It depends on what the meaning of ‘torture’ is

The Bush administration, known for its unambiguous moral certainties, with-us-or-against-us worldview, and disdain for nuance and “gray areas,” isn’t quite clear on what conduct is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

[S]enators [told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] Congress should not endorse any treatment it would not want used on American soldiers.

“We must remain a nation that is different from, and above, our enemies,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

The differences between the administration and the Senate were most pronounced when Mr. McCain asked Mr. Gonzales whether statements obtained through “illegal and inhumane treatment” should be admissible. Mr. Gonzales paused for almost a minute before responding.

“The concern that I would have about such a prohibition is, what does it mean?” he said.

Given the administration’s track record on torture, that’s not exactly an encouraging response.

As the NYT explained, McCain responded that using illegal and inhumane interrogation tactics and allowing the evidence to be introduced would be “a radical departure” from longstanding United States policy.

First, the administration has already explained that it disagrees, and has issued a draft policy that would deny the right of the accused to bar evidence obtained through “rough or coercive interrogations.”

Second, as Sullivan put it, we’ve been “living through an illegal, immoral and radical departure from long-standing U.S. policy – and values – for almost five years now.”

I will be so glad when these bottom-feeding scumballs slink off the national scene and back into their disease-infested holes. Till then all I can hope for is massive election victories this November.

  • I know one thing it might mean–having to sit through more than 2 minutes of George W. Bush’s speeches and press conferences, or any other public appeearance wher he speaks. I wonder if forcing the Gitmo or any other detainees to listen to hours upon hours of Chimpy’s speeches might make them “crack” sooner.

  • Ed, What will we do if we do not have election victories in November? Diebold and other questionable election practices will have as much influence as they have had in past elections. Will we be willing to take to the streets to protest another “questionable” election as they did in Mexico or the Ukraine? We don’t even have the option of an accurate recount with the electronic voting machines used. I really think now is the time to consider this, not in the middle of November. Sorry this was off topic.

  • responded that using illegal and inhumane interrogation tactics and allowing the evidence to be introduced would be “a radical departure” from longstanding United States policy.

    Well, it’s against the Constitution, as applied to U.S. citizens, too

  • I am listening to Thomas Ricks being interviewed about his new book “Fiasco”. Sounds like a fantastic and totally infuriating book. I read an excellent commentary in the new “New Yorker” by James Surowiecki entitled ‘Unsafe at Any Price’
    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_surowiecki
    about the immoral and truly criminal waste of America’s money by the congress and the Defense Department. I read of Abu Gonzales slipping and sliding and wiggling around contemptuously in his luxurious coat of ambiguity. This country is broken. It’s really getting beyond the next election and hoping for some enlightened retrieval of common sense. We’re getting very close to losing the very basis of what we, (some of us anyway), think this country is all about.

  • So the same people who rally against “moral relativism” are now embracing moral grayness. To call this hypocrasy is an understatement.

  • Maybe they should strap Gonzales to a chair and put a bag over his head for a few weeks, and see if he thinks that’s “illegal and inhumane treatment”. After that, maybe some nice strobe lights and blaring rock music. Let the tough guy decide which interrogation methods should be allowable.

    What a creep. To think this is the Attorney General.

  • tko & Ed: I want these creeps to be defeated in November too and I think the voting machine issue is serious. Someone suggested a solution to me which is a pretty good one: everyone get an absentee ballot. In fact I wish Howard Dean woud take this issue seriously too, and print several million bumper stickers which would simply say “DEFEAT DIEBOLD: VOTE ABSENTEE:” It is to our national shame that the Republicans remain in power and the Democrats have been nearly mute.

  • Gracious (#8) — Great suggestion. It’s meaningless for me however since everyone in Whatcom County WA votes absentee. Almost the whole state (I think King County excepted) is vote-by-mail.

    I miss the gatherings on Election Day (which now stretches over weeks), but it’s worth it to have a paper trail and elected election officials supervise the counting.

  • I know that Oregon also votes that way, by mail that is. I also enjoy the election day gatherings but I also would give it up for an honest count. I think that if this idea caught on the media would be furious because they would not get their election night show. I love the show too, but again I want an honest count.

  • But would the absentee votes be counted? And by whom? It’s as easy (if not easier) to “lose” a pile of absentee votes (or to “stuff” a box) as it is to alter the software in a voting machine.

  • Too add to the vote by mail idea, people could copy their ballot as a record of their vote.

  • At least they couldn’t hack a paper ballot count. I agree that the ballots could be stolen or lost, but traditionally it is the Republicans who vote by mail, so deliberately losing them would cut both ways.

  • Comments are closed.