Clarificaiton from Pelosi on torture
CIA torture. A lot of people knew. A lot of people were "outraged". Nobody said much until... oh, around 2004 when things like the first Bybee memo started leaking. Today, Spencer posts Nancy Pelosi's somewhat-less-than-exculpatory explanation of her involvement.
On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred.
Spencer interprets this as Pelosi backstabbing Harman. I don't really see it that way. Instead, this seems, if anything, more like Pelosi is offering Harman oblique praise. She's taking what might officially be dubbed the "I knew torture was coming, but I didn't say anything, and then when torture came I wasn't in as strong a position to say anything as I had been, so I didn't say anything, but Jane Harman did, and I'd like to associate myself with her words" position on torture. Which, as far as abstracted moral positions go, is the right position. But in absence of taking any action at the time, this is pretty inadequate.
Comments
All this back and forth about whether some practice/technique is really torture or not is just blather. It is clear that probably a majority of Americans think torture is OK if the US is doing to the torture and 'bad guys' have needed information.
That widespread belief makes principled kickback by those opposed to torture quite difficult - assuming that our democracy should follow the will of the people. That we have signed treaties (equal to the Constitution under the law) saying we won't torture is moot, because the people are willing to ignore that 'legal niceity'.
I read recently in The New Republic (Nov. 5, 2007) that torture was quite widely practiced during the period of the inquisitions because a conviction for death could not be obtained without a confession, and lesser convictions were not then available. Now, we don't even care about conviction, since we hold people indefinitely without even a formal charge against them being made (and there are lots of places to dispose of a body if death results).
So, I give up. Bring on the torture, and not just for the terrorists. Let's torture anytime someone won't publicly admit they have legally or ethically committed a wrong. The accusation or person-association should be enough. And let's do it publicly, with a cable channel dedicated to the spectacle. Renounce all those treaties, and cross out whatever remains of the so-called rights of the accused. I am now believing that until a generation or two of outright torture is done, we won't cleanse our body politic of this mind disease which is a full partner to 'the ends justify the means'.
Let's revive all the tools of the trade, as shown here, and here, (not forgetting the strapado described in The New Republic article), plus anything new our technology has to offer (my mind boggles thinking about that). But it must be public, not hidden in dark places, or the reality just won't sink in for the voters who so fear for our safety that they'd give up any shred of human decency or concern whether the 'truth' is being obtained.
Post A Comment