Justifying Torture
posted by
Wally
6:34 AM
You CAN'T justify torture. There is no justification for torture. The Constitution explicitly forbids torture in this country. That long haired bearded hippie guy who's teachings this administration and most Republicans allegedly follow - you know, the one who's book they quote from ad infinitum - could never, ever, justify torture, even though he was on the receiving end of it himself. He couldn't even justify it for those at who's hands he suffered so violently - preferring to "turn the other cheek". Perhaps the teachings of Jesus no longer apply? Perhaps that book is outdated? That could have some serious ramifications across the political spectrum.
But I digress. To my point, Bush feels that neither Jesus's teachings nor the Constitution, nor the basic rules of humanity apply to him or his chosen people. To him, torture is just fine and dandy as long as it's done to other people, and it helps him achieve his ends. Granted, no one is quite certain what those ends are, but both his CIA appointee and his new nominee to replace Gonzo as Attorney General think torturing people is completely acceptable and a normal way of doing business. The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency has defended the administration's rendition program, in which terrorism suspects are transported to secret prisons in countries with less stringent interrogation rules. Translation: where they don't have a problem torturing people."Our programs are as lawful as they are valuable," said General Michael Hayden.
"These rendition, detention, and interrogation programs are small, carefully run operations," he said, adding that less than a third of the detainees "have required any special methods of questioning". So torture is not only acceptable, it's "valuable" too? Amazing. How many is "less than a third"? Is that more than zero? Is even one acceptable?
That's the current head of the CIA, already in office. Bush's nominee to head up the Dept of Justice (the group that oversees domestic law enforcement - that's you and me) isn't much better. In his job interview with a Senate committee, he dodged and weaved and danced around it, but ultimately refused to clarify his stance on the issue of torture.Atty. Gen.-designate Michael B. Mukasey, adopting a middle ground on an issue that has become central to his nomination, said coercive interrogation methods, including a form of simulated drowning, were "over the line" and "repugnant." But he declined to say whether he thought so-called water-boarding was a form of torture that would be illegal in all cases. Oh? Are there cases where torture is legal in this country? Do tell Mr. Mukasey, we're all ears."Mukasey was nominated to be the chief law enforcement officer, not the nation's ethics advisor," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "He should not be confirmed if he cannot say that water-boarding, a form of mock drowning that has been prosecuted as torture since 1902, is illegal."
"Judge Mukasey makes the point that in the law, precision matters. So do honesty and openness. And on those counts, he falls far short," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Perhaps he would be more forthcoming with more specific answers if he were asked these questions using more "enhanced interrogation techniques?
Permalink
::
1 comments
::
|
