Bruce posted a brief excerpt from the Balkan blog. I especially appreciated the comments by Sparohok. They brought to mind President Bush’s message last month at a news conference:
[Our interrogators] don’t want to be tried as war criminals. … They expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong.
While this makes sense, Sparohok clearly refutes the Bush approach to finding clarity — arguably Vice President Cheney’s position. A relaxation of laws against torture will make them far more complex to decipher. Sadly, that could be the reason that Bush is putting up a fight with the Geneva convention. Generating more confusion in the matter of what is to be considered torture while calling it a campaign for “clarity” sounds like a very slick ruse dreamed up by Cheney himself to side-step any risk of accountability.
Too bad Bush flip-flopped from his December 2005 statement that he supported the McCain bill against torture:
The new legislation, Bush said, will now ”make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad.”
But it turns out he was just giving lip service, perhaps because he knew he could not win the debate fairly. Instead he quietly appended one of his infamous signing statements to the bill after signing that said he would only enforce the ban “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president” that would still allow “protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.”
Clarity indeed…what appears to be happening is Bush is playing a desperate political game, surely with Cheney in the drivers seat, to hide folly and shirk accountability:
There has been growing uneasiness among these national security professionals at some of what they have been asked to do, and at the seeming unconcern among civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the CIA for the consequences of administration decisions. […] The quiet revolt of the generals at the Pentagon is a big reason U.S. policy in Iraq has been changing, far more than Bush’s stay-the-course speeches might suggest. […] A similar revolt is evident at the CIA. Professional intelligence officers are furious at the politicized leadership brought to the agency […] The CIA, like the military, wants clear and sustainable rules of engagement. Agency employees don’t want their careers ruined by future congressional or legal investigations of actions they thought were authorized.
Thus, to the point of the Balkin blog, imagine yourself in the TTB scenario wondering if your superior is an incompetant political appointee giving you orders with the intent to dispose of your career to further their own, especially when the chips are down. You’re being told to torture because it’s just “the way we do things around here; you’re either with us or against us”. Would you torture? Would you believe them when they say it’s up to you to save the millions?
In point of fact, without conclusive hard evidence that millions are at risk, it seems uninmaginable that a professional would kill or even torture a detainee.
We should not forget, however, how Bush justified the pre-emptive strike on Iraq:
QUESTION: As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how [the invasion of Iraq] might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
BUSH: I think, first of all, it’s hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there is an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom, and we’re not changing.
And therefore, so long as there’s a terrorist network like al Qaeda and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them, we’re at war.
And so I — you know, obviously I’ve thought long and hard about the use of troops. I think about it all of the time. It is my responsibility to commit the troops.
[…]
This is society, Ron, who — which has been decimated by his murderous ways, his torture. He doesn’t allow dissent. He doesn’t believe in the values we believe in.
I believe this society — the Iraqi society can develop in a much better way. I think of the risks, calculated the costs of inaction versus the cost of action. And I’m firmly convinced, if we have to, we will act in the name of peace and in the name of freedom.
The cost of inaction — the ticking time bomb risks — were raised by the President and repeated ad nauseum. “They have WMD. We must take action now. They are lying. We are in danger…but there is a simple solution. If we hurt them enough, we will find and eliminate the risks…”:
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi and it hasn’t harmed or threatened a single American in 30 years since the war ended.
What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?
BUSH: It’s a great question.
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I’m confident that we’ll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life.
No doubt there’s risks with any military operation. I know that. But it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. The mission is precisely what I just stated. We’ve got a plan that will achieve that mission should we need to send forces in.
Sage question. The fact appears to be that if Iraq had continued under international pressure for inspectors and further review, Americans would have been as safe if not more safe from harm than they are today.
