I spent some time teaching ethics at a small college in Arizona where I had the opportunity to teach Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. As I come up against the legal tricksters in the Bush administration, I just remember Kant. If I can put the ideas of this particular German philosopher into ordinary language, I can explain just about anything. The staggering difference, of course, is Kant was attempting to find truth as he knew it, and the Bush leagues aim at no such lofty end.
The “few bad apples” marketing slogan pushed on the American public following the Abu Ghraib torture pictures is further debunked by the above ABC report.
History will not judge this kindly.”
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
During a cabinet meeting, this was Ashcroft’s response to discussions of torture methods to be employed. He appears to have been the one Bush senior adviser with a conscience or at least a sense of how others would perceive their discussions. (Interestingly, Ashcroft was the man who took a principled stand against warrantless wiretapping.)
In the simplest possible terms, this is what the Bush administration did to turn us into a nation that tortures:
- Redefine the legal definition of torture.
- Name former torture methods “enhanced interrogation.”
- Use the torture methods against suspects.
In John Yoo’s 2003 Torture Memo, he specifies that an assault that would get a regular citizen 6 months in jail or less could be used because legally that crime committed outside the United States is not legally prosecutable. Also, things like loud music, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and extreme cold temperatures do not necessarily constitute “a pain that is difficult to endure” or “shock the conscience;” therefore, they do not qualify as torture.
A “pain that is difficult to endure” is subjective and hard to prove in a court or tribunal setting. Doesn’t it stand to reason that any attorney representing a torturer would point out that accuser obviously endured it?
“Shock the conscience” is also subjective. The flawed presumption is that one has a conscience.
Filed under: Government, Law, News Headlines, Politics, Terror, War Crimes, justice, torture, video | Tagged: ABC Report, Bush, Cheney, CIA, History, John Ashcroft, Prisoners, rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Terror Suspects, torture
Also disturbing: remember the hearing during which Joe Biden and Michael Mukasey had an exchange about the definition of “shocks the conscience” and Mukasey implied that if the information gleaned from the method of “interrogation” was “good information” or if the information sought was urgently needed to save lives (a Jack Bauer scenario), then the method might not “shock the conscience?” That exchange flew in the face of everything that I understand about our concept of legal process in this country.
When I was a student, torture only came up in discussions about reasons for rational suicide. Kill yourself rather than be tortured. Wonder what’s being said now. Honest to God, the Bush administration’s approach to governing buggers the intellect and shocks sensibilities.
I’m hoping Mukasey’s testimony today will find its way on youtube. He was actually pinned down on domestic military raids and the 4th Amendment.
TPMMuckraker has the story and video of Feinstein questioning Mukasey. M.M. is even scarier than A.G. A.G. because he can equivocate without sounding like an Alzheimer’s patient.
Thank you, Suzanne!
[...] This video consolidates the Knox College event into about 3 minutes. I recommend reading the young woman’s total diary. Ashcroft was right advising Bush et al. “History will not judge this kindly.” [...]