Tuesday, January 04, 2005

1984

Richard Cohen wrote one of the best columns I’ve read regarding the torture scandals that continue to surround the Bush administration and soon to be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I've taken quite a break from blogging over the last few weeks. I'm not sure if I was too disheartened, too lazy, or still in shock to write regularly. Whatever the case may be, this article and a discussion I had last night with friends regarding the shroud of secrecy that has descended on the American judicial system has really jolted me from my slumber. Here's a large section of Cohen's brilliant article,

"In George Orwell's novel "1984," it was rats, as I recall, that were used to torture Winston Smith. It was not that the rats could do real physical damage; rather it was that Smith was phobic about them -- "his greatest fear, his worst nightmare" -- and so he succumbed, denounced his beliefs and even his girlfriend, and went back to his pub where he wasted his days drinking gin. This was Orwell's future, our present.

Orwell, however, was off by only 20 years. With immense satisfaction, he would have noted the constant abuse of language by the Bush administration -- calling suicidal terrorists "cowards," naming a constriction of civil liberties the Patriot Act and, of course, wringing all meaning from the word "torture." Until just recently when the interpretation of torture was amended, it applied only to the pain like that of "organ failure, impairment of body function, or even death." Anything less, such as, say, shackling detainees to a low chair for hours and hours so that one prisoner pulled out tufts of hair, is something else. We have no word for it, but it is -- or was until recently -- considered perfectly legal.

The administration's original interpretation of torture was promulgated by the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, and the White House, under its counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales. The result has deeply embarrassed the United States. Among other things, it produced the abuses of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which we were assured were an unaccountable exception. My God, if only higher authorities had known.

Now we all know. The International Committee of the Red Cross has complained that some of what has been done at Guantanamo -- Guantanamo, not Abu Ghraib -- was "tantamount to torture." The American Civil Liberties Union has complained, but that you would expect. So, though, have the FBI and military lawyers, former and current. Just about across the board, the Bush administration has raised itself above the law. It pronounced itself virtuous, but facing a threat so dire, so unique, that Gonzales found the Geneva Conventions themselves "obsolete." Such legal brilliance does not long go unrewarded. He has been nominated to become attorney general.

The elevation of Gonzales is supposed to be a singular American success story. This son of Mexican immigrants bootstrapped his way to Harvard Law School and from there to Bush's inner circle, first in Austin, then in Washington. There he came up with a brilliant definition of torture, one so legally clever that only the dead could complain and they, of course, could not. Everyone was off the hook. Is it any wonder the Senate will probably soon confirm him? By next year, he will undoubtedly receive a cherished Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to those who successfully serve the president but dismally fail the nation. In the audience, unseen but nonetheless present, Orwell and Kafka look on.

The revelations coming out of Guantanamo are hideous. The ordinary abuse of prisoners, the madness instilled by gruesome incarcerations, the incessant lying of the authorities, plus the mock interrogations staged for the media, in which detainees and their interrogators share milkshakes -- all this soils us as a nation. It's as if the government is ahistorical, unaware of how communists and fascists also strained language and ushered the world into torture chambers made pretty for the occasion. We now keep some pretty bad company.

The Bush administration has fused Orwell with Kafka in the same way someone fused the cry of an infant with that of a cat from the Meow Mix television commercial. The upshot is Gonzales, ticketed maybe for the Supreme Court because he winked at torture and yessed the president.

He's Kafka's man, Orwell's boy and Bush's pussycat. Know him for his roar.

Meow."


4 Comments:

At January 7, 2005 at 12:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Wall Street Journal editorial is a brilliant retort to Dick Cohen's op-ed:


'Torture' Showdown
By all means let's have a debate over interrogating terrorists.

Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The White House appears to be dreading today's confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales now that Democrats seem ready to blame the Attorney General nominee for Abu Ghraib and other detainee mistreatment. But this is actually a great chance for the Administration to do itself, and the cause of fighting terror, some good by forcefully repudiating all the glib and dangerous abuse of the word "torture."
For what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians. And the Democratic position, Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be afraid to say, amounts to a form of unilateral disarmament that is likely to do far more harm to civil liberties than anything even imagined so far.





