It is likely that most Americans still do not recognize the name of Maher Arar. Based on yesterday's decision by a majority of judicial, boot-licking bureaucrats of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit--to call them judges immeasurably degrades the term--it is likely that few more will recognize it. This infamous decision in the Arar saga does much to illustrate the depths to which justice and the rule of law have sunk within the United States. Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who in September 2002 while en-route to Canada through the US was kidnapped--no other term adequately describes his plight--by agents of the United States government on the flimsiest of evidence and "rendered" to Syria where he was detained for a year and brutally tortured. As in Orwell's "1984," words themselves are abused, thus "war is peace," and in a similar vein, kidnapping becomes "rendering." Released after a year in Syrian detention Arar was neither charged with a crime nor offered any explanation or apology for what effectively was the ruining of his life. Read more about the details of his treatment in Glenn Greenwald's column here.
A subsequent investigation by the Canadian government confirmed that Arar was completely innocent and resulted in it accepting its share of blame in providing the US government with erroneous intelligence on Arar, although it maintained that Canadian officials did not improperly acquiesce in his abduction. He was offered a formal apology by the Canadian government and received a cash settlement to provide some redress for the treatment he received and the violation of his rights. Since then Arar has sought redress in the US courts in an attempt to bring some accountability to the individuals and government responsible for his abduction and ordeal. His efforts have so far been in vain, with the most recent setback provided by the judicial rubber-stamp of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, in a despicable display of imperial arrogance the United States still refuses Arar entry into the country, and he was even forced to provide testimony to a Congressional inquiry regarding rendition via video link! Details of Arar's attempts to bring suit in US courts can be found here at the Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) website.
Given such circumstances, it is appropriate that Lady Justice is blindfolded, so as to hide the tears that must be streaming down her face when such decisions are rendered. The issues in the Arar case are so stark because if the Law cannot protect a completely innocent man; if the Law can simply be abrogated by the powerful; if wrongs once perpetrated and brought to light cannot be fairly adjudicated and grievances redressed by the Law, then what is the point of having laws to begin with? We are as medieval serfs helpless in the face of the arbitrary power of kings. It was against such power that the US Constitution was in part crafted, but these so-called justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals make a mockery of the Constitution and have long forgotten the meaning of justice. Let's read them out, the roll-call of judicial shame on the Second Circuit; Dennis Jacobs (Chief Judge), Joseph McLaughlin, Jose Cabranes, Reena Raggi, Richard Wesley, Peter Hall, and Debra Livingston. Shame on all of you. These pathetic apologists for the National Security State comprised the seven judge majority that dismissed the Arar appeal. They should all turn in their robes in shame. I commend the four judges who penned dissenting opinions in the case; Guido Calabresi, Rosemary Pooler, Robert Sack, and Barrington Parker. At least there are some judges remaining who can see right from wrong through the legalistic mumbo-jumbo.
The seven judge majority essentially ruled that the US government can detain anyone under virtually any conditions, can transfer them abroad, even with the knowledge that they will likely be tortured, if it simply says that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It does not need to convince a judge that such statements are valid and have substance. It is simply enough for the government to assert that it is for reasons of national security. Having done so, the victim has no avenue for redress of grievances in US courts. None. This ruling grants to the executive branch and the President the same power of kings that the US Constitution was crafted to abolish! Agents of the government can act with virtually absolute power and absolute impunity. If that is not cause for concern, then I don't know what is. And these justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution? Have these so-called judges even read the Bill of Rights? Ironically, the majority argued that the separation of powers created in the Constitution did not allow them to intervene on the Executive's foreign policy powers in this case. But what of legality, the judiciary are supposed to uphold the law and provide a check on the executive. If not to protect innocents, then under what circumstances would the Court see fit to intercede?
