The uproar over the release of Justice Department memos, detailing the Bush administration's torture policy, is being used to shift attention away from the clearly illegal action of the Justice Department, to a debate over the effectiveness of the prescribed torture.
Those successfully distracted from the central issue of whether our government is accountable, are given a generous dose of anxiety, to help digest the mantra that we cannot survive as a nation unless we torture.
Although it is entertaining trying to unravel the cross currents of we said/they said, and red herring is the catch of the day, the entire discussion is irrelevant. The end does not justify the means. Torture is torture, and we are not allowed to do it. They did it, and must be held accountable. The dubious and unsupported claims of torture having worked matter not at all.
Should Congressional enablers also answer? Most definitely - and this is the trump card that the torturers hope will immobilize the investigation - by making the pool of accomplices before, during, and after the fact, too big to prosecute [like banks that are too big to fail].
A word of warning to President Obama: Ford [as in Gerald Ford, who most assuredly would have been elected in 1976, had he not pardoned Nixon's crimes before he was even charged]. Nobody expects Mr. Obama to clean up the whole Bush economic disaster in just four years, and nobody is expecting miracles in the Mideast either, after eight years of botched military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and mangled diplomacy in Palestine. But if he lets down the many who took a chance on an inexperienced young man because he inspired the hope of a return to moral and ethical governance, he will not, and should not, be re-elected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Problem:
ReplyDeleteThe blog begins with an incorrect, yet unresolved, and highly debatable statement in the form of a foregone conclusion: "clearly illegal action of the Justice Department".
Replacing a fact with a wish makes it difficult for readers to formulate accurate opinions, skews the message, and makes delivering the writer's conclusion that much easier. It also facilitates easier redirection from conflicting counterpoints by labeling them red herrings.
It is NOT at all clear whether this was even illegal. That's a complex question that is very far off from being resolved by any judicial body. To that end, the point of the government's legal research memoranda was raised. The memos did not simply give the green light to waterboard. It's not that black and white.
So if this post's starting point is a moral conclusion, it, and it's base, should be so accurately reflected.
As to hope and change, well, let's hope we don't change into Venezuela.
Clearly illegal is the starting point, and I stand by it. The torturers seek to introduce complexity, in hope of diluting the horror of their cowardly activities.
ReplyDeleteNote that while arguing "complexity", they also seek to create the illusion of torture's productivity, as if that is the icing on the cake.
The torture program was designed to produce evidence from captured individuals, that would support the Cheney/Wolfowitz aggression in Iraq. The tortured individuals had already spilled any actionable information before the torture began, so we sold our honor for nothing.'
I understand the Neocons' dissembling media
campaign on this issue, as it represents their best hope of evading responsibility. I find the adoption of their rationale by intelligent Americans, such as yourself, truly frightening.
You introduce a new topic: Venezuela
I suggest that you write a separate post on that.