rssWhat Part of the Law Don’t Dick Cheney and The Wall Street Journal Understand?
Friday, May 22, 2009 at 12:31 pm
- 7 Comments
In insisting during his speech yesterday that President Obama and the CIA declassify the memos that he claims will show the effectiveness of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” former vice president and anointed Republican spokesman Dick Cheney neglects to mention one critical fact: torture is illegal, even if it worked.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture and the United States law implementing it ban exactly what they say: torture AND cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Notwithstanding the bizarre twists and turns in some of the Office of Legal Counsel memos — which sought to justify the CIA’s techniques by saying that waterboarding, “walling,” sleep and food deprivation and other creative means of softening up detainees for questioning were not cruel, inhuman or degrading — it’s by now almost universally understood that this treatment is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution. After all, as former State Department official Philip Zelikow pointed out in his recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if it were constitutional, it would also be legal to do to U.S. citizens.
Given that the law explicitly bans that sort of treatment, then, it really doesn’t matter what information interrogators may have extracted by using it. The Wall Street Journal today, apparently endorsing Cheney’s view, called on President Obama to “release the memos that former Vice President Dick Cheney and others claim will show that interrogation yielded valuable intelligence that saved American lives.”
As a political matter, Obama probably should release those memos — assuming they don’t contain sensitive classified information that The Journal and Cheney were so worried would help terrorists when Obama released the Office of Legal Counsel’s torture memos — just to get the “torture works” contingency off of his back. Chances are, the memos won’t prove anything either way, because even if Abu Zubaydah or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did provide valuable intelligence after being tortured, there’s no way to prove they wouldn’t have provided the same information following lawful interrogation methods.
But if The Journal is suggesting, as Cheney insisted yesterday, that such methods were — and still are — lawful, because we face the extraordinary danger of terrorism, then it is also claiming that the anti-torture statute and international treaty are meaningless. That’s essentially the argument in the OLC memos that justified them, because under their analysis, any actions committed in order to obtain valuable information – not simply in order to inflict pain or harm — would be justified. Because even the most extreme torture is usually inflicted to extract information or confessions, rather than for mere sadism, there would be no point to having an anti-torture treaty at all.
That can’t be what the law means — and both Cheney and The Wall Street Journal know it.
7 Comments
Comment posted May 22, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Eviatar, again, champions the notion that metro-centric socialists in the media, would rather millions of Americans die in a disaster, than admit that Dick Cheney's unrelenting push back on Islamic terrorist worked, and is still working. Shame on you Eviatar.
Comment posted May 22, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
By the way, the “LAW” states that the President of the United State must preserve and protect our union. That just makes blood shoot out of Eviatar's ears.
Comment posted May 22, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Dear President Obama,
I'm taking the liberty to suggest a possible way out for the Guantanamo prisoners – and the subsequent closing of the Guantanamo prison camp -
Why don't you ask the International Community (i.e. UN / the International tribunal in La Hague) to handle the prisoners and to judge them on the merit of each case –
You could transfer all jurisdiction and all evidence over… I mean, isn't terrorism really an International problem? Especially in light of all the Extraordinary Rendition situations and all the countries that were involved then… Why should the US be the only country to deal with that? And setup special legal framework for it?
A legal framework for terrorism really extends outside the sole US jurisdiction. It's about time the Internation Community setup its own legal framework for terrorism and maybe, maybe, eventually all countries could begin to abide by international standards for the handling of all terrorism suspects.
My 2 cents.
Deepest regards,
Phil.
Comment posted May 23, 2009 @ 7:39 am
So you demand that we “go ape” on people solely because the Executive branch says we should? Let me guess: do you also deny evolution? That would be too ironic.
The law states that the president preserve and protect the Constitution, not shred it at the first hint of any threat. And we've renounced the use of force to settle disputes–although you wouldn't know that by our actions, which is exactly the point Eviatar is making: we disregard treaties whenever its serves our hegemonic purposes. Get a freakin' clue.
How many terrorists were in Iraq before we invaded under false pretenses? And how many are there now? How many flag officers have said, torture is the number one recruiter of new enemies determined to kill Americans, making Dick Cheney's methods the number one killer of Americans in Iraq?
So much for thousands of years of civilizing effects and hundreds of years of jurisprudence: let's just go ape on people regardless of their innocence or guilt, solely because Dick Cheney says so–is that what you suggest?
I suggest you don't know the first thing about American democratic republicanism. WE are sovereign here, not the likes of Dick Cheney; it is they who must speak OUR truth to OUR power. And when they shy away, we have the power to compel them to out the truth.
I further suggest that you are mistaking fealty and obeisance to authority and mere kinetic force for loyalty to the Constitution.
What are you so afraid of that you would have us betray everything America stands for? Is it that someone may use against us the atomic weapons we, and only we, have used on others?
Ain't karma a bitch, rural americans? Hey, have you heard this one? “He who lives by the sword will die by it too.” So if our global empire is based on the threat of ultimate nuclear-powered destruction, not any of our lofty principles, then what shall we expect as the equal and opposite reaction of the cosmos? Cotton candy and parades everyday? Or our own ultimate nuclear-powered doom?
How does debasing us unto beasts “promote the general welfare”? Wouldn't it be more sensible to make more friends, every day, than enemies? Do you think there's a finite number of “evil doers,” and all we have to do is kill that many, and it will be all ok?
Oh evolve already!
Comment posted May 23, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Abortion is torture. We certainly should investigate this also
Comment posted May 31, 2009 @ 9:01 am
“it’s by now almost universally understood that (TORTURE) is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution.”
Exactly! And WHY are Our Democrats Demanding that Obama and AG Holder Prosecute?
Where are the Indictments?
The Federal Capital Crimes are Obvious To All But Obama and all Democratic/Lawyer Politicians.
TORTURE ! IS A FEDERAL CRIME – SEE The Law http://tinyurl.com/besdd3
It is Never Debatable and Never Morally Correct.
IT is a heinous Federal Capital Crime.
WHY IS OBAMA PROTECTING BUSH AND CHENEY?
They obviously violated Federal Law.
If you do nothing else for your Country today,
SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture
AT ANGRYVOTERS dot ORG
.
Comment posted May 31, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
“it’s by now almost universally understood that (TORTURE) is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution.”
Exactly! And WHY are Our Democrats Demanding that Obama and AG Holder Prosecute?
Where are the Indictments?
The Federal Capital Crimes are Obvious To All But Obama and all Democratic/Lawyer Politicians.
TORTURE ! IS A FEDERAL CRIME – SEE The Law http://tinyurl.com/besdd3
It is Never Debatable and Never Morally Correct.
IT is a heinous Federal Capital Crime.
WHY IS OBAMA PROTECTING BUSH AND CHENEY?
They obviously violated Federal Law.
If you do nothing else for your Country today,
SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture
AT ANGRYVOTERS dot ORG
.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
