A defendant is guilty of
torture only if he acts with the express purpose of
inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his
custody or physical control... Where a defendant acts in
good faith, he acts with an honest belief that he has not
engaged in the proscribed conduct."
This is, of course, but
the briefest glimpse into the bizarre and twisted definitional
thinking that fills this 56-page document, much of it focused on
the problem of potential future "prosecutions arising out of the
exercise of the president's express authority as
Commander-in-Chief" to create what is essentially a torture
regime abroad. (Strangely enough, in the light of day this dark
document reads like a witness for the prosecution in any future
war-crimes-style trials of the members of this administration.)
Just to give a tiny flavor of this aspect of the document,
here's an almost random passage:
"Any effort by
Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful
combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of
the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President. There can
be little doubt that intelligence operations, such as the
detention and interrogation of enemy combatants and leaders,
are both necessary and proper for the effective conduct of a
military campaign. Indeed such operations may be of more
importance in a war with an international terrorist
organization than one with the conventional armed forces of
a nation-state, due to the former's emphasis on secret
operations and surprise attacks against civilians. It may be
the case that only successful interrogations can provide the
information necessary to prevent the success of covert
terrorist attacks upon the United States and its citizens.
Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct
of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate
strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield. Just as
statutes that order the President to conduct warfare in a
certain manner or for specific goals would be
unconstitutional, so too are laws that seek to prevent the
President from gaining the intelligence he believes
necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States."
Finally, the authors of
this document invoke the "superior orders" doctrine (made famous
at Nuremberg) commenting that:
"In sum, the defense
of superior orders will generally be available for U.S.
Armed Forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations
except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently
unlawful."
Of course, that
wonderfully turned phrase "exceptional interrogations" means
"torture" (except that, by this point in the document, torture
itself no longer means torture); and while I'm no lawyer, the
concept of "patently unlawful" seems a curious one to me. I'd
like to see that brought into an everyday court of law. (The
defendant throws himself on the mercy of the court: "I did it,
judge, and it was definitely unlawful, but I plead innocent
since it was not patently so.")
The Wall Street Journal
"opinion" is but
one of a series of internal memorandums we now know about,
written between January 2002 and early this year, which seem to
have much in common. For instance, in an earlier legal
memorandum, written in August 2002 by the Justice Department for
the CIA, "signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee,"
addressed to White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez, and leaked
to the Washington Post, the writers also chewed over the
issue of how much pain constitutes torture. They wrote that the
"inflicting [of] moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily
constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, ‘must be equivalent
in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury,
such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even
death.'" (Otherwise, assumedly, you just scream.) Similarly, the
writers suggest: "For purely mental pain or suffering to amount
to torture… it must result in significant psychological harm of
significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."
Let's remember that of
the legal minds responsible for these "opinions,"
Bybee is now a judge on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco; the Defense Department's general
counsel, William J. Haynes II has been nominated to be an
appellate judge, in the U.S. 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va.; and
John Yoo, author of some of the earliest of these memorandum,
has returned to a professorship at the University of California,
Berkeley, where, in response to student protests,
he said: "I think the calls for my resignation are misguided
and don't show an understanding of the job of a lawyer."
And in this he's
probably right. As the CIA produced the kited "intelligence" the
administration needed to go to war in Iraq, so its various legal
groups produced the memorandum it needed – again and again and
again – to imprison beyond the rule of law and torture those
whom it pleased. As
Phillip Carter, a former U.S. Army officer, put it in Slate:
"[N]o amount of caveating can save the latest Defense Department
memorandum on the legality of torture… from being construed as
what it is: a cookbook on how to conduct illegal torture and get
away with it."
These are, in fact,
documents of shame, symbolic of a kind of bureaucratic
lawlessness let loose at the heart of our government. They are
intent on creating a pseudo-legal basis for replacing the rule
of law with the rule of a commander-in-chief.
As Robert Kuttner put it in the Boston Globe, "For nearly
three years, the Bush administration has resorted to the most
preposterous fictions to define either locales or categories of
people to whom the law does not apply. If you connect the dots,
the torture at Abu Ghraib is part of a larger slide toward
tyranny as the Bush administration tries to exempt itself from
the rule of law." As justifications for torture, these are the
sorts of documents one can imagine finding in the files of some
grim third world dictatorship or maybe the former Apartheid
regime of South Africa.
As the Washington Post editorial page put it recently,
speaking of the authors of such memos and their masters, "Theirs
is the logic of criminal regimes…" Were it ever to be made the
law of the land, our republic, such as it is, would quite
literally be ended and we would face some kind of one-party
dictatorship. Were its definitions of torture ever made the law
of the land, every torturer on earth would shout hosannas to it.
[Coming Tuesday,
Part II: On our global torture system, its history, future
presidential defenses, and the rise of the Nazi analogy…]
Return to Terror of Contents
|