Perhaps equally disturbing has been the Obama administrations stance on the so-called state secrets privilege. Recently, the Obama Justice Department has argued for exactly the same interpretation of the privilege as that favored by the Bush administration. It is hard to reach the conclusion that the Executive branch under Bush and now Obama is simply attempting to erect a permanent shield between itself and the law. Such actions are anathema to the rule of law and can only hasten the demise of already crumbling democratic institutions.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Torturing the Truth
Last week I attended a scientific meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Such trips usually are an occasion to catch up on some reading on the flights. In this case it was also an opportunity to gorge myself on as much green chile as possible, having obtained a serious chile addiction when I lived there. I managed to get through the bulk of Jane Mayer's, "The Dark Side," an unflinching look at how the Bush administration betrayed America's commitment to decency and the rule of law, and in its place implemented a criminal policy of torture and abuse of terror suspects, or even innocents caught up in its unbounded "war on terror."
Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;
1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.
2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.
3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.
4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.
Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.
It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.
Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;
1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.
2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.
3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.
4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.
Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.
It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Torture Follies
Revelations concerning the use of torture against detainees held by the US in the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) have been slowly but steadily leaking out over the past few years. The pace seems to have quickened in the past few weeks, so much so that in recent days the Bush Administration has been rather shockingly upfront in confirming various allegations about the CIA's use of waterboarding (aka water-torture) as an interrogation technique, perhaps as a way of getting out in front of and controlling what appears to be an evolving scandal. On Tuesday CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed during Congressional testimony that the CIA had indeed waterboarded three detainees, but he also insisted that since those earlier interrogations the "technique" had not been used again. However, given this Administration's record of veracity on the question of torture, it would only seem prudent to take Hayden's assertions with a grain (or several) of salt.
Today the plot thickened even further. Statements from the very top of the Administration, from Tony Fratto in the White House, and from newly minted Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asserted that not only was waterboarding not torture, but that it was actually legal! Moreover, Fratto asserted that the President retained the authority to order its use again should certain conditions be met. The irony here is thicker than mud, as recall that Mukasey faced rather severe specific questioning concerning the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings. One wonders what those Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee who in the end agreed to support Mukasey's confirmation, such as NY's Chuck Shumer, are thinking tonight after his statements today?
All this takes place at a time when the Congress was beginning to feel that it had managed to, if not stop altogether, then at least put the brakes on the Administration's love affair with keeping the torture option available. Passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006--which ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--would have appeared to have done just that. However, no one should underestimate the willingness of this Administration to ignore the law, simply look at the record of Bush's recent signing statements if you need convincing.
The most ironic and astonishing thing in all this, including the desire by some members of Congress to pass new legislation banning torture, is that torture is indeed illegal (and has been for decades) under US law! Congress did not, and does not need to pass ANY new laws to make torture a crime. Indeed, under existing US and International laws that have full jurisdiction in US courts, those implicated on suspicion of committing or abetting the commission of torture could be indicted and arrested tomorrow by agents of the Justice Department, assuming, that is, that those in the Justice Department with such authority had any intention of actually enforcing these existing laws and fulfilling the oaths they took to do so upon taking office. Clearly Mr. Mukasey had no such intent or he would have immediately opened a criminal investigation of the CIA after Hayden's public admission of the use of waterboarding by the agency, rather than squelching one.
While recent Congressional actions and legislation provide the impression that Congress is intent upon trying to hold the White House accountable on torture, the details are rather more murky. As noted above the prohibition on torture present in US law prior to the Detainee Treatment and Military Commission acts is unequivocal. Torture has been and is illegal, and the US is bound under that existing body of law to prosecute torturers. Now, the Detainee Treatment and Military Commissions acts contain language that either creates a defense for particular individuals implicated in torture, or forgives past violations of the Geneva Conventions, as Michael Ratner has pointed out. So, you be the judge, do these new acts strengthen or attempt to weaken the legal proscription of torture?
