You might think that torture is
actually presently legal in the U.S., given all the efforts by Bush and his
Attorney Generals to make it so. And maybe you just don't care that it
is-- or you approve-- because you are a God-fearing patriotic American and
you don't take bullshit from foreigners-- whatever--- I don't care.
Jesus loves you, whatever, because you approve of the use of torture, and
you really can't remember or think of or imagine any reason why that would
make you less of a human being than, say, believing in witchcraft or
astrology. Whatever.
Back to my point: I don't
believe torture is, technically, "legal". It is, in fact, quite
illegal, no matter what Bush says it is. Then why hasn't anybody been
arrested? Who would arrest who? Because Bush is in command of
the only apparatus that can enforce the law: the Attorney General's Office
and the FBI (which is accountable to it) and he has ordered it not to.
[added October 22, 2008: if a New
York City cop on the beat stumbled into a group of men treating an
individual the way they are, in fact, treating the detainees in Guantanamo,
he would surely make an arrest and lay charges.
If Bush or his
Attorney-General issues a "finding" that torture is legal (he calls it
"enhanced interrogation techniques" but no court is so stupid as to not see
through that), and thereby instructs federal officials to abide by that
"finding", he hasn't really changed any aspect of the law. What would
it take to activate the apparatus on behalf of the courts? Well, how
about a new executive who believes in the constitution?
Take for example any prisoner being
held currently in Guantanamo, who had previously been tortured, either
through rendition, or by CIA officers at locations outside of the U.S.
Bush has succeeded in blocking this individuals access to any court with the
power to respond to his circumstances with directives that will actually be
obeyed by Federal agencies. At the moment, Bush simply ignores any
legal motions he doesn't like and then obfuscates.
Now suppose a new Chief Executive-- a
new President-- instructs the new Attorney General (John Edwards?) to
investigate whether anybody involved in the handling of prisoners by
American forces or intelligence agencies or proxies has broken the law, or
violated the rights of these prisoners.
I think about this a lot. I can
imagine that nothing will happen, if the new President turns out to be
gutless and decides that he can live with simply stopping any more torture
from happening. That's hard to imagine, however, because the lawyers
for all of the prisoners being held by agents of the U.S. Federal Government
will be clamoring for due process and habeas corpus and dozens of other
constitutional rights we all used to think Americans treasured dearly.
And I can't see this new President doing what Bush did, which is,
instructing his staff to find ways around the courts, so we can suppress the
rights of these individuals.
So imagine instead that President
Obama (or Clinton) allows the attorney general to investigate and he finds
out that there has been some torture going on... and he decides that his
interpretation of the constitution is that torture is never allowed.
Just imagine.
[2011-03: of course, it didn't happen. Odd, but not really surprising now
that I think about it. Would a politician who was seriously intent on
enforcing the law survive the primary process in the U.S.? I doubt it.
]
May 3, 2008
2011-03 I was wrong. George Bush -- much to Cheney's displeasure,
apparently-- refused to pardon anybody, not even Scooter Libby. Yes, I do think more highly of him
than I did before. Barack Obama, on the other hand, basically continued
the same policies. So, yes, I think much less of him for that. By
continuing the policies, of course, he erased the possibility of charging
members of the Bush Administration with violating the rights of prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. That's exactly what Bush needed and wanted
and I do wonder just how overt this kind of understanding between one President
and another is.
Don't forget Karl! There are
strong grounds for suspicion that Karl Rove orchestrated the malicious and
false prosecution of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. A
Republican lawyer has sworn, under oath, that she was told that Rove
directed the United States attorney for Montgomery to undertake proceedings
against Siegelman though there was no real evidence of any crime.
Congress has subpoenaed Rove but
he refuses to testify. How on earth can he get away with that?
The Attorney General is ultimately responsible for enforcing the law.
George Bush appoints the Attorney General. There you go.
We need to start a campaign now to
head off the inevitable. The campaign should focus on the demand that
no pardons should be issued by President Bush for anyone who has not
publicly admitted that they have committed the crimes for which they are
being pardoned. (It's probably too much to ask that they actually be
charged with those crimes and put on trial.) It's simple: no
confession, no pardon. So all those intelligence agents who tortured
and generals who lied and secretaries of state who lied and phone companies
who allowed the government to eavesdrop on conversations without a warrant
and so on and so on should have to line up on television and takes turns
telling us exactly what they did that requires a pardon. It would be
the ultimate reality show, and it would be GREAT for the country.
These are the sonsofbitches who have been running your country for the past
eight years. What do you think?
But I was only following orders!
Right. America supported the
findings of the Nuremburg judges that the "following orders" defense does
not exculpate actions that a reasonable person would perceive to be illegal
and abhorrent. So Nazi soldiers that participated in atrocities,
unless they had good grounds to fear for their lives, were not excused from
their sins. The same standard was applied to the
William Calley case.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure a
judge in the U.S. in today's political climate would agree with me that
anyone participating in the use of torture has no excuse. America is
moving backwards, towards barbarism. The idea that torture is
"abhorrent" prevails in civilized countries. What is a civilized
country?
|
|
Rant of the Week
The Coming Bush
Pardons
|
You undoubtedly remember vividly the
apoplectic outrage of conservative commentators when Bill Clinton issued his
list of pardons just before leaving office. That outrage, of course,
is reserved only for occasions on which the Democrats appear to be doing
what the Republicans think the Democrats would do if they had the ethics of
Republicans.
I might be wrong, but I believe we are
about to see George Bush make Bill Clinton look like a piker when it comes
to pardons. I'll even stick my neck out and predict it: George
Bush is going to have to issue a large number of pardons... for people
who will not admit to having committed any crimes.
The problem is this: Barack Obama wins the
election. Do you think Obama will interpret the constitution to mean
that the President of the United States can make torture legal by commanding
his minions to torture?
Maybe he will. Or maybe he will feel
the same way that most civilized western leaders have felt for 100 years: that
the use of torture is repugnant to the fundamental principles of human
rights. Okay. So what do all the torturers in the CIA do?
Quietly quit their jobs and move to Switzerland or Argentina?
Apologize? I'm really, very, very sorry that I tortured you-- I had
thought it was legal. And resort to the standard "I was only
following orders" defense?
I suspect that an understanding might be
reached, that would see the federal government under the new administration
not ask any embarrassing questions, provided that the violations of
fundamental human rights comes to a quick stop. But what if any of
the victims are put on trial? What if their lawyers challenge
the validity of evidence obtained against their clients because it was
adduced under torture? Sticky wicket, isn't it? What if they
call in the FBI witnesses who objected to what they termed "rough treatment"
of suspects by their colleagues in the CIA and Defense Department?
Bush is going to have perform that goofy
voodoo thing wherein you forgive people for crimes you claim they haven't
committed.
He tried to do a similar thing by getting Congress to grant immunity to
corporations that he swears were merely obeying the law when they allowed
the government to spy on individuals in the U.S. without warrants.
If they were obeying the law, why do they need immunity? This kind of
hypocritical bullshit should not be allowed to pass: why will anyone need a
pardon if, as Bush says, everything they did was legal?
Congress should make a simple demand-- it
should insist that no one can be pardoned unless they have committed a
crime. So Mr. Bush may only pardon torturers if they admit they
illegally tortured people. And then we may turn to the President and
impeach him in the hour before he leaves office.
By golly-- George Bush really does
understand the constitution. He just willingly shits on it.
Copyright © 2008 Bill Van Dyk All rights
reserved. |
|