The Bush Administration’s tyrannical torture policies and its rewards

mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} -->

I’ve written here before of the Bush Administration’s “interpretations” of law that lied about and distorted the rules on which their authors based their conclusions.  One point I made was that achieving real intelligence in any creative endeavor, including law and art, requires acting within constraints. Anthony Lewis has an excellent article in the current New York Review of Books that goes into some detail on the history of what he calls “Official American Sadism.” Among other matters (read the whole article), I am grateful that he points out that with respect to torture and the treatment of prisoners in the so-called “War on Terror,” many U.S. lawyers, military lawyers who have represented “enemy combatants,” have followed the “rule of law,” the very constraint that keeps the President from acting like an arbitrary tyrant. In contrast to those real heroes, Lewis’s suggests that members of the administration have committed war crimes, a point that is certainly not far-fetched, though I doubt we’ll ever see them prosecuted:

Unlike John Yoo and William Haynes, most American lawyers who have been involved in the issues of torture and boundless detention have defended American ideals of justice. That has been strikingly so in the case of lawyers in the military services, the judge advocates general. Major Frakt, whose powerful argument on behalf of Mohammed Jawad I noted above, is one example among many. Large numbers of private lawyers have volunteered their time and struggled against official obstacles to represent prisoners. . . .

To date the “enablers of torture” . . . are doing fine. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and David Addington remain in office. Jay Bybee, who issued the legal opinion that said the president had unlimited power to order the use of torture, was nominated and confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before his torture role became known. John Yoo is in his professorship at the Berkeley law school; the dean, Christopher Edley, said in April that tenure protected him there and that his clients—President Bush et al.—were “the deciders.” Yoo is also regarded by television programs and by the opinion pages of newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as a legitimate voice on issues of presidential power, and he appears frequently.

Yoo and Addington appeared in June before a House Judiciary subcommittee; they ducked questions about their responsibility. When Addington was asked whether it would be legal to torture a detainee’s child, he replied: “I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee.” [Yoo, on the other hand, has not been as evasive, at least in the past. In December 2005 he stated in a Chicago debate that there is no law that could prevent the President from theoretically ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody - including by crushing that child’s testicles.”] William Haynes, the former Defense Department general counsel, appeared before a Senate committee and repeatedly said, in answer to questions, that he could not remember. A Washington Post column on his testimony was headlined “Abu Ghraib? Doesn’t Ring a Bell.”

Torture by officials is prohibited by US criminal law as well as by the international Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. According to the new book by Jane Mayer, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a report last year that interrogation methods used by the CIA on a high-level prisoner “categorically” constituted torture. Her book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, says the ICRC report was sent to the CIA, the detaining authority, which “shared it with the President and the Secretary of State.” Mayer writes that the report “warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the US government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.”

(hyperlinks added; footnotes omitted).