The actions of Congress in regard to the torture allegations (now admissions) have been frustratingly similar to its behavior in the face of other Administration wrongdoing, for example, the clear violations of FISA by the President's warrantless spy program. Rather than forcefully hold the administration accountable to existing law, the opposition party in Congress has repeatably sought to accomodate the law breaking so as not to appear "soft" on so-called Homeland Security issues (read terrorism). Thus, we are treated to statements from Congressional Democrats such as Senator Diane Feinstein (CA), "The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law. At that point, all U.S. government interrogations - military and civilian - would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.” Feinstein still doesn't seem to understand that it is NOT a legislation problem. Here she falls for one of the Administration smoke-screens, that particular "techniques" need to be individually proscribed. No, the law bans ALL torture, or cruel and degrading treatment, a laundry list of prohibited conduct is not needed, just as murder is murder, regardless of the means used to carry it out. What is it about Feinstein's new legislation that she believes would "end the torture debate?" In deciding to torture detainees the Administration clearly thumbed its nose at the extensive, existing body of law against torture, what is it that makes Feinstein believe that this new bill will have any restraining effect? It won't, this is simply an "easy out" for the spineless Democrats, they can claim to have stood up to Bush on torture without really having done so. And so, undoubtedly, we have not seen the end of the torture debate, or for that matter, the torture.
Today the plot thickened even further. Statements from the very top of the Administration, from Tony Fratto in the White House, and from newly minted Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asserted that not only was waterboarding not torture, but that it was actually legal! Moreover, Fratto asserted that the President retained the authority to order its use again should certain conditions be met. The irony here is thicker than mud, as recall that Mukasey faced rather severe specific questioning concerning the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings. One wonders what those Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee who in the end agreed to support Mukasey's confirmation, such as NY's Chuck Shumer, are thinking tonight after his statements today?
All this takes place at a time when the Congress was beginning to feel that it had managed to, if not stop altogether, then at least put the brakes on the Administration's love affair with keeping the torture option available. Passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006--which ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--would have appeared to have done just that. However, no one should underestimate the willingness of this Administration to ignore the law, simply look at the record of Bush's recent signing statements if you need convincing.
The most ironic and astonishing thing in all this, including the desire by some members of Congress to pass new legislation banning torture, is that torture is indeed illegal (and has been for decades) under US law! Congress did not, and does not need to pass ANY new laws to make torture a crime. Indeed, under existing US and International laws that have full jurisdiction in US courts, those implicated on suspicion of committing or abetting the commission of torture could be indicted and arrested tomorrow by agents of the Justice Department, assuming, that is, that those in the Justice Department with such authority had any intention of actually enforcing these existing laws and fulfilling the oaths they took to do so upon taking office. Clearly Mr. Mukasey had no such intent or he would have immediately opened a criminal investigation of the CIA after Hayden's public admission of the use of waterboarding by the agency, rather than squelching one.
While recent Congressional actions and legislation provide the impression that Congress is intent upon trying to hold the White House accountable on torture, the details are rather more murky. As noted above the prohibition on torture present in US law prior to the Detainee Treatment and Military Commission acts is unequivocal. Torture has been and is illegal, and the US is bound under that existing body of law to prosecute torturers. Now, the Detainee Treatment and Military Commissions acts contain language that either creates a defense for particular individuals implicated in torture, or forgives past violations of the Geneva Conventions, as Michael Ratner has pointed out. So, you be the judge, do these new acts strengthen or attempt to weaken the legal proscription of torture?
The actions of Congress in regard to the torture allegations (now admissions) have been frustratingly similar to its behavior in the face of other Administration wrongdoing, for example, the clear violations of FISA by the President's warrantless spy program. Rather than forcefully hold the administration accountable to existing law, the opposition party in Congress has repeatably sought to accomodate the law breaking so as not to appear "soft" on so-called Homeland Security issues (read terrorism). Thus, we are treated to statements from Congressional Democrats such as Senator Diane Feinstein (CA), "The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law. At that point, all U.S. government interrogations - military and civilian - would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.” Feinstein still doesn't seem to understand that it is NOT a legislation problem. Here she falls for one of the Administration smoke-screens, that particular "techniques" need to be individually proscribed. No, the law bans ALL torture, or cruel and degrading treatment, a laundry list of prohibited conduct is not needed, just as murder is murder, regardless of the means used to carry it out. What is it about Feinstein's new legislation that she believes would "end the torture debate?" In deciding to torture detainees the Administration clearly thumbed its nose at the extensive, existing body of law against torture, what is it that makes Feinstein believe that this new bill will have any restraining effect? It won't, this is simply an "easy out" for the spineless Democrats, they can claim to have stood up to Bush on torture without really having done so. And so, undoubtedly, we have not seen the end of the torture debate, or for that matter, the torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)