With the Democratic leadership continuing to block any impeachment effort or any serious effort to hold officials liable for the U.S. torture program, Congress was free to hold another bizarre hearing today to calmly discussed our use of torture. Even though current Attorney General continues to evade the question, former Attorney General acknowledged and defended water boarding.
This is not the first hearing where the value of our use of torture was addressed as a routine matter of discussion, click here. Indeed, we have now gotten to the point where we openly compare our acts of torture with those of other nations, click here.
Thus, it was no surprise to see members bantering about on the use of a war crime today like it was some chicken subsidy going to mark up.
For his part, Ashcroft fulfilled his stereotype as more general and attorney. When asked if he felt that other nations could legitimately waterboard our own soldiers when captured, Ashcroft did not contest that possibility. Instead, he gave a non-answer: “Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces,.” Some could easily read that response as affirming that it would be permissible to waterboard our own soldiers when captured.
With the International Red Cross informing the Administration that high officials could be tried for war crimes over our torture program, here, many of us are left with this out-of-body sensation in watching these hearings unfold. Just yesterday, Speaker Pelosi reaffirmed that (no matter how strong the evidence might be that President Bush committed crimes, including war crimes, in office) she would not allow impeachment proceedings to begin. So, instead, we just sit around and calmly discuss war crimes like some interesting factoids and conversation points.
For the full story, click here.
Bartlebee,
That being said, he is still our best chance to bring this country back under the rule of law
I know, and believe me, thats the conundrum I am in. If I vote for him, I’m sorta saying I’m ok with him voting yay on HR6034 and if I don’t vote for him, then I’m sorta saying I’m ok if Father Demntia takes over the nukes on Jan 20th.
😐
He vexes me.
I’m terribly vexed.
Jill:
The radio show is gone. We are thinking about a comeback of “Is That Legal?,” but no takers yet here in Richmond. Maybe a little too progressive. But who knows?
rafflaw,
I have to admit…from the context above, I thought BFF was Best Fuck’n Friends.
mespo,
Your fans are ready to tune in!
Bartlebee,
I agree with your question to Obama(and Congress) about FISA. It really distubed me and I joined the Stop FISA group on the Obama website. Around 10,000 people asked him to stick to his original policy concerning FISA and he would not. I would have expected that from many in Congress, but I did not expect that from him. That being said, he is still our best chance to bring this country back under the rule of law.
Mespo and Bartlebee,
I am glad to hear you both give Kudo’s to Jim Comey for standing his ground. I only wish there were more like him in the Bush Administration. Hey Mespo, are you still on the radio and how can we listen to it?
He did his fellow countrymen right on that day, thats for sure. I was always so impressed with that story, and always puzzled why more people don’t talk about it. The MSM never touches it, but its, …well.. its like something out of a spy novel. Here, the White House sending its top people to the bed of an ill AG, just because the acting AG already told them, and justifiably so, that thier program was illegal and refused to sign off on it. So now, the ailing AG, upholds his deputies decision and sends the two criminals packing.
It was a great story, and I wish the MSM would talk more about that night. Particularly in light of the Congress’s recent decision to back-date authorize what James Comey, wouldn’t sign off to, on that night.
Did the Congress ever bother, or Barack Obama for that matter, ever bother to consider that if both the republican AG, and his Deputy who was acting AG, refused to sign off on it, because they, as attorneys, knew it was illegal, then maybe voting to make it retroactively legal is a bad idea?
Jim Comey was a neighbor and is a friend and colleague. He was on my radio show a few times. I can tell you from experience “Comey don’t play that game.” Why do you think he’s out of that political hell hole!
Whats really sad here is Ashcroft almost came out a historical hero. The night Alberto Gonzales, and Andrew Card went to Ashcrofts hospital bedside to induce him into signing off on Bush’s warrentless wiretapping program, they had first went to Deputy Attorney General,James Comey, who when they had asked to sign off on the illegal program, replied (paraphrased) “Comey don’t play that”.
So now here they were, trying to get a man under the influence of heavy medication and in and out of delirium, to sign a document that he, and they knew, was illegal.
Yet even in this weakened, delirious condition, he knew that was a line he wasn’t willing to cross, so he raised a pale hand, pointed his finger at Deputy AG James Comey, then “acting” AG, and said, “there’s the Attorney General”. And knowing Comey’s answer already, the White House Chief of Staff and his puppet friend, Senor Wences, brushed passed Comey arrogantly and exited, stage right.
😀
Man what I would have paid to see that moment. In that moment, I felt Ashcroft had redeemed a multitude of sins, so to speak. He demonstrated the kind of concern for his country and fellow countrymen that I want in an AG.
So its sad to see him now, backtracking on that great moment, and once more carrying Bush’s water…so to speak.
M:
“If you are talking about the rule of law, you have to include the whole spectrum. And let’s get deep here, real deep. What about the death penalty?”
