Like a sharp razor cutting through the fog of war, the New York Times headline reads,
"Justice Dept. Said to Back Harshest Tactics After Declaring Torture Abhorrent."
The article could not be clearer. The Bush Justice Department has secretly authorized "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."
Simulated drowning. Fear of suffocation. Blows to the head. Naked men held in freezing cells. Sleep deprivation. Noise assaults.
All secretly legalized, from Guantanamo to Abu Graib. Anything is permissible up to organ failure or death, or unless it "shocks the conscience."
In defense of silence, one might claim it is impossible to be shocked at horrors that are not known.
But it we know, and still are not shocked, there are lessons.
It's all in the 1960 classic The Battle of Algiers, in the dialogue between the press and the general:
"Journalist: Excuse me. It seems that out of an excess of caution, my colleagues keep asking you indirect questions. It would be better to call a spade a spade, so let's talk about torture.
The General: The word torture isn't used in our orders. We use "interrogation" as the only valid police method. We could talk for hours to no avail because that is not the problem. The problem is this. The FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria, and we want to stay.
Even with slight shades of opinion, you all agree that we must stay. We're here for that reason alone. We are neither madmen nor sadists. We are soldiers. Our duty is to win. Therefore to be precise, it is my turn to ask a question.
Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences."
As a policy, the answer is, "No!" I would suppose that, if the suspect was tortured, there would be a legal defense of justification or necessity to the crime of torture. In other words, if there was a strong enough set of circumstances that linked that suspect to certain death of many thousands, most of us would take that risk, and torture the suspect.
But the argument can be reduced to absurdity and the logic fallacies revealed. Would we torture everyone "just in case," to assure that we are safe? How about just Middle Easterners?
Cheney's "one-percent doctrine" is that the U.S. should take all steps to eliminate terror if there is any chance, even a one-percent chance that these steps might make us safer.
This Dark Age mentality of torture and preventative war was rejected with the Enlightenment. Cheney has caused us to become as barbaric as the perceived "enemy." It also ignores Mr. Cheney's own role (and personal profits) in Middle Eastern wars that helped cause the blowback.
The Dark side is the Dark Ages. The secrecy of this administration has as much to do with the Bush family dynasty and Mr. Cheney's finances and those of the MIC as it does with any identifiable threat that justifies these intrusions on all of our rights and liberties under our Constitution.
There's a reason why it's called "false," of course.
Basically most of us would say anything to make it just stop.
This policy was sponsored by someone who got off as a kid as getting off on blowing up frogs with fireworks.
Check out your PDA's for those particular proclivities.
It's sanctioned and legalized sadism folks.
It's unbelievably deranged.
And we've had our laws subverted to pre Magna Carta standards.
They think they are above laws long established.
When selective amnesia is a prerequisite for employment at the DOJ something is seriously wrong.
When unearned executive privilege is a catch all cover for blatant criminality, it sears one's senses.
When the balance of powers have been unduly tipped to the executive branch something is totally amuck.
We are far beyond the point of a Constitutional crisis.
May truth eclipse falsehood in these times. May honour eclipse greed. May clarity eclipse deceit. May transparency eclipse obfuscation. May corruption be eclipsed by true justice.
May war be eclipsed by peace. May fear by eclipsed by basic human kindness.
May our dynamic with Iran be neutralized.
May our leadership become enlightened to the fact that wars are no longer winnable in this still new millennium.
Kudo's to CC on her inspiration
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=22483
"nam-myoho-renge-kyo"
On a side note, I do agree with you. The torture needs to stop, under whatever the hell it's called!
Don't torture and say you're doing it in my name. I DO NOT condone torture.
I think I'm gonna be sick
The Democratic party is becoming the other pro-torture, pro-occupation, racist-occupation party by refusing to impeach the torturer in chief.
I'll never come back to the "Democratic" party unless they impeach Bush and put him on trial.
I won't be a part of a political party which aids and abets a torturer, war-criminal and traitor to America.
Bush is the Beast, and the servants of The Beast are the Damned.
http://www.pledgetoimpeach.org./index.html
1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response
I think we can skip definition #2...but perhaps we need another definition for #1...what is the SYSTEM of interrogation and more specifically what is SEVERE interrogation?
Gotta love the semantics game...if the CIA is not doing anything illegal why dont we just come out and say what we're doing...Say it loud, say it proud...and why in the world would we need new or amended laws to protect the CIA or other government entities involved in interrogation.
In the end this is just immoral and flat out disgusting. That one person could do this to another person or order someone else to do this is just wrong...