The dispute here stems from the Bush Administration's decision, in early 2002, that Taliban and al Qaeda detainees didn't automatically qualify for prisoner of war status. This caused a fuss in some quarters. But it was in accord with the plain language of the original Geneva Conventions, which require POWs to have met certain criteria such as fighting in uniform and not attacking civilians. The Administration understood what critics don't want to admit--namely, that POWs may not be interrogated, period. The Geneva Conventions forbid even positive reinforcement such as better rations to coax them to talk.
This interpretation of the Geneva rules was hardly novel to the Bush Administration. It was a bipartisan consensus in 1987 when Ronald Reagan repudiated a radical document called Protocol 1--the so-called "international law" that the International Committee of the Red Cross now says requires POW status for al Qaeda. The New York Times praised the Gipper at the time for denying "a shield for terrorists," and the Washington Post also editorialized in support.

Viewed in light of that history, it was natural--and law-abiding--that in March 2002 the CIA asked the White House for guidance on permissible interrogation techniques, frustrated that the likes of al Qaeda operations chief Abu Zubaydah were refusing to give up information. Thus was born the misleadingly labeled "torture" memo, which did indeed discuss the outer limits of what the CIA might be able to do.

But to do otherwise--to not be "forward-leaning" as Mr. Gonzales is reported to have put it--would have been irresponsible of an executive branch whose primary duty is to defend the homeland. Remember, this was not long after the 9/11 and anthrax attacks, and there were (and still are) real fears of dirty bombs, smallpox and even actual nuclear weapons. Remember also that well-known liberals like Alan Dershowitz were going even further and suggesting judge-issued "torture warrants."

And so things rolled along, successfully and uncontroversially, as interrogations of Zubaydah and other al Qaeda detainees played an invaluable part in helping round up the group's leadership, including the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh. Then the Abu Ghraib scandal broke early last election year, and documents like the "torture" memo were leaked and alleged to have somehow "set the tone" or "created the climate" for what happened.





The charge was absurd from the get-go. This was an internal discussion, not a policy directive; only a handful of people were even aware of it; and it was about al Qaeda, not Iraq. And, sure enough, former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger's later report found the Abu Ghraib abuses not only bore no resemblance to any interrogation method contemplated for Iraqi prisoners, they weren't related to interrogations at all. It was sick behavior by individuals on the "night shift." Mr. Schlesinger concluded that the overall rate of mistreatment in Afghanistan and Iraq appears to be far lower than in past conflicts.
As for al Qaeda, let us describe the most coercive interrogation technique that was ever actually authorized. It's called "water-boarding," and it involves strapping a detainee down, wrapping his face in a wet towel and dripping water on it to produce the sensation of drowning.

Is that "torture"? It is pushing the boundary of tolerable behavior, but we are told it is also used to train U.S. pilots in case they are shot down and captured. More to the critics' apparent point, is it immoral, or unjustified, in the cause of preventing another mass casualty attack on U.S. soil? By all means let's have a debate; Mr. Gonzales should challenge a few Democrats to categorically renounce it and tell us what techniques they would tolerate instead.

If the Gonzales critics are really worried about civil liberties, they might ponder the domestic political response to another 9/11. Do they really think Roosevelt's internment camps and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus were merely products of a less enlightened age, and that Americans wouldn't respond to a dirty bomb explosion in a major city with mass detentions of men with Islamic surnames, closed borders, or worse? This civil-liberties catastrophe is precisely what "water-boarding" is trying to prevent.





So far, the White House has done a perfectly awful job of explaining this. And it now seems to be making the mistake of trying to appease the Gonzales critics with a modest mea culpa for "over-broad" internal discussions. This retreat began last year with its attempt to distance itself from a legal memo written by some very fine lawyers who were doing nothing more than exploring America's options for defending itself. Predictably, this only emboldened the critics and opportunists, and it won't surprise us to see even Republicans of the McCain-Hagel stripe seize the chance to show their "independence" before this is all over.
The better alternative is for Mr. Gonzales to go on offense and defend his entirely defensible actions. What the other side is fundamentally asserting is that aggressive interrogations are impermissible under any circumstances and to even contemplate them is to "set the tone" for torture. This is dangerous both to American security and liberty.



-As usual, WSJ, right on. bb

 
At November 15, 2006 at 1:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good design!
[url=http://fztojvps.com/idrg/oibs.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://riqejzrw.com/btam/jkvw.html]Cool site[/url]

 
At November 15, 2006 at 1:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

 
At November 15, 2006 at 1:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good design!
http://fztojvps.com/idrg/oibs.html | http://uvaotodh.com/wyex/zmfr.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home