******************
You asked me to think about that and get back to you. I thank you for the invitation, and I should tell you that I do and have thought about it quite a bit. It’s really part of my job practicing law. The law is, in fact, the law, and it can be uplifting and it can be, as Dickens said, “an ass.” There is a significant difference between what is moral, and what is legal. The two are not congruent circles perfectly matching the contours of the other if overlain. The law is policy, and sometimes it is morally neutral, like budgets, or road building though even there some aspects of that moral circle overlap. Mostly though the law is about workable solutions to human problems. The problem here is defense against a committed and dangerous foe. It is not new to us, nor any other civilization ever on Earth. The law of war is just as developed as the law of using the road, or the law of contracts. Certain acts are prohibited, and that decision was made by consensus. To violate it, invites retribution and recrimination for breach of your word, all in the name of expediency. We could not expect others to comply with the law if we do not do so ourselves. Also experience has shown that torture is not used to gain valuable information as it may incidentally do, but instead it is done to intimidate and demoralize the opponent. Other means of interrogation work much better. Just ask any cop who is being honest.
The issue about the death penalty presents a legal and moral question. It is undoubtedly legal under certain well-defined circumstances, as it is clearly a primary deterrent and thus undeniably good policy from a prevention standpoint. We do know that in capital crimes as opposed to run-of-the-mill murders, the risk of re-offending is high and the effects of that risk are devastating and irreversible. Thus the logical underpinnings of the policy are self-evident.
I do agree that morally the penalty is wrong. While society undoubtedly has the right, legally and historically, to take a non-innocent life, I have serious concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the system. To trust it to correctly discern innocence from guilt in many circumstances seems misplaced loyalty to a human and thus flawed system. Project Innocence has confirmed my fears many times over.In addition, I cannot support the punishment because I believe its underlying premise–perfect free will–is invalid. Our actions are a complex mix of experience, intelligence, biology, and emotions which can trigger both rage and sublime achievements. Environments in some homes almost insure horrific adults whose only crime (before the subject crime) was being born poor or to incredibly bad parents. To punish someone because of the circumstances of their birth seems morally repugnant to me, and to many. As someone who has seen these criminal defendants close up, I can tell you that with few exceptions, there but for the grace of God go many of us.
Thank you allowing me to briefly crystallize my thoughts again on the death penalty and I invite your reply.
Gregory,
Your APD definition does seem to fit George W. I wonder if the cocaine could have made that worse?
Let’s just hope that if and when Mr. Ashcroft is arrested for something, i.e. Crimes and Misdomeanors, tax evasion, speeding, littering, his questioners get to use the same techniques on him as he proposes for others.
Torture is not justified under our system of government. It is (for most), and should be, repugnant in a civilized society. Advocats for its use are borderline, or not so borderline, sociopaths.
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
“The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood due to the lack of love and care for the child.”[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder.”
I find the above characteristics descriptive of much of the Bush administration.
James,
The experts at the FBI and the Pentagon do not believe that torture works. That is a falsehood perpetuated by the same felons who are committing the crime of torture. If Bush had gotten anything really good, he would have “leaked” it by now. National Security has never stopped him from his political goals. (I.E. outing a covert agent as punishment for her husband for being correct about “yellowcake” lies that Bush pushed in the lead up to war in Iraq.)
James,
I wouldn’t torture anyone, ethics aside I don’t have the stomach for it. There’s also an aspect that hasn’t been brought up, if we torture the citizens of other countries, we lose the ability to demand that other countries don’t torture U.S. citizens or soldiers.
None of these thought experiments really address the issue that the article (and Jill) bring up. Congress has the duty to investigate the extremely likely possibility that Bush broke the law.
Jill,
At the very least they can hound their Representative in Congress to call privately and publicly for the Speaker to allow Impeachment.
Just brainstorming here…
Can citizens form a truth and reconciliation committee? I would like to see the information come out, reparations made and torture to stop.
Don’t you guys think in certain situations (dire), that torture should be used. It may not work all the time, but what if 1/10, torture saves the lives of 50,000 people from an attack? Would you still be concerned with the morality. This is all hypothetical of course. Here are some quotes:
The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues that in extreme situations, in order to prevent a tragedy, a “torture warrant” should be issued by U.S. courts to use hot needles under the nails, for example. This would make the use open to security, even thought it would be against the Geneva conventions [and other international treaties].
as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate. …
Of course, it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer,” said Professor Bagaric, “But in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they’re not directly involved in creating that threat doesn’t mean they can wash their hands of responsibility.
Given this, and Miles question. Now would you torture Osama?
Who CARES if the Spelling Isn’t PERFECT, Do you GET the MESSAGE? !!!
Jill,
Spellingness is next to grammerlyness which is just down the street from cleanliness.
I’m glad too. Of all the things we could be worried about, it was the most important. Thank heavens someone called you on that!
Gyges,
Well said.
Jill,
I am glad that I could be of assistance on the burning BFF question. I will work harder on my spelling!
M,
I would say we’re suturing the gaping chest wound before putting ointment on the hemorrhoids.
rafflaw,
I didn’t know what BFF meant either! Thanks!
Well this has been interesting. At least we know where some of our tax money has gone. It’s a living for them, I guess.
CURSE YOUR BAD SPELLING!